[DISC] Graphics vs Gameplay - Round II

**ozmic66** · 03-09-2006, 01:37 AM

Gameplay gameplay gameplay

i'll bet that if your game has crappy graphics and really fun gameplay, it'll prob. get a lot of views and a high rank on sites like newgrounds (well, at least eventually)

but if you want that 'wow' factor when people see your game for the first time then yeah, invest in graphics

it's just like dating a good looking girl (if any of u out there have ever experienced that

.. i'm just kidding...in fact i'm sure that a lot of you on these forums are hot ladies who are just dying to meet a capable flash programmer)

well, back to my point, when dating a pretty girl, after the first few times of playing with the 'flashy graphics' it's all about the gameplay

**Gloo pot** · 03-09-2006, 02:05 AM

I must be off but i wana make a point, I recon grafics make up alot of gameplay, after all its not only the story line that makes a game good. Im going to take lord of the ring as an example, if they made a lord of the rings game with 1000+ units on screen have an all out war (like in the movie) and you were there actaly playing a fully render 3d amazing grafics with arrows flying every were enemies dead every were and huge monsters rampaging threw masses of people etc etc game you would realy feal in the game and expereriance all it had to offer were if you did the same with blocks you would be like, yerr ok next!.

I could have put it better but i need go, maby some one else with the same view might be able to post a better example.

**walnoot** · 03-09-2006, 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by Gloo pot

I must be off but i wana make a point, I recon grafics make up alot of gameplay, after all its not only the story line that makes a game good. Im going to take lord of the ring as an example, if they made a lord of the rings game with 1000+ units on screen have an all out war (like in the movie) and you were there actaly playing a fully render 3d amazing grafics with arrows flying every were enemies dead every were and huge monsters rampaging threw masses of people etc etc game you would realy feal in the game and expereriance all it had to offer were if you did the same with blocks you would be like, yerr ok next!.

I could have put it better but i need go, maby some one else with the same view might be able to post a better example.

Very true, allthough I got some kind of fetish for graphical-minimalistic games, I wouldn't like to play Samorost with only some square buttons on an empty stage.

**tomsamson** · 03-09-2006, 03:34 AM

i think the game genre sets how important graphics are,too:
1.:Is it an often done game type/genre?
Then you´ll have to either add unique gameplay elements or way slicker presentation to it to make people play yours more than others.(Ideally you add both)
2.: What genre is it? While a puzzle game may be ok with just a few graphics,also not the most flashy in the world;when people play adventure or rpg games,so game types where its also about exploring a game world and living through a story,its more important to have vibrant graphics which suck one into the gameworld.
Me personally,i prefer good gameplay over good graphics,but if a game looked turd (and i could only see screenshots somewhere,not read a preview,review or other info on it),i´d probably not be into trying it a lot.
Also a game which has solid gameplay can get way more entertaining if it has nice graphics and even better,ones with amusing own personality.
N by metanet is a good example for what i am talking about. The gameplay is rock solid,no doubt on that side. But yeah,before trying it i only saw a few screenshots and they really turned me off and made me not want to try it for a good while. It was really like looking at a stickman game on newgrounds.
Of course once you try it,you see how the gameplay works out and gets you wanting to play on and yeah,even in its minimalistic core graphics setup (i mean does it use more than 3 colors?) it is well crafted on the art side,especially character motion is sweet.
But yeah,again,if that game with class gameplay had slick graphics,it´d feel way more pleasing to me.
As it is,a good game with crappy art will always have more difficulties in getting known and played often than a good game with good art.We´re all working on games released on the net or on mobiles mostly,so there´s a huge variety of "competing content";if your game looks crap,chances are high that the game site visitors will rather try another game which has good looking screens rather than giving yours a try.
and my final cent: What are good graphics actually? Ones that are as realistic as possible or ones that have own charm and style fitting to the game they are made for?
I´d say the later,and in that case,yeah,katamari has very good graphics ideally suiting the original game concept,so to me katamari is no good example for how a game with not so good graphics can work out.

**tonypa** · 03-09-2006, 05:44 AM

Originally Posted by tomsamson

What are good graphics actually? Ones that are as realistic as possible or ones that have own charm and style fitting to the game they are made for?

Yes, yes, style! The game with unique graphics style (even if it looks like drawn by 3 year old) is going to get more interest then game which simply copies graphics from thousand similar games. Good example of this is "The Kingdom of Loathing", of course it is also funny, but imagine if it would have been done with usual "pretty elves and hairy dwarves fighting ugly orcs" way.

**Squize** · 03-09-2006, 06:31 AM

I've got to be honest, I've done both sorts of games, and I've liked doing both sorts ( I'm not going to name them, but it's fair to say not every mini-game I've done has been a classic, nor every football related game ).

I was initially gameplay is king, nothing else matters, but I've changed in my views. I think a lot of people ( Esp. the older developers who remember 8bit games from the first time round ) fall into the trap of trying to make "true" 8-bit games in Flash.
I know marmotte and I have differed with this quite a few times in the past.

I honestly don't think the vast majority of Flash games need all that extra depth. I think 95% of the time a quick pick up and play is more than enough ( And I don't mean in a coffee break way ).
And for those sorts of games graphics are at least as important as the gameplay.

Great graphics are quicker to produce than huge in-depth gameplay, so it's a quicker return all round. Make a pretty good game, and add some great visuals to it and you've got a winner ( HA2 springs to mind, and I don't mean that as a slight to pred for a moment ).

Also I think we should actually define what we mean as gameplay. If gameplay means depth, more varied baddies; unlocked levels; sprawling maps etc then I'm going to stick with my view above.
If gameplay means responsive controls, good game balance, timely reward and progression, then that should be taken as standard, anything less is just a poor game.

Squize.

**DayDream** · 03-09-2006, 07:59 AM

I do graphics... so to me they are an important part... Still I believe that good games can work without good art - just makes it harder to "sell", narrows the audience down and might cause a delay in reaching the popularity it deserves... [ while gameart without the game is pretty useless...

... and I have a whole a harddrive full of useless stuff ]

Good games with good graphics have a better chance to make a great game... Visuals are important for a) casual players ( with a vaste amount of games out there most of the time the initial visual appeal matters - "I like that screenshot / titlescreen - let's give the game a try" ) b) potential buyers ( eg. portals or publishers ) for pretty much the same reasons...
The hardcore player or fellow game coder will play a game if the concept is intriguing and he/ she won't mind if there is coder art in there...

HeliAttack2 - as mentioned by Squize - is a good example... The game was popular here on Flashkit when Pred did it - with his graphics... The gameplay wasn't changed a bit, all we did was put some new graphics in - gave it more of an arcade machine bitmap look in a one day reskin job and the game ended up to be miniclips game of 2003 with millions of plays...
Would the game have had that success without the artwork? I am not sure - and I would like the idea that the graphics made the game (for ego-reasons) - but I think it would have done well even without them.

Most of the time I get a game engine and my task is to make it look like more than it is - hide the fact that the gameplay is not what the "packaging" suggest... It helps make the game more playable - or plain "sellable" - but rarely makes it a better game...

Every now and then you have a great gameplay and the graphics enhance it... That's when you feel that it's going to be special... sadly it doesn't happen too often...

There is no graphics versus gameplay - only a gameplay & graphics - both used well and your chances of making a successfull game are a lot higher...

**BlinkOk** · 03-09-2006, 08:14 AM

here here dude!

no competition
each has their place
graphics attract and reward
gameplay engages and challenges
a symbiotic relationship if ever there was one

**WilloughbyJackson** · 03-09-2006, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by ozmic66

i'll bet that if your game has crappy graphics and really fun gameplay, it'll prob. get a lot of views and a high rank on sites like newgrounds (well, at least eventually)

d00d, it pr0b hav3 the n3kk!d l@d!3z...

Just kidding...

Originally Posted by tomsamson (Whose avatar is no longer shaking it "like a Polaroid picture"

i think the game genre sets how important graphics are,too:

Very good point, Tom.

Originally Posted by Tonypa

Yes, yes, style! The game with unique graphics style (even if it looks like drawn by 3 year old) is going to get more interest then game which simply copies graphics from thousand similar games. Good example of this is "The Kingdom of Loathing", of course it is also funny, but imagine if it would have been done with usual "pretty elves and hairy dwarves fighting ugly orcs" way.

Yep... Personality in games is very important. (And I'm glad you mentioned The Kingdom of Loathing as an example, because I forgot about that game.)

Of course, I personally hate the majority of "Urban themed" games coming out nowadays. They're generally soulless, without much personality or uniqueness to them (but still top selling because the kids love da' gangsta...)

Originally Posted by MC Squize

If gameplay means responsive controls, good game balance, timely reward and progression, then that should be taken as standard, anything less is just a poor game.

I agree! Well spoken!

Originally Posted by Daydream

I do graphics... so to me they are an important part... Still I believe that good games can work without good art - just makes it harder to "sell", narrows the audience down and might cause a delay in reaching the popularity it deserves... [ while gameart without the game is pretty useless... ... and I have a whole a harddrive full of useless stuff ]

I agree!

However, although both elements should work together, graphics can be the final determining factor.

I'd love to do an experiment sometime where we take the same game engine, one with graphics by a great artist (say... Daydream), and one with graphics done by someone else, done super fast so they're okay but not great. And then, test it on a large random group of people to see what their reaction to each game is.

(And also, PM)

Originally Posted by BlinkOK

here here dude!
no competition
each has their place
graphics attract and reward
gameplay engages and challenges
a symbiotic relationship if ever there was one

Ah yes, I was waiting for you to say that, Blink.

In a perfect world, the perfect balance would be always achievable, but it is my opinion everyone, has a little bit of preference for either gameplay or graphics when developing something by yourself.

I was a gameplay over graphics person. You can see it in both of my 48 hour games, since the gameplay was there, but the graphics.. not so much.

The latest game I've been working on, I've developed both the graphics and the gameplay at the sametime, and I often find myself fine tuning the graphics before dealing with the engine.

Some people, develop the graphics first and then work on the programming around them.

Some people, develop the programming with little black square representing people.

Some develop both at the same time.

-pXw

**The Helmsman** · 03-09-2006, 01:56 PM

IMHO graphics rulez!
...
I think that graphics rules by definition, anyone can learn how to write code, but it's the matter of talent to make an ART (i mean to draw something astonishing).
...
You can't learn it.
...
It's a gift, from above guys

**WilloughbyJackson** · 03-09-2006, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by The Helmsman

IMHO graphics rulez!
...
I think that graphics rules by definition, anyone can learn how to write code, but it's the matter of talent to make an ART (i mean to draw something astonishing).
...
You can't learn it.
...
It's a gift, from above guys

I disagree.

Art is like anything else. Some people are gifted from above, while others learn. Often, I see something on Deviantart which I say, "Wow! I could never do that" and then I find out it took them 4 days to do. If I took that long, I could probably draw something similar.

There are many tricks, techniques will help you, but practice is most important. Expand your horizens. Do just stop because you can draw an "anime style", try realism. A lot of medical illustrators I know are great illustrators overall because they are always drawing stuff that is ultra realistically (and horrifying) stuff.

But, of course, just like artist who can never program, there are some programmers who can never design...

**tonypa** · 03-09-2006, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by The Helmsman

I think that graphics rules by definition, anyone can learn how to write code, but it's the matter of talent to make an ART.

Gameplay is not code. It is much more. Knowing how to write good code does not make good games. I mean its not the code players look at, its the game itself. Also, when trying to break the limitations, it does require programmer genius to make it work.

**Ray Beez** · 03-09-2006, 03:27 PM

I believe you can learn good gameplay strictly from playing games and being good at them. If you don't play games, then you will never know the subtleties of why certain kinds of interaction is better than others.

(This might sound obvious, but there was a time when development companies would hire programmers with no game coding skills and no gaming interest at all. A programmer who does not CARE about games, will not want to put in that extra 50% into the little details that make all the difference in the end).

Mario does not just move up then down when he jumps. A gamer who really studies the interaction of a Mario jump will notice the subtleties. A coder who could care less about games will only see "up then down". IMO

**Dominicaninja** · 03-09-2006, 04:25 PM

Also, if you can add physics to your game (depending on the game), the graphics will stand out that much more. Imagine a realistic-looking car game without physics. Not very realistic anymore huh? I think physics actually involve both graphics and gameplay.

**WilloughbyJackson** · 03-09-2006, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Dominicaninja

Also, if you can add physics to your game (depending on the game), the graphics will stand out that much more. Imagine a realistic-looking car game without physics. Not very realistic anymore huh? I think physics actually involve both graphics and gameplay.

Realism and physics can be overrated, IMHO.

I've had a lot of fun with old racing games which had minimal physics but faked it just enough to work. Another great example of this is Burnout. That game has the minimal physics necessary because realism is not the point of the game. The crashes and mayhem are.

I've also played games which had pretty good physics but didn't feel right, and were kind of boring.

**crashlanding** · 03-09-2006, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by WilloughbyJackson

Realism and physics can be overrated, IMHO.

I've had a lot of fun with old racing games which had minimal physics but faked it just enough to work. Another great example of this is Burnout. That game has the minimal physics necessary because realism is not the point of the game. The crashes and mayhem are.

I've also played games which had pretty good physics but didn't feel right, and were kind of boring.

On the physics point, sometimes the physics is the gameplay, and the more realistic the better. Take N. Minimalist graphics, but great gameplay thanks to brilliant level design and awsome physics.

But if you're making a racing game, there is no need to bother with an over complicated engine - burnout is a good example. Nothing special, just good crashes. like formula 1.

**Dominicaninja** · 03-09-2006, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by WilloughbyJackson

I've also played games which had pretty good physics but didn't feel right, and were kind of boring.

Yea, that's actually what I meant. Stylized physics is probably more appealing to look at and play with in a game. I agree about Burnout as well, I find that more fun than some other "realistic physics" racing games I've played. As long as stuff moves smooth and has some way of making sense to the human eye, I think its good.

**Squize** · 03-09-2006, 05:34 PM

"A programmer who does not CARE about games, will not want to put in that extra 50% into the little details that make all the difference in the end"

Totally. A good programmer doesn't always make a good game developer, and conversly an average programmer can make good games.

It's all about having a feel for it, it's impossible to quantify. You can tell games that are written by good coders who aren't good game devs, everything in there is correct, but it just feels a bit stirile. They don't have that spark.

Squize.

**nGFX** · 03-09-2006, 07:11 PM

why do nice threads always happen when i have *no* time to post?

anyway, my 2c:
a (good) game deserves good/best graphics.
i don't want to tell you the "a game is a piece of art" BS, but for me visuals and gameplay work together to form the "game", along with a storyline (though you can get away without).

this even starts with the preloader. it might be "boring" a boring one, but at least flawless. (like the *shudder* ones that show the kb loaded as floating point with 10 digits precision ...)

i won't let myself publish something (as a private project) that is not visual appealing (for me and at least the people i work for/with) AND is playable (again for me and the people i work for/with).

though, the customer is always (nah, mostly) right and if he wants crap gameplay/visuals ... ok.

oh well, i better stop ...

nGFX

**OpethRockr55** · 03-09-2006, 07:15 PM

I think that gameplay and graphics go hand in hand. N will act as one of my indie examples. It has minimalist graphics, yes, but the physics just make it seem... fit. On the commercial side, where both are taken to the extreme, I would have you look at Half-Life 2 and F.E.A.R. Both have excellent, realistic graphics which support the excellent, realistic gameplay. The games to be released on the Xbox 360 are looking... AMAZING graphics-wise, but if they don't help the gameplay, which sucks in the first place, there really is no point in having them. On the opposite end, I also think that there are gray areas where below-par graphics enhance the gameplay; in fact, they make you focus on the gameplay (N).

Anyway, through all that junk, I think graphics && gameplay or graphics that enhance gameplay, but not gameplay that enhances graphics, only because I can't think of any cool examples that I've played, but there might be one....

Thread: [DISC] Graphics vs Gameplay - Round II

Thread Tools

Display

Posting Permissions