I'd like to ask a few more questions:

What do you find annoying in modern games? (shooters, adventure games & RPGs)
What do you want to see in a game that developers forget to implement usually?
Would you buy a game that has 5h of gameplay and is very cheap but offers many add-ons (modules) that can be bought later on.

I'd certainly try a game designed differently to the current normal, even if it had inferior graphics (although I'm unlikely to be impressed by a game which didn't have any effort put into the graphics - there should be a certain sense of style to the graphics even if they aren't high-poly 3d models (you appear to have this covered however).

I certainly wouldn't have much interest in such a game if it turned out that it was different simply for the sake of being different however - although it's high time some innovative, different games were released, some of the features that are used over and over are used simply because they're good. By all means, create innovative gameplay, change the style of the graphics to something far from normal - but do not change things simply so that the game will be different - only change what you feel will actually make the game better.

A few days ago, I went and bought a copy of Ratchet and Clank: Going Commando. It was good but not fantastically original. The thoughts that came into my head where big £, 3d (no one finds 2d worth it anymore), reworked and reworked all over. Then I was looking over an SDL cd and came across a little nugget called Jump'N'Bump... This game is infinitely better than that million dollar game, its so hilarious, alot more addictive, enjoyable and such a simple concept was so fantastic and yet it beat that hardcore, multi-programmer project. :/

The only thing that matters in graphics is that everything fits together. It's successful when it creates the desired mood and maintains it.

You should always try to think of something new and unseen. What's the point of creating the same world over and over? The wise people at Appeal needed a gameworld that was new and unseen down to its roots because the story required it to be so. Check out 'Outcast' to see how they pulled it off.

Another game you should pay some attention to is 'King of Dragon Pass'. It's all in static 2-D and still it works (talking about a game released in 1999). The bad news is, they needed professional artists and a lot of time. Just like Appeal did.

Would I play a game with bad graphics? No. Bad is bad but good isn't necessarily 3-D. Would I play an original game? Yes. Try to figure that out.

Note: I'm not talking about crappy graphics but about graphics that is does not feature 70M polygon models, high-res textures and crazy effects. I mean graphics that will be intentionally of not so great quality, that will try to create unqiue style and feel at the same time.
There are two reasons for that:
1. It would try to be different.
2. It would be easier to create.

The problem is that while such graphics could be extremely original: people might not like it, because they might want 3D Photorealism only.

Quote:

The problem is that while such graphics could be extremely original: people might not like it, because they might want 3D Photorealism only.

I'm curious as to how you think that people only want 3D photorealism. Sure it's a prevaling trend in game design, simply because the graphics power is there also certain games just make more sense being "Photorealistic", take for example Residant Evil 4 I don't think it would nearly as effective and fun a game if it wasn't as amazing looking as it is. Also You are dismissing a ton of game's that are popular but that aren't photorealistic, take for example any of the Mario games for nintendo, Metroid Prime 2 isn't photorealistic and it's an amazing game, there' sgunbound for the pc which has simple 2d graphics and is very populare (although probably not because of the graphics).

I think it is a fallacy to assume that since photorealism is a major trend in video games today that nobody wants to play anything that's different, and that nobody is going to buy/play the game you create simply because it will be extremely orignal.

A couple of example's of games with 0"Extremly Original" non-photorealistic graphics that are doing very well in the market today are Alien Hominid and Katamary Damacy. The first game has all of it's graphics as hand drawn 2d images and it looks amazing, with impressive detail and a million things to look at on the screen. The latter game has low polygon objects with simple colours, everything is extremly blocky and chunky, I don't think I saw any high polygon models, but the game is a lot of fun extremly original and popular, they are even finishing up a sequal to it.

Some references for you
Katamari Damacy
<a href="http://www.alienhominid.com&lt;/a>
I suggest you take a look hopefully they will convince you of the fallacy of your comments and encourage you to try and be different.

[Edited by - Vanke on February 6, 2005 10:50:09 AM]

To answer some of your questions.

Quote:

What do you find annoying in modern games? (shooters, adventure games & RPGs)

I would say what I find most annoying is games with a weak storyline, also save points suck. Poor voice acting is another, unfishied and buggy software does it for me too.

Quote:

What do you want to see in a game that developers forget to implement usually?

More empahsis on story and the consequences of players actions. Original Gameplay,

Quote:

Would you buy a game that has 5h of gameplay and is very cheap but offers many add-ons (modules) that can be bought later on.

I don't think I would I'm not a big fan of distributed content, I prefer to purchase a complete game I don't want to buy something halffinished and then have to wait a couple of months to get the rest of the story by the time the rest of the content is available there is usual someother shiny new toy that has grabbed my attention and I've forgotten all about the other stuff. What I would prefer in a short game (that has five hours of gameplay) is replay value, if you make something that is fun and different and short as long as I have complete freedom in the enviroment (I don't mean ability to do everything I'm talking more along the lines of Robotron 2024, I remember reading an article about htis concept somewhere wish i could reference it for you.)

Anyways good luck on the game can't wait to see what you've thought up.

I don't care about the technology used, but I do care about greaphics. Whatever medium you choose, 2d, basic 3d, or the latest shaders available, you need to make your graphics look good and fit with the gameplay. Zelda LttP is only 2d, but the graphics are very nice and the game is great.
If you want to use 2 bit color, thats cool with me, but pick your 4 colors well and make sure to use them to the best effect you can =-)

About setting, I'd rather fight orcs etc than some random creature you made up, solely because I can judge the relative strength of creatures from a mythos I know. When you use a traditional mythos, your game has a much easier learning curve because players just need to learn your combat/interaction system instead of your whole set of creature and the like.

Quote:

About setting, I'd rather fight orcs etc than some random creature you made up, solely because I can judge the relative strength of creatures from a mythos I know. When you use a traditional mythos, your game has a much easier learning curve because players just need to learn your combat/interaction system instead of your whole set of creature and the like.

Now that's a soft of answer I was willing to read! Thank you, Extrarius!

Quote:

Poor voice acting is another

Voice acting, yeah! Vanke, I agree. Poor voice acting has spoiled many games.

Will aliens and other unhuman creatures bother you if they speak broken English (or French, or Spanish or whatever your language is) with poor accent :)

Save points. I actually prefer games with save points at least the way they were done in The Chronicle of Riddick. I can't remember about Halo PC. I thing they wore OK too. That's because I start saving too often and at some point this spoils the game for me. I'm not very good player I must admit.

Quote:

Anyways good luck on the game can't wait to see what you've thought up.

That might take a few years :)


Thank you for your feedback!

Yes, but originality is a risk. If you want a game that has a realistic chance of selling well then you sure as hell don't make it original.

Yes, you can recycle stuff like the user interface in the name of easy playability and whatever, but that's no fun. Just look at Gothic and its UI. The team took some freedom and made the control system a little different, so a lot of lazy people cried out because now they had to learn something new. I thought the controls were great once you got used to them, which took less than an hour really. Gothic was a little different in many ways, actually. It was a whole new experience and a much better game than the one that starts with an M and ends in 'orrowind'. This has nothing to do with the topic but I thought I'd say it.

So, screw the player and make an original game. Then look at what you have and decide if it's worth releasing or not.

Thief was a great game but Looking Glass hit the iceberg anyway.

EDIT:
..And as we all know, there's always SOMEONE who likes this, that and those.