99% of people dont care about playability they care about look

Your not making a picture you are making a simulation

 

I agree that if a game doesn't look nice, I rarely play it, but as a game dev you should concentrate on everything, scripting, gameplay, aesthetics, plus how hard is it to make a game look nice?

 

That's okay. Most statistics are just made up anyway.

 

Looking at steam greenlight it seems to be bloody hard.

 

99% seems high for gamers in general. Even here in these forums where people seem to be quite a bit more graphics focused than the average gamer (probably because so many Unity devs are artists where your average gamers are probably not) 99% seems a bit high. Maybe 90% to 95% of people here value game graphics more than anything else.

Again remember things are skewed around here. You can't take the majority of what is said here or the interests shown here as representing the majority of gamers in general. Unless the gaming market you are targeting is mainly composed of artists or at the very least game devs in general. Same way the gaming markets are probably not composed mainly of software engineers.

 

Yeah, it's because minecraft looks amazing that it's so successful...

 

It depends on who is looking at it and what's important to them, right? I've seen many people say a big reason for Minecraft's success was in fact due to the graphics. It just depends on the person really. Some people look at games through a lens of gameplay, others through a lens of graphics, others through a lens of movie-like experience and so forth.

Generally speaking no matter what the reality is when a person looks at a game they will explain its success or failure based on their own personal filters. If someone values graphics greatly and thinks only games with great graphics can succeed they will explain why Minecraft's graphics are not bad or even just okay but in fact are very good, different, whatever and that was a big cause for the game's popularity.

The one thing about Minecraft's graphics that I think is off-putting to a degree is they have a sort of "little kid" vibe to them. It's very deceptive considering the depth and scope of the gameplay and world. I've certainly seen many people say they never tried it because of the way it looked. Not because "it looked bad" but because they thought it was made for little kids.

 

Well what you can do is focus only on the game. Focus on making the best game possible and don't think about the graphics beyond their ability to support the gameplay. Meaning being able to send the messages needed for the player to understand what the game is trying to communicate.

I believe it is still possible for a person to make an exceptional game with programmer art that is popular. But the game has to be truly exceptional in some way. Meaning a way that actually matters. Either the game needs to be very rich in detail, highly interactive, a huge size, etc. Basically the game should allow the player to experience something they normally have not been able to.

Minecraft did exactly this. While most developers were focusing on getting better and better graphics, audio, videos, voice acting and such for more of a movie-like experience for the same basic games the Minecraft developers in a sense sacrificed these things going in the opposite direction so they could focus on creating a richer more interactive game world. By using blocks as the basic building component it became possible for the player to build worlds of great size and easily destroy them.

When you really think about it the principle was not something brilliant as much as it was just common sense. A trade-off to make it possible to actually be able to complete the game and achieve their / his goals. Anyone could have taken this approach at any time but the majority were too caught up on pushing gaphics and such forward to even consider it. They probably believed a game with such "simple" graphics would flop.

I guess basically I see it like a game needs something to be exceptional. That something doesn't need to be graphics.

 

99% of people dont care about playability they care about look

There is no evidence that this is true.

You're not making a picture or a simulation. You are sharing an experience. Quite often, visuals play an important part because the vast majority of people have eyes.

 

Well it's because of how they fit with everything else. In a game everything is interconnected. I'd argue Undertale with a AAA photorealistic graphic style would be just plain bad.

It's all about how everything fits together. Each element on its own must have some appeal by itself, but what really matters is how it fits with the other elements.

 

99% Who said that ? lol

 

And another thing is that 1% is 74 000 000 people.

 

Okay lets play contrarian. No PR no sales, its probably better to go with bad looking mismatched art then it is to go with good looking art because with the former you get some views.

This game sold 10k units on steam

http://steamspy.com/app/369100

This game looks good but no PR, got greenlight in under week but only sold 1k units.
http://subaeria.com/2015/06/26/getting-greenlit-in-less-than-a-week-on-steam-greenlight/

http://steamspy.com/app/377250

 

You compare 2 games in different genres, at different price points. And is steamspy even reliable? I'd consider that meaningless data. If it was all accurate, same genre, same price point, same time of release, then it would be anecdotal. If you can gather reliable data on a meaningful number of games, then some patterns might present themselves. Till then I don't think broad generalizations help anyone.

 

Then what are we even talking about.

 

@echologin I agree with the title of your thread, but not your first post. Games are not simulations of anything except what makes a pleasurable experience for your player.

But yes looks are everything when it comes to one-night (or 1 week) stands, which is probably as long as your average player will be interested in your game. I'm sick of hearing references to Minecraft, it is a completely unique game (LEGO blocks) and the voxel engine would not function with graphics even approaching the high-end graphics in games these days. Players trade off the graphics for the unique ability to play lego blocks. But two games side by side, which have the same gameplay but vastly different graphics quality, the worse one wouldn't stand a cat's chance in hell.

 

The first one has a pleasant hand-painted style and the graphics isn't horrible, and it just looks like good simple fun. The other one looks like some abstract overloaded visual effects show and it isn't really clear what the theme or purpose of the game is.

 

I guess it was only the 1% that bought Thomas Was Alone then? I don't know total sales, but it has over 6K reviews on Steam. Pretty good for a bunch of blocks and lines.

 

It's worth noting by the way that Steam's peak concurrent users was only 12.5 million. They likely don't have as many people using their platform as we might be inclined to think they have.

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

 

Highly crafted, stylised games will always sell well. However from what I've seen they are much, much harder to make than your average game. A game like Thomas Was Alone needs to skillfully leverage player imaginations at every step and find a way to make the simple style not just pleasurable but an essential component to the enjoyability of the game. Again, it is very unique.

A good example of a high-risk project is your average indie FPS. These games often bring nothing that COD doesn't already have, and haven't got a chance of competing with COD graphics. They are destined to fail in competition with blockbuster graphics. Any game which directly competes with other games that are very similar but have better graphics is almost certain to fail. There's a good reason why most successful indie games with sub-par graphics have a strong unique selling point, it is the only way to have a chance of securing the player's interest.

 

More people than that listen to The Rush Limbaugh Show.

 

The graphics look great in both of these games to my non-artist eyes.

The predator game certainly seems like a more interesting experience to me personally. When you have games out there like rock simulator and so forth this would stand out for the better I think. Plus it is just a cool experience from the angle of how many games let you take on the role of a lion running amok maiming and killing as desired? Well maybe not maiming. They should have put that in there too. But anyway, the lion game is exceptional compared to the other simulators of recent years as well as just providing an exceptional (at least unusual) gaming experience.

In constrast, despite the developers of the other game likely putting more thought and time into the graphics design and maybe even the entire game... it doesn't really seem exceptional in any way to me. Maybe the videos just don't do a good job of showing what is unique about the game?

That being said I am taking nothing away from the developers. They are obviously very skilled and looks like they really put in a lot of effort on their game.

It is a good case study that working harder and spending more time on more complicated things doesn't always win.

Perhaps the next time people set out to build a huge procedurally-generated world they would be better off to make a game world with a stage predefined where you control a frog eating insects and surviving in the bog.

 

You have to admit it's always fun to see what people are willing to pay money for. That said it would have done much better if it looked something like the game in the link below.

http://kotaku.com/clearly-this-is-what-rock-simulator-should-have-been-1663613885

 

Well this game should be a great test case for how much graphics matter. It has to be one of the best looking games (definitely for Indie) I have seen yet. However, we also have some other things going on which will cloud the water. First compared to Rock Simulator this seems to actually be a game! A puzzle platformer and your rock gains skills as you progress. And I do see it as a somewhat unique experience. Not sure about the rest of the folks around here but I have never experienced life as a rolling magical rock. And of course also exceptional are the graphics.

And yeah I agree Rock Simulator would have been much better like this. Maybe Magical Rolling Rock Simulator. Still, I guess the original Rock Simulator may have been exceptional in that up until a few years ago very few, if any, people were crazy enough to make "games" like this.

I'm still looking forward to the Paint Drying Simulator someone around here announced many months ago. That has potential I think. Especially if you can choose the paint colors and have some control over where you throw it. Splattering different colors of paint and watching it run, mix together and dry could be somewhat addicting. Basically digital graffiti abstract art creator.

 

Actually I don't care all that much about looks, I care about how fun it is to play - but I know, that people care a lot about looks - I know so many games, that look pixel perfect and are... ... ... SOOOO boring - then I go back playing Monkey Island 2...

 

Civilization, Warcraft 2. Ultima 4, World of Warcraft. Probably the 4 games that have devoured most of my gametime all had graphics that were extremely subpar or limited, even at the time they were launched.

The thing that cracks me up with games today is that what usually get considered ´good graphics´ by the average player are all just cheesy tricks by the developer. I saw one comment to a game about the ´realistic graphics´ and all the developer had done was used a very strong sun flare that basically washed-out the entire screenshot because the view was facing the sun.

 

Welcome to game development.

Just keep in mind that gameplay mechanics can be cheesy tricks too. Dwarf Fortress is a great example.

 

I agree with the op. If something looks S***ty I don't bother.

 

Graphics first, game play second. That's how we work. We're visual creatures. We judge books by their covers, despite knowing it's the content inside that really counts. It can't be helped.

I think gamers care more about graphics than developers. Graphics are escalating at a rate way too fast for solo devs to catch up with. It's to the point I don't care. But when your relatives and friends tell you your game looks sweet, but the graphics suck. It's annoying. They used to be cutting edge, 15 years ago... >.>

 

Yeah I don't understand all of the focus on graphics. At one time I did. 20 years or so ago I was as excited by a game featuring awesome graphics as anyone was. I used to strive to make good graphics too. Poured a lot of time into it. But through time and game after game it just got to the point where I realized it just doesn't matter.

Maybe "realized" isn't the best term. What I mean is found that I couldn't go by graphics quality as being any meaningful indicator of how good tha game actually was. And it got to the point where graphics were just basically always "good enough".

What I mean is there is a point where for me it just makes no difference if the graphics are better or not. I guess for me I just don't get why even now in 2016 people still are focused on making graphics better and better and better. Actually thinking about it... never considered before.... maybe it is because there are a lot of people (younger folks) who are the same stage I was long ago. If so then I can kind of... sort of... get it but not really. I mean 5 to 10 years ago graphics reached a point where what is there to gain really from continually inproving them? As a personal challenge of a person's art skills and technical (shaders and lighting and such) abilities I can understand but not from a "making a great game experience" perspective.

Granted I definitely acknowledge that I have went extreme like way overboard in the other direction just spending minutes on graphics. I don't recommend that really either (unless like me you're trying to explore the other parts of game dev in isolation) just some kind of balance between the two that is all.

 

You don't give people enough credit, which bothers me, because I have become somewhat partial to the human race.

They will play something with barely adequate graphics if the game is fun enough. You spend an awful lot of time commenting on how "people these days only care about graphics" but how true is this in a Minecraft/Dwarf Fortress/Retro Pixel Art world? I say it's b.s. Everybody likes nice graphics but there are simply too many games that turn this theory on its ear, even "good graphics" cannot be pinned down, so as I said... what are we even talking about?

 

I agree gamers will and do play games with just plain graphics (or even text). When I say these things I am talking about all of the focus and discussion about graphics around here. I do get it to a degree. Lots of artists here and they want to do the very best graphics they can. That makes great sense.

I think it is kind of a personal challenge for them more than anything yet many of these people go on that the reason they "have to" spend so much time on graphics is because the players are demanding it. I just think that is an excuse to never do anything but work on graphics. Just my view. I mean if a person just came out and says "Graphics are the most important thing to me. I don't care if I ever make a game I just want to make the best art possible" I could completely understand that and say more power to them.

 

I think there's a huge difference between choosing a minimalist graphics style, and simply making sub-par graphics. The problem is that once you go for something realistic, you will get compared to AAA graphics. Unfortunately the average Steam Greenlight game looks like you took graphics from 2002 and added a few image effects, and it just looks generally quite bad.

 

It's nice to see ARK still hanging in there. Those devs are putting in tons of effort post release and have been since june 2015.

 

Isn't "looks" a very subjective thing? What looks good to one person might not to others. However, gameplay, while it can also be subjective, might also be less forgivable. I can forgive an indie game with less than perfect graphics, but I really don't want to play a game that doesn't have interesting mechanics.

Plus..all these gorgeous game I see..none of them suit my game style. I could kick it down a notch if the game was what I want to play. I think a lot of people are like that. That is why Minecraft is popular.

 

I don't know that there are lots of artists here... I have never understood why you say this. There are artists and musicians in the indie gaming scene, wherever you go. But a lot of people who come here are also programmers, UI/UX engineers, tool writers, I have seen a lot of Unity programmers who are skilled at writing shaders and such but keep a pretty low profile and there are probably countless more who have jobs that I know nothing about.

The number of people who can do their own graphics and code is definitely smaller, but we have those folks on here as well. I think there are just more smart, talented people using Unity because it's a good idea vs. writing low level crap just to prove you can, or what, I don't even know how important programming ability is in making enjoyable games. You can get a lot of mileage out of Unity's features. I talked to a guy at a indie meetup and he told me how he connects his objects using some GameObject.Find("Name") calls at the scene start... I was like, flabbergasted because I know they're not recommended during run time but I never thought about just using them during loading time just to establish fundamental references. That's just an example of how classically good programming practice isn't necessarily good game-making procedure. I could have coded an intricate system to do that basic object communication, but turns out... it's pointless and time consuming behavior in order to make a simple game.

But I will say if you're a lone wolf indie developer and you aren't an artist or you don't have a best friend who is an artist, and basically you are a two-man team, you're at a serious disadvantage unless you can shell out some cash and hire someone with a good portfolio to do the whole game.

But I think you're just getting your wires crossed on this issue.

A good game is a good game. No good game is going to get, like, 3 plays and 0 comments because the graphics weren't done by a fine art major who specializes in digital painting. A good game with programmer art is going to generate people frothing at the mouths, saying, "hey this S*** is tight, make more levels". Definitely want to reevaluate what you're saying here. And good graphics will get a S***e game a lot of attention, but ultimately the carnage in the comments will say it all. And people will take their displeasure out with 1 and 2 star ratings.

So like I said, what are we saying?

 

It sounds like we are saying the same things just in a different way.

I agree a person doesn't need to do low level or even perhaps much programming at all these days to make a good game. Especially with things like Playmaker and other visual programming tools available.

The whole reason we are talking about these things is just because this thread is about "people only care about graphics and not gameplay" which I do not believe is true. I just think there are people here on these forums who do believe graphics are one of, if not the, most important thing in a game.

And they are right to a degree. If you can make graphics of such a high quality whether that is super detailed HD or minimalist with a lot of cohesion and "mood" that can be the exceptional thing about your game that gets it attention.

If you cannot make that kind of art (such as me) so that people are "blown away" by it there is no sense in focusing so much energy and time into the art. Because there will be other games that will stand out more for art and therefore all of that effort and time spent will have little value in the end.

So, instead spend more time on the game design, the mood, the experience, the programming, sound fx, music or whatever it is that you can make exceptional. Because that is what will make your game stand out.

That's just my personal view of it. I see a lot of games on these forums that all have great art. It is so common that very few, if any, stand out because of their art. So what I am saying is do something else that makes the game stand out.

If you really can make exceptional art so a reviewer will say "absolutely gorgeous graphics" then certainly do it. Just realize that bar is rising higher and higher every week because it seems to be the main way games have always tried to stand out above the rest.

But it is not the only way. As many Indie games have shown a game can stand out by focusing on other things as well. So focus on what you are best at. On what you can do better than most people. Don't waste time focusing on something "out of your area of expertise" trying to compete in an area that is your not your strong point.

Does that make sense and help clarify what I mean when I say these things?

 

haha.. well definitely game development is almost all tricks. I always use these numbers 1% ideas 49% grunt work 50% smoke and mirrors.

But what I am saying is beyond that. The screenshot I remember was probably 75% just flare, with just hints of the terrain around the edges of the screen. The terrain was so bleached that you couldn´t tell anything about it.

 

It does make sense. And I agree. There are some people on this forum who believe graphics are all that matters and there are people on this forum who believe a lot of oddball things. I just feel that, for you, you spend a lot of time ruminating on this issue which is effectively a non-issue at this point. You have accepted, many times, that you are not an artist. But then I see you creating art and commenting about how you feel like your art isn't very good. If you feel like it isn't good, then just stop spending time on it. If you feel like it really is good, then just make it and stop commenting on how not good you think it is. But don't keep making it and then trashing it before anyone else gets the chance to even make up their own mind about it.

You always say, focus on gameplay, focus on gameplay but then I always see new projects with different artwork cropping up and I just wonder when will the issue be settled? Are you going to hunker down and make a whole game and then hire an artist? Are you going to do your own artwork and make a whole game in a month? What's it gonna be?

We both agree that the OP is wrong and, arguably this is a troll thread to even begin with, but what else is new.

 

Oh sure, I love everyone but I still need to live my life. I can't keep worrying about theirs.

 

Well, I wouldn't go that far.

 

Yeah I agree I get too involved in these debates. A big part of it is simply because I think there have to be other people who read these kind of threads and think "well no sense in me even trying then because I am not an artist". And so I want people to know it is not true or at least I don't believe it is true.

Ha ha. Well I am building up to it. I have been playing around quite a bit for the last 2 years since I got back intk game dev just trying out different ideas. The intention is yes to ultimately build up to releasing full games.

I definitely will finish my Christmas and Halloween games sooner or later. And I expect I'll complete this current game at least to a playable level.

Really I'm just having fun and doing this stuff for fun. Plus like most folks I have my own demons I wrestle with. Like my recent quest to better understand visual development and Unity. I'm definitely not perfect and don't have all of the answers. Just trying to find my way like most of us here.

 

The mood is largely driven by the art, and sound effects are also art, hard to make at top-notch quality, and easy for a big budget studio to beat.

Don't get me wrong, I think the biggest problem that indies have is game design and structuring the game. Like a good novel has a slow, atmospheric start, a buildup of suspense and drama, and finally a climax, games (or at least a lot of the kind of games that I like) need something of the same. And with a lot of indie games it only takes a few minutes to know that something is wrong in this regard.

But to say that graphics are not a dealbreaker is just ridiculous. FPS mechanics have been around since 2000 without all that many changes. The only thing that changes is the graphics, the animations, the voice acting, and all the other things that take a lot of money and time and skill to develop. These games are a billions dollar industry that crappy programmer art, or even simply substandard art, wouldn't survive in for a moment. To ignore this is just silly, and probably a reason why so many indie devs end up feeling like game development is a lottery that they've never been lucky enough to win.

There are a few ways to make money as an indie. Especially in the mobile space (for the time being). Also if you are really skilled at minimalist or abstract graphics. Also if you find a theme or a gameplay mechanic that really resonates with people. Or if you simply make a good well-rounded game (harder than it seems), it is likely to succeed.

But when you try to go for something at all realistic, it is simply going to be extremely hard to succeed. Because your graphics, animations, voice acting (if you can afford it) will all be sub par and readily identifiable as such. People do heavily judge a game by the art. It is a fact. If you don't have something else that's different enough to interest people, your game will sink.

And not to mention that the average indie's idea of success is a long way from what any self-respecting studio would deem successful.

 

The reason I keep saying "What are we talking about?" is because, it's really important.

Are we talking about 2D games? 3D? One-man indie games? Small team indie games? Indie games essentially made by large companies which are almost AAA companies? FPS games are the same game, not by coincidence. People love that gameplay, but they just want to do it in a different arena, with different weapons and prettier visuals. They don't want anything drastically different. I am thinking about small-time teeny tiny indie games, where gameplay and story are everything and all I can do is draw the best low-res pixel art I can and kick ass on the basics, palette, contrast, etc. I can't do 3D graphics, period. But I still get compliments on my games as being "beautiful". So, I think it is really important for people to not confuse everything here and think that it all means the same thing. It doesn't. If that dev who makes the awesome 3D models tried doing pixel art, he might just discover he sucks at pixel art. I already know I suck at modeling, so no need to discover anything on that front for me. It's not just how "good" it looks, it's what style were you aiming for, what feel are you trying to convey, etc. There's a lot more to this than MOST people seem to think there is.

 

I agree completely. As I said above, I'm talking about games that go for any sort of realism. This means 3D unstylized, non-abstract art. This accounts for a lot of games as, unsurprisingly, a lot of developers think that realism is intuitively something to strive for.

On the other hand 2D art, abstract art, and stylized, minimalist style games in general don't have this problem with competing against blockbuster studios, not least of all because those studios don't really do that sort of game. There's money to be made here, but it does take skill. I think some indies have adapted to this by becoming really skillful at minimalist games, and some of them are really exceptional. In some ways these games probably take more skill than a realistic one.

And I know that there are a lot of definitions for indie. I'm thinking of a few people with day jobs getting together to make a game, or taking a few months off to live off savings and make a game. I'm not talking about these moderate-budget 'indie' studios that are named that simply because they don't have a publisher or whatever. They have a possibility of competing at the highest level because as long as they can feed their artists, there are a lot of skilled ones who find it hard enough to put food on the table that they're willing to take the chance to have something great on their resumes.

 

There should be a perfect balance between graphics and gameplay. Graphics should be such that they pair up with gameplay and help in indulging the player in the gameplay rather than shining out separately. If graphics are good then the gamplay must also be good enough to comply with it. Disturbance in the balance results in failure in bringing out aesthetics in the game which is most important aspect of a visual presentation like a game.

 

A beautifull game doesn't mean million budget for ultra detailled textures and models.

You can stay simple and make gorgeous level design





as you can stay simple and make awfull level design.