Ok so this may seem like a common question but it’s out of both frustration and curiosity that I ask. I have spent a few hours playing call of duty 2 on the Xbox and despite it being an xbox360 version it’s graphics are poor by today’s standards but the gameplay was solid and I thoroughly enjoyed it. However, my wife bought me Sniper Elite 4 and the novelty has worn of within a few hours gameplay, after the bullet cam etc the game is well… boring. It’s pretty no doubt and would qualify as AAA.
I’m not saying I won’t play it again I will the bulletcam can be hilarious but the missions are well I have no idea what they are besides crawl over an island and kill people.
So this is my query do we only value graphics now?
It’s easy to say cod2 with sniper elites graphics would be amazing and se4 with cod2 graphics would still be **** but the more recent cods have been poor to in comparison. I was playing cod2 and fascinated by it. I’ve played it a few dozen times on the of but I sat looking at the pipe I crawled through going that’s got 12 edges so clearly visible but would it being undetectable make it any better? I hadn’t given it any thought when I previously played so it can’t have ruined the gameplay.
Follow up, which do you prioritise your graphics or the gameplay, could poor graphics and great gameplay compete with the likes of se4 (obviously not on budget terms)? Also at some point this realism seems excessive far cry lighting sticks out as overkill to the point of cartoony
Well, I guess it would be nice to have both fun gameplay and good graphics. Those games are out there. However, that comes down to your budget (like everything else to do with game dev). Can you afford to put in the extra work in hyper detailing everything? If not, well then I would focus on creating and implementing fun gameplay that is cyclical in nature. Either way I would consider game play to be priority. Like you said, good graphics are nice up to a point. If the game gets boring then it doesn’t matter how nice it looks.
Good graphics or aesthetics can be an effective marketing tool. It’s done well for games like Astroneer, Firewatch, The Witness, No Mans Sky, Fez, ABZU, Journey, which I don’t think would have been anywhere near as successful without the visuals to go along with the gameplay. For those games in particular, enjoying the view is an important part of the game experience.
But on the other hand there’s Nidhogg, FTL, Thomas Was Alone, Minecraft, VVVVVV, where the graphics are pretty basic and sit back from the rest of the experience.
Bad graphics can be a serious entry barrier. I don’t mean stylized or low poly, I mean one that just look bad regardless of which style you choose. I love Dwarf Fortress but I understand why some people won’t even try to play it. Some styles will block you off from the customers - not everyone likes voxel, low poly or anime look, some dislike 8-bit style. Realistic style if done good, will attract a lot of potential customer but not only it’s expensive to produce, it ages very fast. While stylized look of Phychonauts or Grow Home will look good after a decade.
Regarding gameplay, as other people already said - if it’s bad it won’t help with retaining your customers. Very good graphics can attract people to pre-order/buy your product at start but might not result in any significant sales after reviews are out or when you want to sell DLC. For multiplayer focused game it can be death sentence.
I’m personally a bit angry when I see a wip game receiving many awesome comments, because it looks cool, but the gameplay videos are boring or average, or even never coming because the developers can “only draw”. shortly, good art is catching the interest, but e.g. steam has a refund system (max 2 hrs play). and yes, multiplayer only or multiplayer focused games can be risky… (e.g.: hard to program competitive AI? make it multiplayer only!)
You must have been playing a different game, GTAV looks far superior to Driver SF, it looked better even when it was on Xbox 360/PS3
While graphics aren’t everything, they’re a legitimate selling point, I’ll be happy enough if a game looks good and get many games just for the graphics.
I’m slowly working on my design plans and every aspect I reach I keep going over the theory of the gameplay, it’s a ww2 game so I expect a level of realism but so far as locations go it will be style only, everything will be tweaked to ensure map flow, lines of sight, potential game type balance etc.
Granted my modelling skills aren’t amazing so it’s a saving grace that it’s something I can sacrifice a bit - although I still want a certain standard.
Even things as simple as if a guard was here, how could the player approach the situation for a stealth kill with a garrotte can a sniper find a series of locations with potential that don’t raise the … oh in the church tower again, without it being a case of shooting between 12 objects making them impossible to kill.
When I initially had the concept it was main cinematic choices I want x to explode I want a location like y but now I’m planning those choices are becoming essentially film sequences in my mind that I play over a few dozen times and can visualise all the angles.
I’m immersing myself in period watching the films playing the competition and reading the stories but given its a done theme I’m concerned if the graphics will be a factor, would it be worth building a location for testing functionality then trying to get higher quality designers involved… lots to think about in the coming weeks/months.
I appreciate everyone’s feedback definitely food for thought
Check this game: Ravenfield (Beta 5) by SteelRaven7 skip videos, just download and play. It genuinely Battlefield with a bit different mechanics.
you can put any shooter setting on top of this. Game should be already fun and engaging even with basic assets.
I mean, you might be thinking a bit too far, we all do. Reality is that when you start to prototype gameplay you see that some things just don’t work or are not fun or not-intuitive.