i am making this AWFUL game (by todays standards of Graphics+Technology=Good) which is an rpg. with classes and equipment and crap. i dont have much of a plot yet, but would anyone consider playing a game that did nt go by todays standards?

graphics+technology!=good game

good game play=good game

graphics+technology+good game play=better game

One of the more popular games made, Age of Empires, did not push the video card to its limits and it only used 256 colours, yet it has one of the highest sales records(2 million+ copies I think) around. Granted they had good artists that used went to the limits of the boundaries set by the game, but they did not sacrifice game play for better technology.

---
Make it work.
Make it fast.

"Commmmpuuuuterrrr.." --Scotty Star Trek IV:The Voyage Home

get a good plot and the above points and you''ll have a good chance.

The more you throw in the more likely it is that your game will be played longer.

Games don''t really need many things to be enjoyable. Here''s my order, the top being most important, bottom least. I''m sure something like this has already been done before so if you''re curious, search.

Gameplay
Playability
Creativity
Graphics
Sound
Music
Technology

Start with a game that has some enjoyable gameplay and playability. If you don''t want to do a game clone (another Pacman, Pong, Tetris or Mario) then add some creativity.

That''s kind of the minimum. That''s what you do to get people to play your game. The stuff after that is to impress them.


The purpose of a game creator is to create a game which is played longer than it took to make.

if your rpg has a bad plot, then no, ppl wont play it. if its got a good storyline and decent graphics (ie not crud that just looks ugly with terrible colors and such). realize that 2d games look very nice without much work in the coding depatrment (compared to 3d games). its all in the art ability of you (or your team). gameplay and balance are very important (even more so then graphics). for instance i STILL play 8bit games and my atari jaguar. yeah thats right jaguar. also on my tg16. btw this is not via emulation, i actually own the systems and play them

Agree with all above. A little while ago I got addicted to a horribly simple game called Battle Hunter. It wasn''t reams of voice acting dialog, full motion 3D fx, or skull splintering AI that hooked me. It was very addictive gameplay.

So absolutely, put as much focus as you can stand on gameplay, because since you can''t compete asset wise that''s going to be the MAIN motivation people will have to play your game!!!

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

In my opinion, there is one single factor that separates good games from bad games:

* FUN! *

If your game is fun, people will play it. For example, I still play Comander Keen IV. Do I play it because it''s a technological achievement? No... I play it beacuse it''s FUN!!



The Micro$oft has you... Follow the black penguin...

Look at this :
http://www.warioworld.com/3rdparty/
(section Mario Club Info / Score & Evaluation Criteria ...)

Nintendo seems to agree with all of you, evaluation criteria for their games are :
- Visual 10%
- Audio 10%
- Ease of Play 20%
- Game Composition 20%
- Overall Satisfaction 40%

(all scores are weighted : Visual & Audio x2, Ease of play x4, Satisfaction x8)

There is a certain minimum level of competence one grows to expect as graphics technology evolves, which is to say that your graphics should look professional and consistent, but you don''t need to be John Carmack...

If the graphics are good enough that they don''t impede gameplay, then that''s as far as you need to go -- anything more is eye candy. And "good enough" is defined entirely by your game design. Some games need better graphics than others.