Jul 4 2012, 6:42 pm
|
|
Killalongjohns
 |
Dead like
|
You aren't paying attention to the discussion at all. A time limit was not specified, but most developers never finish. This is because they do the wrong things first and don't know what they are doing when they try to do the stuff they need to do. Then the project gets scrapped. If people took the time to learn what they were doing instead of thinking that programming is easy and you can be the best in a month, there would be more competent developers and more games worth mentioning on BYOND.
Killalongjohns, stop using troll-like arguments to try to derail the topic and contribute to the discussion in a way that doesn't make you out to look like just another person who has no idea what they are doing, please. | |
I was paying the fullest attention to the discussion, and a time limit was in fact implied. And yes, I know that, but that's not what this thread is about at all. Technically you're derailing the topic. This is about "art obsession" and not spending enough "time" on the programming of the game itself, and it's not about peoples' programming abilities. I'm not using troll-like arguments at all, I'm merely denying the (in my opinion) bullshit claims that art isn't as important for the function of a game. I have a pretty solid idea of what I'm doing, thanks.
| |
I think art is just as important to a game as gameplay. Not flashy shiny art, but consistent, thematic art. SNES games look good in their own way, because they have the "SNES style". If one were to paste 3D images with bloom effects and magical postprocessing shaders into a SNES game, it'd look like complete crap, because it messed with the consistency.
Time-wise, it's irrelevant to me when dealing with Hazordhu. We have a "team" of artists who make the artwork as the programmers do their work, so we're not restricting the game as much by trying to draw things nicely instead of working on the part that puts the art into action. @Albro1: IMO, this was the derailer: EmpirezTeam wrote: And here 3/4 years later you're still missing the point. A developer's priority should be the gameplay. Of course, it's up to the developer what he/she wants to do and what order they want to do it in but at the end of the day, there's an efficient and inefficient way of doing things. Spending 90% of your time on aesthetics and the last 10% on gameplay isn't really smart since players are going to play your game based on how fun it is and not necessarily on how good/bad it looks. | |
Developers DO have a time limit. Why do you think Notch finished the prototype of Minecraft in 15 minutes? From the moment you start developing you have 2 hours to create a foundation for the gameplay that you will build onto later in development. Within that 2 hours, if you do not accomplish this task, you will become unable to actually finish the game. It even says it on Game Development wikipedia page. WoW, Skyrim, Battlefield, Angry Birds etc. were all playable ( just extremely lacking in content ) within the first 2 hours.
Apparently you don't have a solid idea of what you're doing because your username is Killalongjohns and if you were intelligent you would have chosen a better name. And you also even spelled "killer" incorrectly - I'm not sure what makes you think you have the right to come at me with your drivel. Show me a popular game that wasn't playable within the first 2 hours or admit that you've been brutally defeated today in this heated discussion. | |
Kaiochao wrote:
I think art is just as important to a game as gameplay. And, fine sir, I present to you the exact same challenge: tell me which game it is you play in which you dislike the actual gameplay but stick around anyway because the game has amazing graphics and sound effects. I have never heard someone say "omigawd this game is so buggy to the point that it's unplayable, but those special effects are just so good I can't stop playing!". I also heard several comments along the lines of "the game's graphics aren't the best, but the gameplay is totally worth it and is a great purchase anyway". If graphics were of equal importance, people would play games just for the visuals even if the game sucked. Newsflash: No one actually does that. There's a reason games are called games and not 3D animation. Because, at the end of the day, what matters is the game. Not the HUDs, or the soundtrack, or the cutscenes. THE GAME. | |
Kaiochao wrote:
I think art is just as important to a game as gameplay. Not flashy shiny art, but consistent, thematic art. That's an important point that this type of discussion often misses. The games we're talking about where the developer spends six months working on graphics and ignores the gameplay isn't just a bad game because it's not fun, it often looks bad too. If people don't know that games need gameplay, they probably don't know what makes a game look nice either. We have a "team" of artists who make the artwork as the programmers do their work, so we're not restricting the game as much by trying to draw things nicely instead of working on the part that puts the art into action The "part that puts the art into action" is as important as the graphics themselves (for BYOND games at least). It's not just about how well drawn each icon is, it's about how they're used. When you re-use the same fire effect for every attack because that's all the artist could draw and when the fire effect moves choppily across the screen in a tile-based manner, vanishing entirely when it hits a wall or player it'll look bad no matter how nicely it's drawn. | |
That's a good argument you're making. I'm not at all sure why you're making it. Back to what I said...
Just to make clear, "bad graphics" to me is inconsistency and complete lack of theme, not lack of shiny effects. I won't play a game with horrible graphics. I can't play a game with horrible gameplay. A game with good graphics but bad gameplay is unplayable. A game with good gameplay but bad graphics is prejudiced to the point of not being worth my time. Now back to the original topic, if possible. If someone spends all their time making a base icon, that's obviously a waste of time. Even if they do eventually complete it, chances are they will take even longer just to make the clothing that has to fit all the frames in every state. That's a lot of pixel work, and a lot of little modifications. It's possible to automate this, like how Forum_account generates his overlays in his Action RPG Framework, which relies on patterns and masks. I wonder, though, if it's possible to make very much content with that. Results are pretty awesome, considering how many frames his base icon is. | |
The consistency is important because you'll get used to everything else. If the icons are very nicely drawn, after playing the game for hours you won't notice that any more - you're used to them. As long as the graphics aren't so inconsistent that they'll turn you away, you'll give the game a shot and whether your initial impression was that the graphics were simple or detailed, after playing for a while you won't even be aware of that.
Kaiochao wrote: It's possible to automate this, like how Forum_account generates his overlays in his Action RPG Framework, which relies on patterns and masks. I wonder, though, if it's possible to make very much content with that. I'm not entirely sure what you mean there. Lots of games use re-colorings of the same models. I'd like to add more templates but they're harder to make, so I settled for using different patterns for now. Also, given the shape of the mob, it's hard to make body armor that looks distinct. I think that people spend time drawing fancy equipment overlays because they want to have cool-looking weapons that players want to have. While these things might look cool, players care more about their rarity and their in-game value. If the cool-looking sword is weak and common weapon that any noob can get, people won't use it. If there's a suit of armor with a unique overlay, people will want it even if it's just a different colored version of a common armor overlay - players will be envious of the color. | |
I think art is just as important to a game as gameplay. A game with good graphics but bad gameplay is unplayable. Then obviously they aren't of equal importance, are they? If you'd play a game that lacked shiny effects and ground breaking visuals because it was fun, gameplay was more important to you. If you refuse to play a game that looks good but had bad gameplay, gameplay was more important to you. What's so hard to understand about this? | |
They're equally important to me because in the end, it works the same both ways. That is, read the part after the line you quoted.
| |
You misunderstood me when I said "bad" graphics. When I say "bad" I meant, for instance, Ace of Spades vs Battlefield 3. Neither have inconsistent graphics or "bad" graphics, but it's a fact that the visuals are far more advanced in the latter than the former. My point was, even though Battlefield 3 looks far better, you can still get by with Ace of Spades quality of graphics so there's no need to stress yourself or worry about trying to get the most awesome, realistic 2D sprites possible ( which is what most developers on BYOND do ). Your time is better spent making sure your game is actually fun, not spending your time perfecting overlays and health bars.
Of course people won't play something that looks like this. That's not what I was referring to. | |
Ace of Spades and Battlefield are completely different games. That's like comparing Minecraft to Skyrim.
| |
LOL. I love you man.
| |
Oh jeez, since the wikipedia page says it, it must be law. You run out of ideas and completely switch the topic of this post, and then end up attacking me about my name. I'm not going to explain the origin of my name to you, nor do I give a flying [stuff] what you think. (Btw, we're talking about BYOND games here.)
EmpirezTeam wrote: LOL. I love you man. I'm pretty sure he was disagreeing with you. Kaiochao wrote: That's a good argument you're making. I'm not at all sure why you're making it. Back to what I said... ^Thank you. | |
I know we're talking about games, but someone who can't even come up with a respectable username has no place in this argument or any argument for that matter. Like Forum_account for instance. A decent, well-planned username. I know he has something valid to bring the to the argument before he even types a word because his username shows he means business. Your username? Not so much.
Besides, the Wikipedia page didn't say that. It says absolutely nothing about games being made in the first 2 hours. I was merely testing to see if you would actually read it. And it appears you didn't otherwise you would have known this. You fell into my trap like the feeble little mongrel you are. From this incident, I think we can all conclude two things: 1. You can't come up with decent usernames ( or spell them correctly ) 2. You can't read #2 being the most important because if you can't read, how could you possibly have any knowledge about the topic? CONCEDE | |
When I said we're talking about BYOND games I was referring to the fact that you're mentioning MMORPGs like WoW, when those are games are of a whole different level. You have no power or control over who does or doesn't have a place in this argument (or any argument), so your opinion is invalid. I made this username nearly 5 years ago (which, may I remind you, is longer than the time you've been on BYOND), when I was a kid, and I'm not planning on changing it any time soon, deal with it. What amuses me is the fact that you run out of things to say and you're losing an argument so you start personally attacking me. Pity.
I clearly didn't imply that I had read the wikipedia page or looked at it, I was working off of the fact that you said it does contain those words. You just destroyed one of your strongest points of argument (which by the way are nowhere near on topic), and in doing so made yourself look like an idiot. I "fell into your trap"? Do you know how stupid you're making yourself look like right now? Your attempts to make yourself look smart just failed miserably and, IMO, backfired. | |
IMO the gameplay should be made before you even start programming. If not, you're probably herping around and won't get anything done.
In all honesty, there is a time limit. While there is no official time limit imposed (but if you're a professional on the job there might be...) there is a time limit. And no, I'm not making the obvious "You might die" argument. Remember what programming is, and who is doing it. It is heavily implied that it is the immature 13 year olds that are doing the | |
I think art is just as important to a game as gameplay.
Without art there is no gameplay Art is what translates the gameplay to the user | |