DO GRAPHICS MATTER?
Posts
Hey'all!
Im on the verge of releasing my first game (one or two weeks now!) and the game profile is already up! Ive got some feedback over the maps, in fact the only feedback ^^ deckiller commented on the them. My question is, i realise that the graphics are rtp and that the maps aren't the most beautifully crafted in the world, but is this going to be a problem for people? Im new to rmn, so in general do people accept the game for what i think are its strong points, that is to say the story, characters and music, or are the noobish maps gonna put people off? I just dont know what to expect ^^ thanks!
Im on the verge of releasing my first game (one or two weeks now!) and the game profile is already up! Ive got some feedback over the maps, in fact the only feedback ^^ deckiller commented on the them. My question is, i realise that the graphics are rtp and that the maps aren't the most beautifully crafted in the world, but is this going to be a problem for people? Im new to rmn, so in general do people accept the game for what i think are its strong points, that is to say the story, characters and music, or are the noobish maps gonna put people off? I just dont know what to expect ^^ thanks!
Original RTP graphics are fine when used right. I've seen chairs inside of walls, missing floor pieces, etc... so please make sure they at least look appealing.
Mapping in this community is controversial. A lot of oldies will yell at you if your maps are too big. Honestly I think it really depends on how fast your guys are moving, rate of random battles, and how much 'go here and do that' you gotta do. Since joining I've cropped a lot of my maps down, and they started to feel better. There's also the 3 square rule, which means for natural things (like forests, rivers, etc) it's gotta change. Most of the time this applies, but not always.
In my opinion, big maps aren't the worst thing, it's usually spelling, event mistakes, and battle systems that aren't adjusted to the right pace. (too hard, too easy etc) Clean them up and shrink them if you don't have to move too many events is probably the best I can tell you.
Mapping in this community is controversial. A lot of oldies will yell at you if your maps are too big. Honestly I think it really depends on how fast your guys are moving, rate of random battles, and how much 'go here and do that' you gotta do. Since joining I've cropped a lot of my maps down, and they started to feel better. There's also the 3 square rule, which means for natural things (like forests, rivers, etc) it's gotta change. Most of the time this applies, but not always.
In my opinion, big maps aren't the worst thing, it's usually spelling, event mistakes, and battle systems that aren't adjusted to the right pace. (too hard, too easy etc) Clean them up and shrink them if you don't have to move too many events is probably the best I can tell you.
Hmmm, after seeing what a lot of people did with the RTP in the Lite Cookoff, I've warmed to the RTP a lot more, but I still have to admit that even a little bit of personalization in the graphics department goes a long way for me.
Think of it this way, even if your writing is the focus of your project, the graphics are your handwriting, your typesetting. They put a nice flourish on the words and definitely define how legibly the story plays out. Remember how much interactivity can work to tie graphics and story together, also.
Think of it this way, even if your writing is the focus of your project, the graphics are your handwriting, your typesetting. They put a nice flourish on the words and definitely define how legibly the story plays out. Remember how much interactivity can work to tie graphics and story together, also.
I don't mind RTP games. The RTP is great for light-hearted games so I see no issue making games using it. However, if you're making a darker game it might be best to check out other graphical styles instead, though I won't say that it's impossible to make a dark game using the RTP - there are several games on the site that show this is possible - it is a lot harder to get the right feeling and more work is required.
Besides, it's not about what the graphics are but how you use them.
About large maps? If you can make smaller maps first, that would be best. Most new creators make maps a lot bigger than they need to be and leave the walk speed and encounter rates alone, which make for a not-great gaming experience. Personally, I prefer small, tight maps with a tile's space of walking room, but as long as it's balanced there shouldn't be too much of an issue.
Anyway, welcome and hope to see your game soon~
Besides, it's not about what the graphics are but how you use them.
About large maps? If you can make smaller maps first, that would be best. Most new creators make maps a lot bigger than they need to be and leave the walk speed and encounter rates alone, which make for a not-great gaming experience. Personally, I prefer small, tight maps with a tile's space of walking room, but as long as it's balanced there shouldn't be too much of an issue.
Anyway, welcome and hope to see your game soon~
Hey! Thanks for all your imput! Well ok i think ive used the tilesets at least as they should be (ie no chairs in walls... ^^). I don't think they're too big, i was just thinking maybe they should have been bigger! ^^ But i suppose i'll just leave them like that and see what people say! I suppose there's no way of really knowing until people have played it and say what they think! Thanks for the advice all!
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
If you asked me in 1997, I'd have been super stubborn and said that graphics made no difference whatsoever in any game, and any multi-million-dollar modern console game would have been exactly as good if the graphics in it looked like Pacman, and only ten year old kids who don't understand what makes video games good think otherwise.
But it's not 1997 any more, and I changed my mind. Looking good matters. It brings your game to life.
Also, as far as making people want to play your game, screenshots are the first thing anyone will see. And if you go the most basic route, they're probably the only thing people will see before they download it. So if you want to get them to download it, and you have shitty screenshots, you should make a video showing off some of what you feel are the more impressive parts of the game. Even if you have good graphics, you should do that, honestly. A two minute trailer can show a lot more than a dozen screenshots can.
But it's not 1997 any more, and I changed my mind. Looking good matters. It brings your game to life.
Also, as far as making people want to play your game, screenshots are the first thing anyone will see. And if you go the most basic route, they're probably the only thing people will see before they download it. So if you want to get them to download it, and you have shitty screenshots, you should make a video showing off some of what you feel are the more impressive parts of the game. Even if you have good graphics, you should do that, honestly. A two minute trailer can show a lot more than a dozen screenshots can.
I'm speaking only for myself here, but I think that as long as functionality comes first, you can get away with less than stellar maps, especially if you can convince me that the characters, music, gameplay, etc. can carry the bulk of the game. And as LockeZ mentioned, a video can show those off better than a screenshot or three.
Graphics matter in the sense that they can be a good judge of effort. If a game looks like shit, it's probably going to play like shit too. I'm not talking mediocre 'oh, there's nothing special about this map' graphics. I talking about the type of graphics that tell me the creator doesn't love their project. If you can't take the time to make your game look like it wasn't created by a 6-year-old using a computer for the first time, how can I trust that you put time and effort into any other area of the game?
I'm not saying everyone has to make custom graphics and every screenshot should be a masterpiece. Far from it. As long as the graphics look like you put effort into them, they're more than passable.
On the flip side, I'm also not saying pretty graphics make a great game. As someone whose skill set falls firmly in the good graphics, so-so gameplay camp, that would be pretty hypocritical. It just means that's where the creator's talent lie. But that's a different topic.
I'm not saying everyone has to make custom graphics and every screenshot should be a masterpiece. Far from it. As long as the graphics look like you put effort into them, they're more than passable.
On the flip side, I'm also not saying pretty graphics make a great game. As someone whose skill set falls firmly in the good graphics, so-so gameplay camp, that would be pretty hypocritical. It just means that's where the creator's talent lie. But that's a different topic.
You can make a (good) game without fancy graphics, but having good (original, beautiful) graphics definitely help a lot.
Graphics are as important than any other element of a game, as the function of these elements is to help you convey ideas. With this in mind, graphics are perhaps slightly more important, since they're the main aspect the players will be interacting with... So, even if your game is a Text adventure, you should carefully choose what fonts you're going to use, what colors, etc.
Also, more than "effort" I would call it "thought". Even if graphics are not your forte, simple RTP edits can express how much thought you've put into your project... This may be a silly example, but think of planet Earth and planet Namek in DBZ. They're pretty much the same, but the colors are "upside down". In Namek the sky is green and the grass is blue; also the trees are rather unique. This concept alone is enough to convey the idea of an alien world, without having to draw things in a significant different way.
The same goes for mapping, really. Instead of trying to fill tons of maps with stuff. Think about what function you want every map to have.
Also, more than "effort" I would call it "thought". Even if graphics are not your forte, simple RTP edits can express how much thought you've put into your project... This may be a silly example, but think of planet Earth and planet Namek in DBZ. They're pretty much the same, but the colors are "upside down". In Namek the sky is green and the grass is blue; also the trees are rather unique. This concept alone is enough to convey the idea of an alien world, without having to draw things in a significant different way.
The same goes for mapping, really. Instead of trying to fill tons of maps with stuff. Think about what function you want every map to have.
I've kind of avoided commenting on this, not cause I think my opinion is unwelcome or anything, but because it might be somewhat unfair. Now that others have made some rational comments and suggestions however I feel like I can share my two cents.
Basically, if you were to ask me "Do/Does X matter in a game?" my answer would always be a definite yes, at least in terms of the major aspects like plot, characters, atmosphere, graphics, music, game-play, etc. I guess it comes from being a perfectionist with a ridiculous standard of quality, but I'd say that you should try to make everything in your project as good as humanly possible.
In terms of graphics, the way things work out is pretty set in stone. As Racheal said, games with sloppy graphics don't look professional, and it dissuades people from checking them out. Having adequate graphical and mapping skills generally works out fine, but I'd say that you should strive for much more than that. Having a unique atmosphere or graphical style that's done right not only helps the game look professional, it makes it stand out from the crowd. If the game stands out, it makes sense that more people will take a look at it, and you'll get more feedback because of that.
I guess what I'm saying is just "The more you give, the more you get." Like I said though, I'm a perfectionist. I know for a fact that the "Everything MUST be perfect" style of design isn't super helpful in the long run. You shouldn't spend all of your time perfecting a single game, you should get it as good as possible and release it. Being able to finish something that's even in the "above average" category is an achievement in itself, and you can always improve your skills in your next project.
I'm sorry if that was really rambling. I'm not good at explaining things.
Basically, if you were to ask me "Do/Does X matter in a game?" my answer would always be a definite yes, at least in terms of the major aspects like plot, characters, atmosphere, graphics, music, game-play, etc. I guess it comes from being a perfectionist with a ridiculous standard of quality, but I'd say that you should try to make everything in your project as good as humanly possible.
In terms of graphics, the way things work out is pretty set in stone. As Racheal said, games with sloppy graphics don't look professional, and it dissuades people from checking them out. Having adequate graphical and mapping skills generally works out fine, but I'd say that you should strive for much more than that. Having a unique atmosphere or graphical style that's done right not only helps the game look professional, it makes it stand out from the crowd. If the game stands out, it makes sense that more people will take a look at it, and you'll get more feedback because of that.
I guess what I'm saying is just "The more you give, the more you get." Like I said though, I'm a perfectionist. I know for a fact that the "Everything MUST be perfect" style of design isn't super helpful in the long run. You shouldn't spend all of your time perfecting a single game, you should get it as good as possible and release it. Being able to finish something that's even in the "above average" category is an achievement in itself, and you can always improve your skills in your next project.
I'm sorry if that was really rambling. I'm not good at explaining things.
Y'know, whatever someone might say about the quality, I think you did a really great job of posting an intriguing set of screenshots. There's a funeral, a jerk running his mouth and an exotic jungle spring. They're each dramatic moments from a broad spectrum of experience where even some of the best games only show you'll be walking around and fighting stuff.
author=Liberty
I don't mind RTP games. The RTP is great for light-hearted games so I see no issue making games using it. However, if you're making a darker game it might be best to check out other graphical styles instead, though I won't say that it's impossible to make a dark game using the RTP - there are several games on the site that show this is possible - it is a lot harder to get the right feeling and more work is required.
Besides, it's not about what the graphics are but how you use them.
About large maps? If you can make smaller maps first, that would be best. Most new creators make maps a lot bigger than they need to be and leave the walk speed and encounter rates alone, which make for a not-great gaming experience. Personally, I prefer small, tight maps with a tile's space of walking room, but as long as it's balanced there shouldn't be too much of an issue.
Anyway, welcome and hope to see your game soon~
I essentially agree with this. The graphics of the RTP has its own feeling, and it doesn't work for all genres as some people seem to place it in.
Graphics do indeed matter, but it's not so much on what graphics you use that makes them matter, it's how they work with your game and what feeling/emotion you are trying to convey to your audience.
Take games like God of War and compare it to a game like Kirby's Return to Dreamland. System capabilities aside, one game evokes a feeling of "darkness" and "intense action" due to it's use of neutral/darker colors, and a realistic character style, while the other presents a variety of soft, highly saturated colors to give off a feeling of "joy" or "fun". Your graphics, for the most part, only fail when they do not evoke the emotion you are intending it to.
Thanks for the input everyone! I'm pretty confident that the graphics are gonna be passable, having reveiwed a
few games on the site they are passable! It's my first game so i think it's ok for now! I admit i concentrated more on the story/music, but i think it'll be ok ^^
Graphics, no. Art style, yes.
I like the RTP, have no problems with it. I use RTP a lot in my games too.=P
I like the RTP, have no problems with it. I use RTP a lot in my games too.=P
author=Milennin
Graphics, no. Art style, yes.
Graphics and Art Style affect each other in really important ways. You can't discount one just because it's common for "normal" gamers to piss their pants over how brown the latest COD is or whatever.
Take for example El Shaddai: Ascension of the Metatron. It has a beautiful art style, but it could have never been done with an N64 or a PS1. Knowing what engine to use to accomplish your desired atmosphere is just as important as having a good atmosphere to begin with.