Quote:

Original post by Wavinator I think that if you find the loyal core that something like spiderweb has found, graphics won't really be an issue.

I think this is the best possible advice for independent developers, especially in today's increasingly mainstream, console-centric gaming market. Gaming is a much bigger industry now than it was a decade ago and developers and publishers are even less likely to take risks since the potential rewards are so much higher. Will Wright's recent response to criticism of Spore is a perfect example, this in particular:

Quote:

When asked whether or not the game has been "dumbed down" to appeal to a more casual audience, Wright replies, "I'd say that's quite accurate.... We were very focused, if anything, on making a game for more casual players." He also admits "we would rather have the Metacritic and sales of Sims 2 than the Metacritic and sales of "Half-Life."

I'm one of those people who was disappointed with just how incredibly shallow Spore's gameplay felt, but I absolutely agree with Wright here. Creating a game that appeals to the largest possible market is a good business decision and probably good for gaming as a whole since more people will enjoy a game with wide appeal.

That said, I think the idea of "mainstream" appeal goes out the window for independent titles and rightfully so. The problem with games today, at least as I see it, is that niche audiences that made up a reasonable portion of the gaming population in the 90's now make up such a small percentage of gamers that they're no longer served by the major publishers and developers. The absolute number almost certainly hasn't gone down in size, it's probably even increased, but relative to the mass of mainstream gamers they no longer even appear as a blip to big publishers like EA.

This is where independent developers come in and it's why, at least in my opinion, graphics hardly matter to this market. Hardcore wargamers are willing to buy and spend hours playing incredibly ugly games like TacOps 4. Why? Because it offers gameplay that simply isn't available anywhere else. Spiderweb games continue to reuse sprites that are over a decade old and yet Jeff Vogel is still able to sell his games because hardly anyone else is serving the market that enjoys them. Roguelikes and Dwarf Fortress are immensely popular with certain groups because they offer gameplay depth that just doesn't exist in mainstream games.

Bottom line: independent developers on a tight budget with small teams simply cannot hope to compete with well-funded developers (this even includes people like Jonathan Blow, who blew around $180,000 on Braid) at their own game. Focus on creating gameplay that's unique and appeals to a niche audience and weak graphics won't hurt your appeal nearly as much.

With 3D games, resolution was a big factor on things like the PS1. These days, you can have not AAA graphics but still go for a high resolution... I really don't like ugly pixelated 3D but simple graphics at a high resolution would not immediately make me want to give up.

And in my opinion, it's the artwork more than how awesome your engine is that makes a massive difference.

Quote:

Original post by vs322 When we make games look good when we know we have good game play are people going to focus on our not quite triple A graphics and overlook potential great game play? ... When someone thinks about downloading / buying a game and they see ok, but not modern graphics do they overlook it- and go for the game with the outdated graphics and the obvious promise of good game play (because all that time and effort sure wasn't spent on art)?

No and no. In nearly all cases where you have a list of games to download, the one with the pretty graphics is going to get downloaded first. This problem is very much a side effect of current game marketing techniques. If you go into a store or log onto a website and see a list of pictures and titles (box covers or thumbnail/link combinations) for games you've never heard of it's guaranteed that you will pick the one that is most visually appealing to you first, since you have no other information to go by.

Unfortunately this is often the case, so the game with brilliant gameplay and programmer art may very well be the last title to get picked, if it gets picked at all. The problem is further compounded if the game is for sale/full price, which automatically puts it a step below the free/bargain bin games on the priority scale. This is why the trend in commercial games has continually leaned toward better graphics.

However, that doesn't mean the game is doomed to failure in obscurity. If the gameplay is intuitive and engrossing enough, most gamers will overlook the most rudimentary graphics once they've started playing. The trick then is to get them to try it. Games which value gameplay over graphics have to use a slightly different method of marketing.

Listings that provide ratings based on editor and/or user reviews in the main list better facilitate these types or games, but the best marketing method by far is simple word of mouth. If a player hears good things about the game from a trusted source (a friend or family member perhaps) they will almost invariably seek it out specifically and try it out of curiosity. That's your chance to hook them with gameplay.

It can be a tough route, but for indie developers I firmly believe it's the best way to go. I don't think any of us are foolish enough to think that we can compete with the AAA games in terms of graphics. Graphics are the lifeblood of these titles, because it's difficult to convince publishers and consumers with promises of exceptional gameplay, so a large portion of the budget inevitably goes in that direction.

As noted by many long time gamers, the gameplay often suffers from this fact, which is where Indies have a chance to compete with the big boys for the player's precious time.


In summary: Players aren't going to ignore less than perfect graphics, but if your gameplay is convincing and easy to pick up it is possible to overcome it.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned it yet, but genre is a crucial factor here. Any FPS or racer released today has to look much better than those released last year or it will tank. Strategy games or RPGs, on the other hand, can make do with decent 2D graphics. In general, the "twitchier" the game, the more important graphics are.

(Mega Man 9 is the exception here, but only because the franchise has a huge, nostalgic following that wants to relive the Mega Man 2 experience. And we still don't know if it will be a financial success.)

Quote:

Original post by vs322 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).

Good point about the DS and I'll take it one step further. The Wii was insanely popular and it wasn't the next-gen graphics that made it so. From a game dev stand point the Wii Sports, and other such Nintendo made games for the Wii were horrible games. Yet they received all kinds of media attention and such just for HOW they were played. Another point would be games like Guitar Hero and Rock Band and those such games, no real graphics needed whatsoever it's all about how the game is being played. So to really grab some attention and sell games come up with an inventive way to play a game, even an old game that's been done a million times (Wii Sports) can be done again like this. That being said though I'm not sure exactly what you'll be able to do to play these games differently, but I guess that'll be the next multimillion dollar idea.