Im making a game with some crappy models for my first game, and I was wondering if these horrid visuals would turn you away. It took alot of work to get these models working in unity (importing/exporting from multiple programs). If I use these characters and props I could have TONS more than if I had HD characters. The gameplay will be similar to CS: Source, but I am planning on adding way more features.
to me it’s about game play…
if the game is fun… then i’ll play it… i remember alot of games that i have played that looked bad but was fun…
Well I’m focusing more on game play than finding amazing models so it should turn out to be fairly entertaining, I hope…
I don’t see anything wrong with those models, the textures are low, but it’s all about gameplay.
The only time graphics REALLY matter, is when they don’t match each other. Like getting free ones from different sources and all different levels of quality, then it sucks. But if they’re all the same quality, same style, it doesn’t really bother me if the game is fun. I still play Daggerfall… nuff said 
I’ve played Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth. That game has veeery dated graphics and very frustrating gameplay bugs (try shothing something that you can’t see because a graphic glitch makes the target invisible). Still I loved it from start to finish.
So - yeah! If a game is really good I’d play it despite bad graphics.
Every game needs to have some new feature to offer to the player, graphics are only one thing, AAA games constantly step it up a notch graphic wise, so that’s THEIR new thing. But that doesn’t mean your game absolutely needs good graphics, your new thing can be something else, gameplay wise.
Personally I think gameplay can go a longer way than better graphics. Why? Because graphics are something you get tired of fast, a good gameplay can last much longer before the fun goes away, sometimes good gameplay NEVER ceases to be fun!
It’s self-explanatory. If you’re a modeler or helluva texture artist = go to Epic or Crytek. If you have a brain, patience and good ideas = make something good, and let the graphics be what they need be. They are no more important than you make them.
Thanks for your input guys!
You models / textures look OK, but the lighting is horrible. Either bake some ambient / GI light or add a couple more real time lights and it will look 10x better.
To answer the question posted in the thead’s title, if a game has crappy graphics, I won’t even bother launching it. It’s the graphics that lures me to try a game. Game play is what keeps me there.
3D graphic age a lot worse than 2D spries.
It’s like with movies. No matter how high-tech your special effects are, if they look crappy and out of place I’ll tather take puppets where you can see the strings. It all boils down to making the game not look technically good, but to be able to create the right mood in the player’s mind. So don’t waste too mauch time on modelling all the pollygons, but rather create a good atmosphere and feeling.
Think about the old Star Wars movies, where all the puppets looked better than the CGI in the modern modern ones, even though the CGI is better technically.
If the gameplay is like cs and it looks like cs1.6, I would not play it.
The visuals are bad, the gameplay is boring.
Oh…ok
Ill be working on the game today, Im working on simple AI. When I get the demo posted it might be easier to decide wether you like it or not.
Depends on the genre. It doesn’t have to have all the new graphical blingbling features but it has to be well executed. If the graphics look amateur I will assume it was made by an amateur so ofcourse graphics will color my judgement of the game in whole. But as I said it depends what type of game it is. A backgammon game and an FPS requires different types of graphics where the latter is much harder to do well than the former. Going for the realistic approach is usually not the best idea for an indie developer because it is hard, expensive and the big boys will always be many steps ahead. Its better to be creative and try something new instead
I would say having a good visual style is more important than good “graphics”. I’ll happily play games that look “bad”, like Minecraft, for example. But the screenshot you gave just doesn’t look appealing to me… it doesn’t look bad, it looks old, like something that would have looked good five years ago.
The main problem you’ve got going is the textures. They’re low res and they look runny. If you could get higher-res and brighter textures, the low model quality could be overlooked.
if the game is boring i would not play it even if it has life like graphics, better worry of having a funny gameplay, then later figure out a visual style of your own, if you want it to look bad, make it look it bad on purpose… minecraft and other 8 bit loving games are the proof…
but dont spend too much on try to achieve hd graphics if you are not capable of doing so… it would take you time from imagining a entertaining gameplay and you will fall short in both aspects at the end which is not good at all
Different people have different things they look for in a “good” game. Some do not care even a little bit about the graphics; judging only based upon game mechanics. Others will play “Grocery List Maker 4: Return of Fajita Night” if it has HD graphics, soft shadows, and enough particle effects to send someone into a seizure.
Best thing you can do is make each individual aspect of your game as “good” as you are capable of. Push it to the limit of your skill. If you can do better graphics in a decent amount of time (without having to sacrifice too much from some other aspect of the game) then do so. If not, then what you have will be fine.
I do agree that keeping a “style” throughout is important, but even that can/will be over-looked by certain players if they enjoy the game-play enough.
Why do we use the term gameplay and how do people define it? Wiki says “the overall experience playing a game excluding graphics and sound”. This makes no sense at all since you can’t experience a game without graphics and/or sound. Furthermore bad graphics and sound can make the game totally confusing which effects how you play the game. Why not stick to using game mechanics since that is clearly distinct from graphics?
How do you define good graphics?
To me, good graphics are defined as a consistent art style which looks professional. It doesn’t have much to do with the amount of polygons/ and flashy post processing effects. Also, it is of paramount importance that you create at the very least a decent atmosphere for your game.
So yes, “good graphics”, meaning a consistent art style and an enticing atmosphere are required so your players don’t rip their eyes off by looking at your game. It could be 8 bit pixelated 2D sprites just as much as cutting edge 3D effects… it needs a good execution either way.
Therefore, you are MUCH better off using collision boxes than “ugly” graphics, so they can be more easily ignored in favor of gameplay.
Also I’m not sure whoever defined gameplay as “excluding graphics and sound”, but it does make sense under the perspective of “gameplay systems analysis”.
Graphics entice me to give it a go but gameplay keeps me going.
Take Zynga games. They say ‘Vampire’ and have a few teeth sticking out and I spent months of my life just clicking buttons and reading ‘You won’. Wait… did I just contradict myself there? 
Take those games where the game goes on wether you are there or not. You assign some people to hunt, some to forrage, some to breed and some to study alchemy and others to study carpentry. You then let them do their thing and have some random interaction thrown into the mix. Those games kept us busy for weeks on end even though the graphics totally sucked. Even for 2D. The graphics were like dogs: The uglier they are the more you love them out of pity and each time they reward you with some affection or a good deed, you just can’t stay away…