Pixel Junk anyone? :)

Quote:

Original post by sunandshadow Quote: Original post by Trapper Zoid Quote: Original post by sunandshadow I know teenagers who won't play professionally-made ps1-era games because they can't stand the graphics. So going for lower-quality graphics might lose you whatever segment of your audience hadn't started gaming yet when those graphics were considered good. If you were marketing to an 18+ audience it might not matter. Typical gamer teenagers aren't typically a good market segment to aim for with indie games. They're well catered for by the mainstream, plus they're the segment most inclined to piracy. There's a difference between stylish inexpensive art and just plain poor art. The former is fine, and can aid a quirky niche project if done well. The latter is always a negative. Well teenagers are the best market for any kind of online or handheld game, and in both of those cases piracy is less of a problem, but for standard single-player computer games, yes I agree.

Also, graphics are expected to be much simpler in online or handheld games. The same teenager that wouldn't be caught dead playing the original Age of Empires will gladly spend hours with a Nintendo DS and the latest installment of Advance Wars.

Quote:

Original post by ruby-lang Also, graphics are expected to be much simpler in online or handheld games. The same teenager that wouldn't be caught dead playing the original Age of Empires will gladly spend hours with a Nintendo DS and the latest installment of Advance Wars.

This is something I've been thinking about too. Especially with the DS there is so much emphasis on the game play (often totally unique game play because of the stylus) because people don't expect too much from the graphics. Its not only that they don't expect great graphics its that they fully accept poor graphics.

It seems that the DS is a great place to put odd games because of this, and these games seem to find real success. I have not played Pheonix Wright or Trauma surgeon, but they seem to have found a success that I don't think would have been possible on some next-gen system or the PC. I could even see a 1:1 port of ultama exodus and it selling like hotcakes on the DS (I would buy it).

I'm in the same boat as the OP. I didn't get excited about the PS3 or XB360 because all the ads emphasized their ability to deliver awesome graphics and the games that were confirmed for them were mostly sequels with better-graphics-itis. Of course, that means I have to wait for Braid.

Anyways, I find that as long as a game has a consistent style to graphics, the fact that it isn't using the latest in $500 video card rendering technology is ignored. Take for instance The Power (http://www.64digits.com/games/index.php?cmd=view_game&id=4751) or An Untitled Story (url=http://www.gamemakergames.com/?a=view&id=6278), for example.

At least thats true of the kind of people worth making a game for. There will always be a segment of the population that lives on hype and "good graphics" and makes games like Halo successful.

Quote:

Original post by Majorlag There will always be a segment of the population that lives on hype and "good graphics" and makes games like Halo successful.

I don't think you can cut it down to population segments like that. I play DF, but I also played all 3 Halos through to completion, along with all 4 Call of Dutys, etc.

Just because I prefer deep gameplay, doesn't mean that I don't feel the need to unwind with an ego shooter once in a while, and both Halo and CoD are excellent for casual multi-player. If I feel the need to play something a bit more intellectually challenging, then StarCraft or similar provides multiplayer, but it demands a lot more from the player.

Humans' primary sense is vision. Therefore, anything visually appealing is naturally going to draw someone in more easily than for example a promise of good gameplay.

I am not much of an artist myself, so it's not necessarily a good thing for me, but it's still something I observe.

As for the title of deliberately poor graphics, I would say that making graphics poor for a retro charm is okay, but drawing them all sloppily with no particular theme (such as 8 bit, black and white, etc.) won't be appealing. It's not necessarily the quality of the graphics per se, but rather, how they work together and with the game itself.

Quote:

Original post by GMX As for the title of deliberately poor graphics, I would say that making graphics poor for a retro charm is okay, but drawing them all sloppily with no particular theme (such as 8 bit, black and white, etc.) won't be appealing. It's not necessarily the quality of the graphics per se, but rather, how they work together and with the game itself.

Can we drop this wording of 'deliberately poor'? I don't think that anyone explicitly sets out to create bad graphics - Minimalism and retro-ism are both valid artistic ideals.

I'll only really play stuff that has good looking graphics. Good looking as in good graphical style. EG: I'll happily play Incubation (Win95 game I've been playing lately), but some newer games just look dreadful (certain modern FPSes that have dark green-grey on dark green-grey on dark grey-green, for example, and end up with you glaring at the screen wondering wtf is happening are an example fo bad graphics for me).

Mount and blade doesn't look great, but has had a lot of success for a low budget game because of the gameplay. But you need the gameplay to be good enough to spead it around. But you'll be at a disadvantage, though. And deliberately bad is, as established, silly.

I do, however, find insometric view points terrible with the mouse and 'board for RPGs/etc (for squad games/rts/etc it works). Don't confuse that for being to do with graphics though.

As long as the style is consistant than it is fine with me.

I think that I may have been extreme in the use of the word deliberate. But I think I see eye to eye with a lot of you- That the consistency and appropriateness of the graphics is more important than its quality. And that as developers sometimes we need to strive for the graphics that suite the game best, rather then trying to compete with whatever clop-trap is on the PS3 this week.

On a slightly different note- what do people think of games like depths of peril or similar where the graphics are midway between retro and current? The game's game play and depth are excellent, but its trying, but not quite succeeding graphics seems to take away from the overall experience. (BTW great game if you haven't played it)