WOULD YOU PLAY A GAME WITH HORRIFIC ART IF THE STORY IS REALLY GOOD?

I think the use of a resource is almost more important. Your game could have awesome graphics and epic music, but if it's not used well...

I could play almost any RPG maker game with a decent story and okay resources if the mapping is good for example. No matter if graphics are from RTP, or whatever people don't like nowadays. I know that's not the case with most folks though.

If we talk specifically about RMN games, then I really must admit that I don't try most of the games because of the graphics (mostly because they use default graphic assets, but also because they just look ugly). Though the main reason for me not trying them is still that they aren't finished.

But I don't see that as the general rule. There are tons of games where most people say that the graphics are bad which I play because I don't think they are bad. Touhou would be one example. But there are more extremes like for example I think Spellshard looks good enough (http://spellshard.crithit.org/screens.html). I take those over default RTP any time.

So yeah, graphics DO play a big role and not the greatest story in the world can make up for it. But my definition of acceptable graphics is a lot wider than for most people (well not on RMN - here everybody even thinks default RTP graphics are acceptable, so whatever).

In the end I also like text-based games as long as they at least have a nice interface (well structured text, maybe some always visible status display, etc.). I rather use my imagination than seeing graphics I've already seen in 10+ other games.

author=luiishu535
I think the use of a resource is almost more important. Your game could have awesome graphics and epic music, but if it's not used well...

I could play almost any RPG maker game with a decent story and okay resources if the mapping is good for example. No matter if graphics are from RTP, or whatever people don't like nowadays. I know that's not the case with most folks though.

Very true and I agree. I can't join the hate for RTP, sure, we've seen it before, but it doesn't look bad. It can look awesome when used properly. But if you binge-play games, then I could certainly see that. It's also a fact that these are meant to be neutral - to make them as versatile as possible. There is no real cure for this, though. Making a whole set of stuff - even if it's only half-heartedly done - takes ages. And if you make more sets public, then those would be used over and over again as well.
Rather than having high-resolution or mindblowingly detailed graphics, the use is more important, which is why I consider "bad graphics" not the same as low-resolution ones.

As a general example, there are many who hate the graphics of Okami - but even if you don't like them by themselves, you must admit that they contribute a lot to both the game mechanics and the gaming world. In a painted world, brush techniques being powerful and being able to interact with the world make sense.

Games are about forming a comprehensive picture. Ideally, all components add to the general theme and atmosphere of the game, allow good gameplay (beautiful maps are no good when you can't walk in them) and a consistent experience.

Graphics can play a huge part. Mainly because you notice them immediately. While story and gameplay can be interesting, they usually are first introduced to you and need some building up to work. You won't know the range of different attack spells when you haven't learned them, you won't like all characters right off the bat because you haven't even met them.
You know why this drawn stuff get so much attention even if they're just mediocre games overall.

Of course, as long as you can make out what is going on on-screen and you are not getting headaches (although something on edge like Psychodelic Assassins squad uses it for its own charm wisely), a game can work with bad graphics just as well.
It'll be harder to enjoy it, and it might ruin part of the experience, but that doesn't null any enjoyment. You can have crappy graphics, but once you settled down and accepted them, it's just half as bad (like with any other crappy part of games)

Also, especially when it comes to low-resolution, it's even more a matter of getting used to. For example, I love Diablo 2's graphics. By themselves as well as they work ingame.
But when I went back to it after a long break I noticed how mushy and pixellated it all was, yet I soon went back to not noticing it at all.

Yes, if I found myself really liking the story, I could suffer through a miserable art style, although it would definitely hurt the experience.

That said, art is generally way better at enticing people to play games in the first place; you'd probably have to convince me to try it if the art was abysmal.

There's also the distinction between graphics that are actually visually painful versus graphics that have a simple aesthetic but aren't polished.

For example, I find a game with cute game-boy-esce graphics to be great, if they fit the tone of the game. OFF, for example, is a game that has graphics that range from simple to just offputing (no pun intended) but it still works for the game they were made for, for the most part.

author=TheJudge
OFF. You're thinking of OFF. Very low detail and very black/white chipsets and map detail, however the monster sprites and everything else was hand drawn. To many it make look HORRIFIC, but overall the story of the game is fantastic.

To many it may have looked horrific, but to some (like myself) it was artistic and beautiful. I don't think it was beautiful just because "it worked because it was gameboy graphics". I'm not sure if this is just myself, but someone shouldn't discount graphics simply because they have a low resolution. If someone opens their mind up to the fact that sometimes placing limitations on yourself can enhance creativity and cause you to produce something more well-crafted than an AAA title, then they can learn to experience things from a different, more all-encompassing point of view. That's just my take on it.

~~~

I subscribe to the train of thought that considers graphics and story pretty much inseparable, to a point. A large portion of the game is told through visuals (I would argue the majority). In a thoroughly text-based game such a JRPG, the story may be told quite a bit through text, but the well-crafted worlds and beautiful world scapes matter just as much.

So even if you consider a game to have "horrible" graphics but a good story, if the graphics serve that story well, and they are unique, then they will be considered "good" graphics in my book. Good graphics are those which serve the story.

For me it's more of a question of where the gam makr put the most design emphasis. If they designed unique tilesets for every area of the game, made animated grass, drew pictures for cutscenes, etc., but it all looks really bad, then there's a good chance I'll be more overwhelmed with the ugly than I am appreciative of their other design values. If the graphics are simple but effectively represent what they're supposed to, and more work was put towards other aspects of the game's design, then I'm likely to overlook and maybe even come to love whatever that game has to offer graphics-wise.

Another thing to remember is that imagination can go a long way in making up for substandard visuals, and sometimes invoking the right mental picture is better than showing any actual picture at all. That's why books are so popular.

So basically this topic is talking about a Blurred Line right? It's a classic, but when you compare the artwork to the story, the story is amazing but the artwork is "functional" at best. It basically is my best answer to this entire topic, will I play a game with terrible graphics if it has a good storyline: Look at a Blurred Line and it should be clear.

Ideally, in this medium you want to strike a balance inbetween the two, good story and good graphics, but as LockeZ basically said, we are a community of amateur game developers, most of us use the simplest programs to get a result more quickly then if we had to code it our selves. So the bar is set pretty low.
In the end, I choose story over graphics. As long as that story has gameplay that allows me to progress in a non obtuse fashion that is.

Maybe define what do you mean with horrific art...

For graphics to be good, all you need is cohesion. Make everything fit and match properly. And much better if your art fits with the mood of the story.

Sometimes what you need is not chibi-styled/1:1 human proportion perfect huge pixel art. Sometimes you need some amateurish, bad looking Paint abortions.