ID:112539
 
The question is, do graphics truly matter? Of course you need them to run a game where you have visuals. What I'm asking is, the quality of them, the polish of them, and the look of them. Do they truly effect the player base of a game?

I've looked around BYOND and seen some games that are quite popular with graphics that aren't quite the best. With this I mean the graphics clash, and the game just looks eh. I won't name the games, but you should get the point.

So I'm just wondering...what do you prefer?
graphics are music provide atmosphere and giving the game a solid atmosphere is a key element
graphics don't really matter but the way it effects the gameplay would play an important role.
The most important factor >>to me<< is consistency. Having a simple one-colour tile of water blend with a highly detailed grass turf is near impossible and makes the game look worse. Make sure every icon and turf has the same amount of detail and colours.

NEStalgia, whatever the gameplay, does a fantastic job of this. As does Decadence.
Yes and No. Your game could have the best graphics out there but the gameplay could suck. No one wants to play a game with terriable gameplay. But also no one wants to play a game with graphics were you cant even tell whats what.
Graphics are fundamental for high player count. Not that I'd consider any games on BYOND to be of a high player count.
Gameplay is designed by designers. It is prototyped and polished so that the game is fun.

Visuals are designed by the artists. In some cases the artists never even talk to the designers. It is sometimes slapped on after the game is prototyped/playable. Many big titles use placeholders for the majority of their unfinished visuals in testing stages.

The two are completely different and cannot be compared. Visuals do not in any way affect the gameplay, and gameplay does not affect the visuals.

They come for the visuals and stay for the gameplay
The quality of graphics matters immensely. Whether they look like they should be on an Atari 2600 or a PS3 matters not.
Here's an example of a game that I was working on not too long ago that could've been one of BYOND's most atmosphereic, polished, and lenghtly single-player games. Unfortunately it was discontinued, but here's a picture.

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk270/Duelmaster409/ SecretASCIIProject.png


I'm not being sarcastic.
Visuals do not in any way affect the gameplay, and gameplay does not affect the visuals.

They come for the visuals and stay for the gameplay


Lies... Just saying, visuals can increase the quality of gameplay alot.
I played Bit Quest for many hours and it uses two colors, black and white, and 32x32 icons and it was an amazing game.
ADOM is one of my favorite games to play and captivated me for many many hours, and it uses only 16 colors and ASCII.
Dwarf Fortress is my second favorite game and it uses 16 colors and improved ASCII.
Minecraft is my favorite and it uses 16x16 skin textures by default.

Gameplay>>>>>>>>>>>Graphics
Yah, gameplay is more important than graphics IMO. But.. Graphics makes a game a hell of a lot better.
My opinion on this is I also prefer gameplay over graphics. Although, if the graphics are not consistent like Gazant said, it will throw me off.

What would you consider good or bad quality though? If a games looks like an old game such as that of a Final Fantasy fangame, is it bad quality or just the style of the game?

I'm really just curious how users around here judge graphics. I myself consider pixel games higher quality then that of ps1 games.
Gtgoku55 wrote:
Visuals do not in any way affect the gameplay, and gameplay does not affect the visuals.

They come for the visuals and stay for the gameplay


Lies... Just saying, visuals can increase the quality of gameplay alot.

The way mario looked did not in anyway affect the way he jumped around killing turtles.
WEll, maybe not the gameplay itself. But it does increase how enjoyable the game cane be. Which is why I said it increased the game play.
Gtgoku55 wrote:
WEll, maybe not the gameplay itself. But it does increase how enjoyable the game cane be. Which is why I said it increased the game play.

Well that's what I said before, the visuals and sounds create an immersive atmosphere. It's like the descriptions in a book, rather than solid story.
Now, lookie here, ya *nobo's *Crazy young people**. Graphics CAN and DO affect gameplay and how the user enjoys the game. However, gameplay CAN but doesn't ALWAYS affect the graphics.

Ex: NEStalgia.

It could easily be any crappy quest game using "NES" 32x32 interface. The graphics on it really DO make the game a lot more fun. I'm sure that most of the people who learned about NEStalgia from other websites other than BYOND didn't join just because there were a lot of places to explore or because the NPC's kept getting stronger. They joined because the places to "explore" were very clean and well-put together and the NPC's looked cool.




And also, think of this:

Look at all the shooting console games. Would ANYONE be playing Black Ops, Left 4 Dead 2, etc. if all the graphics were crappy, black-and-white, and the bullets looked like spit but you still got to shoot zombies/kill other people?

Hell. No. It was mostly graphics that pulled it in, but the very addicting gameplay that kept them hooked. Even though the two aren't directly related, they are two HUGE, MAIN factors to making a game fun.
People that are pulled towards a game solely because of the graphics have a very shallow perspective on gaming.

That said, graphics don't need to be HD and 3D to look good. You can have very appealing black and white graphics, 8-bit, 16-bit, all the way up the chain. It's important for them to look good in their respective style.

The importance on game-play depends on the game you're playing. If it's an RPG, I personally prefer plot, character development, etc over game-play. If it's a shooter, you're probably going to be going for game-play (though a nice immersive story and cast is such a huge plus that I actually prefer that over game-play in shooters too). Among all of this, the style of graphics you use doesn't matter at all. The quality of the graphics in that style you're using matter a lot. You can make any genre work with any style of graphics. It's called innovation, and it's why old games appeal to me personally so much.
Masterdarwin88 wrote:
Look at all the shooting console games. Would ANYONE be playing Black Ops, Left 4 Dead 2, etc. if all the graphics were crappy, black-and-white, and the bullets looked like spit but you still got to shoot zombies/kill other people?

I guarantee you people would play a black-and-white zombie shooter. As long as the game is created well and is fun, people don't care about graphics. Look at Dwarf Fortress. I don't see how anyone can say "graphics matter" with that game being as popular as it is.
EmpirezTeam wrote:
Masterdarwin88 wrote:
Look at all the shooting console games. Would ANYONE be playing Black Ops, Left 4 Dead 2, etc. if all the graphics were crappy, black-and-white, and the bullets looked like spit but you still got to shoot zombies/kill other people?

I guarantee you people would play a black-and-white zombie shooter. As long as the game is created well and is fun, people don't care about graphics. Look at Dwarf Fortress. I don't see how anyone can say "graphics matter" with that game being as popular as it is.




You were the one saying that Cow RP was "s***" because of its graphics, even though its an awesome RPG in itself, Mr.Hypocrite.


And on the side, I was speaking about recent CONSOLE zombie shooters. Not your little 64x64 @$$wipe BYOND zombie shooters that are either rips or never hosted.
Page: 1 2