I know saying that will get me flak but I think it’s simply the harsh truth. Nobody wants to play a game if the graphics are very bad. No matter how deep the gameplay is. Most people would rather play a basic game with good graphics than a deep game with MS paint graphics.
I’m not saying that good graphics and deep gameplay are mutually exclusive. I’m just saying that I feel people and especially devs are in denial about the importance of graphics. It seems to me like it’s considered almost dirty to admit the massively important role that graphics play in getting people interested. In a way one could compare it to physical attraction: Sure personally is what makes a person stick with you, but your looks is what got you through the door in the first place. If your looks are bad, then your personality will not be given a chance to shine.
Some will attempt to argue that good graphics don’t matter if the gameplay is bad. This is missing the point. Yes, if the gameplay is bad then people will give up on the game. But here is the vital difference: Even bad games still do in fact get a chance before they are dismissed, as long as the graphics create a good initial impression. This isn’t the case with games that have bad graphics. First impressions are NOT determined by game mechanics. They are determined by the graphics. A bad game with good graphics will typically get a chance at least. Games with bad graphics will not get a chance.
For the purposes of convincing people to try out your game: Graphics > Deep gameplay
I can point to so, SO many popular games that don’t have some massive graphical (or even appealing art design) advantage that are sold entirely on their gameplay. Roblox, Minecraft, Totally Accurate Battle Simulator, lots of classic games like Asteroids and Pong that still hold up to this day, I can go on and on and on, especially if we get further into the indie space.
Graphics have supremely diminishing returns. This post? Kinda ridiculous and fundamentally ahistorical.
Play Dwarf Fortress! Or ADOM. or DoomRL. Or Minecraft.
On a more serious note, though, there is a large slew of genres that do not have high fidelity visuals, but are popular. For example, Undertale. Unturned, Plenty of Visual Novels would fall into that category. There’s interactive fiction, which is being sold on steam, and has no visuals at all. Then we had Nidhogg, games by Spiderweb studio, and so on. And Minecraft. And Factorio.
What you say is not a “harsh truth”, but your belief, which, you, for some reason, want to restate. Hopefully you are not seeking approval and agreement here.
The way I see it, beautiful game with shallow gameplay will result in application of steam refund policy.
Honestly, graphics in certain genres are a must, but for most not really so much. Like I still prefer Duke Nukem 3D graphics to most games today, just because I love DN3D - but this could be nostalgia talking here.
BUT, a game like Alien Isolation, if the graphics and atmosphere weren’t the way they were, I wouldn’t have enjoyed the game at all. The atmosphere is what had me hooked, not the Alien, not the story - just the atmosphere. The lighting, the shadows, the GI, the particle systems, etc - all led to a perfect horror atmosphere (in my opinion).
So to me there’s a time and place where graphics really need to shine, but most cases it doesn’t unless it’s very prudent to elaborating the game itself, E.G. - Alien Isolation.
The clue is in title… VIDEO GAMES. Taking a stand or making argument on which is more important is about as useful as saying peanut butter is the most important for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich or track is the most important for track & field or Fry is the most important part of Fry & Laurie. Video games without visuals is D&D, without the game, they are cartoons. The visuals and the game equally important, and their relative value to a specific game is based on that game.
Additionally the subjective terms “good” and “bad” aren’t really of any value. The visual fidelity and realism in Colonial Marines is vastly superior to Minecraft. But that statement doesn’t provide anything meaningful or useful. Minecraft’s visuals perfectly fit the type of game and what the various elements are conveying to the user. If they were replaced with visually more high fidelity / realistic graphics, the game would never have been what it was. Angry birds was fundamentally similar to several other games, but the higher quality (and consistent) visuals told a better story and made the game appealing.
Asking the question, “which is more important…” is basically a complete waste of time. You need to be asking how do the graphics in my game support game play and engage the player. Or how is my game play instructed or influenced by the visual direction / concept. (depending a bit on where the design started from)
The animation is missing, obviously, but it gets at least to the level of turn-based isometrics like Avadon/Avernum (spiderweb). Except it costs much more.
Too many people here don’t understand the difference between graphic style and actually objectively bad graphics. And yes, there IS such a thing as objectively bad graphics. Bad graphics is basically bad design, which is not the same as just not having photorealism in your game. I saw somebody above use Quake 2 as an example, despite the fact that it had what were at the time state of the art graphics. This is a good example of not understanding that different style/older style != bad design.
Spiderweb Software has numerous successful titles that have graphics that are in many cases difficult to read at all. Plenty of roguelikes that make use of tilesets have awful tiles and the ones that don’t use tiles do have what can easily be called bad graphics. You are trying to frame your opinion as truth but the fact is that there are numerous examples to the contrary that you are ignoring.
