I agree that graphics are important for the reasons you state, but I’m having a hard time trying to think of games where you couldn’t re-skin the graphics with boxes and have it play any differently (since I’m looking for a connection to actual mechanics, not just environmental “feel”).
I’ll also admit to being a “graphics whore” myself. What can I say, I like the purdy pictars.
I wouldn’t call those bad graphics though. Super minimalist, yes, but it has a 2D lighting system and the “characters” deform slightly with impact on the ground.
You might be in the extreme minority of people who think this way, I’ve never heard this from anybody else.
I think we need to scrounge up ugly games. So far, nobody has mentioned anything like what I’m talking about.
People who actually played rock simulator 2014, are the ones who get the game because of graphics, rest assured they will buy any graphically impressive game, and wont play dwarf fortress.
Picking a game is like picking cars, do you pick because its eco-friendly? or it lasts longer on the road? or is it shinier or more attractive? do you pick it because it has 15 inch wheels? or do you pick it because your friend has one aswell? or do you pick it based on the reviews? or is it because you can talk back to it? or is it because it has a rear cam? maybe its because you have a drivers license but you dont know what to do with it? Metaphor/simile.
I agree with you 100% on a games graphics being important. The style is important having a consistent look and style across the objects. Or at least it gives a better first impression. I also agree about a person’s expectations of a game being set in large part by the graphics style and quality. And definitely agree about the feedback of the graphics. For me that is the most important thing. Do the graphics effectively communicate the information the game is trying to tell the player.
For the record, I really enjoy computer art greatly and have spent a lot of time checking out the work of digital artists. Even watch videos of them bring their creations to life starting with a quick sketch and lining it out then color and details. All I am really saying is I see graphics kind of like the whole “don’t judge a book by its cover” idiom.
Really what most of us retro (aka classic or “old school”) gamers want is the same basic games from years ago but with everything improved a bit. That is the graphics to look basically the same but be higher res with a bit more detail and perhaps a bit of extra color. The game play to be basically the same but fixed where it was bad and otherwise improved but ever so slightly. I don’t think any of us really think those games had the greatest graphics of all time. lol But buried behind those primitive graphics was a decent game. And because the graphics were so primitive the actual game (play experience) became far more important. And that is why I am mentioning the retro gaming thing here.
Anyway, here are 4 classic games from the TI-99/4a days:
These are 4 very popular classic games. I was gonna track down the remakes for all of them but I would rather get back to work on my project. 
And here is the original Moon Patrol on TI-99/4a and 3 relatively modern remakes of it:
Of these 4 I like the graphics of the original and the one in the lower right corner the best.
The one in the lower left corner would have been perfect for a remake except the most important object of the game (the moon buggy!) has been drastically changed. If the vehicle from the 4th image was in the 3rd image retro gamers everywhere would be thrilled (assuming the game played well). But I think #4 is pretty cool.
Here is the TI-99/4a Tunnels of Doom and the modern remake of it:
Blah! I don’t what in hell is going on here. To me the clear winner is the original. The original is Tunnels of Doom. The graphics are very clean and crisp. The game on the right could be any 3D dungeon crawler or even some kind of Wolfenstein game for that matter. The graphics are much more detailed and look kind of messy as a result.
Anyway, I thought I would throw these out there for you or whoever to suggest which games are examples of “ugly games”.
Or go ahead and throw out some modern games screenshots. I think this will be interesting. But we need to stop just discussing it and throw some examples up of what are excellent graphics and what are terrible graphics.
Sometimes the art distracts me from the game itself, this is why i actually like retro graphics more than todays graphics. Its not as distracting, it gets you to the point fast and quick.
I like the top right image of Moon Patrol because it has more negative space and thus higher contrast between objects.
Both versions of Tunnels of Doom look fugly to me. The original version makes me think that their motif for door design was “carnival tent”. That said, I can still tell that those are supposed to be doors (or at least shower curtains) in both versions and therefore deduce the object’s function. I’m still not getting how unappealing graphics detract from the game’s mechanics in that sense.
Ha ha! See it is all in the eye of the beholder. You like what is actually the simplest least detailed graphics of them all. A simple fading gradient. No secondary mountain range.
Well I never said I agree that a games graphics detract from play mechanics. To me those are entirely two separate things. There is the game. The actual game-play experience of player, controls, play mechanics and feedback. At its simplest it is just a feedback loop. Player does something. Game responds. Game does something. Player responds.
Most designers see it as a feedback loop on one side only. I see it as a feedback loop on both sides. Our game and the player are doing the same things. Player is interacting with the game. Communicating with the game through controls and receiving the result (feedback) through graphics and sounds. At the same time our game is interacting with the player. Communicating with the player through graphics and sounds (that is the communication method and the message could be hey I just spawned 3 more things to kill you how ya gonna deal with that sucker? Or it could be a reply to the player’s last interaction) and receiving the response through the controls.
Anyway what you are saying has been my view and point entirely. The game itself is one thing. It is this logical thing existing in code it basically is built frame by frame on the fly responding to the player and implementing its own plan. The graphics are merely the representation of the game. Changing the graphics quality does not change the game. However changing the graphics objects themselves to fit a different story can change the feel of the game. For example if instead of a moon buggy it was an astronaut running although the player would still be moving, jumping and shooting the game would feel a little different. Actually, I think many people would call it a kind of Infinite Runner game.
I agree with you on that. I think any good game pulls you in so much to focus on the play mechanics that you do not actually notice the graphics or the sounds as far as what their quality is or perhaps even shape. A good game puts the player into a very specific state I think Gigi described it as Flow. That is as good of a term as any. In that state I believe the player no longer sees the graphics themselves. Nor do they hear the sounds themselves. Instead they see only messages coming from the game. They hear only messages coming from the game. And that is what the goal should be for any game designer.
And I would actually remove the gradient and just use an outline for the mountains.
Anyway, my comment about not understanding how bad graphics effect gameplay wasn’t directed at you. I think we both see the presentation layer as something that can be separated from the mechanics. I’m just trying to figure out the point that Misterselmo is trying to make.
I got advice some time ago. “Your art can be great, or it can suck. Just make sure it’s consistently cohesive, throughout.” So, now, I pick a theme and stick with it.
One of my oldest apps, The Gratitude Habit looked like this:
The art was drawn by hand, and mostly black and white. As I got better, so did the graphics, as you can see in an updated version of Good Sex, Great Marriage:
In both apps, the art feels cohesive. Good and bad, both apps work - by which I mean people like them, make purchases, rate them highly. Recently, Gigi has begun releasing games (no more OCI!) - my art has improved, and so has my understanding of UI design.
Here’s some principles I try to follow:
It’s more than just ‘Make It Pretty’,
Gigi
Lol… that’s how you make it pretty. That is a very moderate approach, simplicity, consistency.
There’s different kinds of visual appeal.
Symmetry, for example, that’s a big one.
Fukinsei, on the other hand, says that imperfection and asymmetry is beauty:
You can’t lose by improving.
http://www.ctrlpaint.com/ - the basics of design I was talking about.
I stick to it: It’s not the amount of detail that matters but solid basics and a sensible style decission.
This is the most condensed description of an actually very complex idea I can come up with, at the moment.
I’m glad we can talk about graphics as more than just some trivial artwork, but as an important part of the game itself.
They go hand in hand.
Sorry, I didn’t read replies.
Graphics and sound affect the feel of the game and give you something to look at.
Gameplay affects your interaction with the game and gives you something to do.
Both are very important and interdependent. In most cases graphics must serve gameplay. (“Gameplay first.”) Good graphic design makes game mechanics more clear and gives satisfying feedback, making player’s actions more rewarding.
We all know what happens when developers are too preoccupied with graphics, but on the other hand, if graphics are not good enough, game just won’t feel good to play.
As mentioned, sound can be as powerful or even more powerful tool to provide a right feeling for the game.
Why not? It’s a fair question.
Gigi
Ain’t nobody got time for that.
I was reading on Coding Horror the other day that there’s a growing trend towards tracking people’s read count rather than their post count. I think it’s a great idea.
The general concept is that the currently prevalent post count system encourages people to talk, so they rush through the reading bit (or skip it entirely) to get to the posting part as soon as they can. This severely diminished the quality of conversation, though, because listening to the other people is (at least) half of being a good conversationalist. How can you contribute effectively to a discussion if you haven’t even bothered to read what people have said so far?* So instead some are starting to reward time spent reading, to encourage less posts, but posts of greater value because they’re made by people actively engaging with their community rather than plopping something out in a drive-by interaction.