Quote:So, if game play does over rules game graphics, if someone made a game based with Quake format models, but the game play was amazing. Would it do well, or will the graphics kill its success?

I don't think it would have a big market appeal. You wouldn't get the intense interest that "new"er graphics would generate. Over time you would get more and more people interested in it, but by then the innovative gameplay will become known and other developers will learn from your game and start producing copies with better graphics.

The games with better graphics and similar gameplay will then over shadow your production and it won't gain many more players.

In a static development environment where no new games are produced, then yes, this kind of game would come to dominate, but because developers are making new games and they learn from games already on the market, if you didn't produce good graphics, then someone will "copy" your gameplay and give theirs better graphics, so out performing your own production.

You will get a short period between your game getting wide spread awareness and other developers making their own version with better graphics. But you will sell (or at least more people will play) more copies if you put more emphasis on graphics (which means you would have had to take resources off of other aspects like gameplay).

Another common mistake that indie developers make is thinking that they know what "good gameplay" is. They think that because they don't like a certain popular game, that it's gameplay is "bad", and all the people who like it must only like it because of its graphics. They also tend to think that the game they are working on is indisputably "good", and that anyone who doesn't like it is simply blinded by their bad graphics. Unfortunately, a lot of indie projects have poor graphics AND poor gameplay.

The moral of the story is: don't just assume that every popular game is "bad" and that if people could just see past your sucky graphics that they'd like your game. Most people legitimately like the gameplay of their favorite games.

OK, let's put it this way: What games are popular today (well, as popular as a game that old would be)? The ones with 'revolutionary' graphics when they were released or the ones with good gameplay? Starcraft is how old and it is still the standard RTS tournament game. Heck, breakout is about as simple as you can get graphically, yet it can still take up alot of time because it is fun. Same goes for tetris, etc. Actually, look at most casual games, they aren't highly realistic, but they take up a heck of alot of people's time. Then there are the classic RPGs. Baldur's Gate is just about the most fun I've ever had with a game, I didn't even have that much fun with morrowind, whose graphics were obviously better. And who here hasn't spent atleast 3-4 collective years (ok, maybe I'm a exagerating a bit) playing roguelikes.

Now let's look at what was graphically revolutionary. I truthfully, being only 5 years old or so when these games came out, don't know what games were graphically advanced. I haven't heard any "OMG that game from 10 years ago was so good, it is the best looking game ever, though the gameplay was a bit lack."

So obviously what we get from this is that gameplay gives you staying power (and I like RPGs). If you want a quick "Wow, that looks cool." sale, then go for graphics, but, IMHO, for a really good game, graphics take a backseat to gameplay.

Quote:Original post by PCN
So, if game play does over rules game graphics, if someone made a game based with Quake format models, but the game play was amazing. Would it do well, or will the graphics kill its success?

Depends. It's not really about how many polygons you can render, but how you use them.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a Quake era graphics engine for delivering a good game, even by today's standards. However it would only work with a graphics that favour style over fine detail or realism, something that works with low-poly models and simplistic texturing. Something cartoony and abstract might be an example.

Something along the lines of Quake itself wouldn't cut it, as the game of Quake was essentially just a big advertisement for the Quake engine (I suppose I have to qualify that with "in my opinion", but it seemed pretty obvious to me; why else was everything 3D, including fire and explosions which would have looked so much better with billboard sprites?). But I don't think this was a limitation of the engine itself - just the game of the same name. For example, look at Hexen II which came out a bit later using the same engine; while it still suffers a bit from 3D for 3D's sake it was (IMO) miles better from an artistic perspective than Quake.

I personally don't think there's much excuse for truly bad graphics (except for hobby games done for learning purposes). If you can't find an artist there's plenty of abstract styles you can go for that aren't that difficult to draw. You may be limited in what you can create, but that's part and parcel with the whole game making gig (and part of what makes it fun!)