Art Is Everything
by Erik Madison · in General Discussion · 01/18/2005 (12:21 pm) · 26 replies
Just a random observation that's full impact recently hit me.
I'm a bargain gamer, most of the games I play have been out awhile so I can buy them cheaper. Few games are worth the $50 they all seem to be now.
So I'm playing side by side Call of Duty and MOHAA. Both games are based on the same engine, released about the same time, and I assume had similar budgets.
I'm _not_ a WWII fan so I was pretty objective.
Call of Duty blew me away. Many times I had to just stop and watch the ambient action happening. Planes are flying all over, some being shot down, some bombing unseen areas. The ruined buildings were beautiful, and looked pretty much like I expected a hell hole to look.
Then I fire up MOHAA, and happily watch a really good intro cutscene. Well, thats about all the game had going for it. Absolutely nothing is happening in the way of ambience. The buildings are simple prefab looking blocky things with a few random chunks missing for bomb holes. Other than bezier patch trees, every level looks a whole lot like some kids very first Halflife 1 map. Many of the buildings contained light leaks, glowing strips of light under every wall, etc. Piles of rubble would be stacked in the corner of the building that was whole, while areas that were bombed would have nothing. Damn, I could have built better levels than this, and I am not an artist unless you count paint-by-number sets.
Both games of course had this and that I would have fixed up as a coder. But as a player, I realized I didn't care as much about the code. I cared only about the beauty and realism of the environment. My end thought is this: If you want a _great_ game, rush out right now and double your artists salary :)
I'm a bargain gamer, most of the games I play have been out awhile so I can buy them cheaper. Few games are worth the $50 they all seem to be now.
So I'm playing side by side Call of Duty and MOHAA. Both games are based on the same engine, released about the same time, and I assume had similar budgets.
I'm _not_ a WWII fan so I was pretty objective.
Call of Duty blew me away. Many times I had to just stop and watch the ambient action happening. Planes are flying all over, some being shot down, some bombing unseen areas. The ruined buildings were beautiful, and looked pretty much like I expected a hell hole to look.
Then I fire up MOHAA, and happily watch a really good intro cutscene. Well, thats about all the game had going for it. Absolutely nothing is happening in the way of ambience. The buildings are simple prefab looking blocky things with a few random chunks missing for bomb holes. Other than bezier patch trees, every level looks a whole lot like some kids very first Halflife 1 map. Many of the buildings contained light leaks, glowing strips of light under every wall, etc. Piles of rubble would be stacked in the corner of the building that was whole, while areas that were bombed would have nothing. Damn, I could have built better levels than this, and I am not an artist unless you count paint-by-number sets.
Both games of course had this and that I would have fixed up as a coder. But as a player, I realized I didn't care as much about the code. I cared only about the beauty and realism of the environment. My end thought is this: If you want a _great_ game, rush out right now and double your artists salary :)
About the author
#22
It really doesn't matter whether the coders have done a nice shader setup, nor how the water is created, etc. A great artist can bring you into the world and suspend all (most) disbelief. Crappy art cannot be fixed with great code. Again, I refer only to FP worlds, not smaller fun games like asteroids. And by art, I mean the layout of the world, the design of the buildings, the texturing, the animations, etc.
01/31/2005 (3:17 am)
I think I should clarify I was only considering the FPxx genre, and I still stand by my thoughts. Some of the greatest I've played were missing various code features that would probably have been trivial to add, yet in no way did they detract from the fact that the worlds were extremely beautiful.It really doesn't matter whether the coders have done a nice shader setup, nor how the water is created, etc. A great artist can bring you into the world and suspend all (most) disbelief. Crappy art cannot be fixed with great code. Again, I refer only to FP worlds, not smaller fun games like asteroids. And by art, I mean the layout of the world, the design of the buildings, the texturing, the animations, etc.
#23
Wow, I remember really enjoying the NES boxes my game would come in, I had almost forgotten that games had ever come in boxes at all. Now it's just PC and handheld's that come in boxes. But on the plus side, many games are now adding posters in with the instruction manual inside, and no boxes does save trees.
01/31/2005 (11:14 am)
[/quote]and having a descent box goes someway towards it[/quote]Wow, I remember really enjoying the NES boxes my game would come in, I had almost forgotten that games had ever come in boxes at all. Now it's just PC and handheld's that come in boxes. But on the plus side, many games are now adding posters in with the instruction manual inside, and no boxes does save trees.
#24
A sharp, professional, POLISHED game - polished on all fronts, including gameplay, programming (bug-free), interface, and most importantly the art of the game - is gonna go way further than a "gem in the rough," 99/100 times.
I wish there was some magic wand I could wave to make my games that level of polished. But it's possibly the hardest part of game development.
Take a look at some of the best-selling indie games out there. They are 2D. Except for their screen resolution and a scant handful of special effects, they are games that could have been made 20 years ago (some of them are remakes of games made 20 years ago). They don't blow anyone away technologically, but they have beautiful graphics, a simple and easy interface, and gameplay that is clean and refined.
Blizzard's games have a reputation for that same level of quality and a lack of technological innovation. They make games that could have comfortably been released five years earlier from a technological standpoint. But the games are well-tested, run on a large range of machines, look pretty even when the next generation of video cards gets released, and they remain fun, playable, and popular long after newer games have been forgotten.
01/31/2005 (1:11 pm)
It's not about technology, but it is about art.A sharp, professional, POLISHED game - polished on all fronts, including gameplay, programming (bug-free), interface, and most importantly the art of the game - is gonna go way further than a "gem in the rough," 99/100 times.
I wish there was some magic wand I could wave to make my games that level of polished. But it's possibly the hardest part of game development.
Take a look at some of the best-selling indie games out there. They are 2D. Except for their screen resolution and a scant handful of special effects, they are games that could have been made 20 years ago (some of them are remakes of games made 20 years ago). They don't blow anyone away technologically, but they have beautiful graphics, a simple and easy interface, and gameplay that is clean and refined.
Blizzard's games have a reputation for that same level of quality and a lack of technological innovation. They make games that could have comfortably been released five years earlier from a technological standpoint. But the games are well-tested, run on a large range of machines, look pretty even when the next generation of video cards gets released, and they remain fun, playable, and popular long after newer games have been forgotten.
#25
This is so true. This is one point (of many) where Indies can really shine. Try explaining this to a big name publisher who needs a product by Christmas. Seems like oftentimes they'll more likely send out a product that is 80% done just to get it out the door. But the last 10%-20% is the much needed polish.
Like Mr. Barson said, that last 10%-20% is possibly the hardest part. Be ready to cut features that do not fit with the feel of the game or redo that texture for the 10th time or track down that odd bug that happens every 10th time you play.
More on topic, I'd say that all things being equal, the art of the game is the more important part to a game than the programming/tech stuff, it has way more impact than the programming. I think that usually programming quickly goes into the background in a players mind since the routines are almost always looped ad nausium so you quickly get used to how it behaves. Hopefully at least. If you have bugs then the programming shines -- in a bad way.
Gameplay, in my opinion, is an interplay of both art and tech so it is ultimately more important in the end because it combines the major parts but makes it not really comparable to art or tech since it is the sum of both. You quite literally can't have one without the other in order to have gameplay. When prototyping a new gameplay, you at least need to have programmer art. And art assets alone need some sort of interaction from the programming side to be able to have some sort of gameplay.
Polish is not really comparable to art or tech in my opinion, it's something you do to raise the bar in both areas.
01/31/2005 (1:59 pm)
Like Jay Barnson said,Quote:A sharp, professional, POLISHED game - polished on all fronts, including gameplay, programming (bug-free), interface, and most importantly the art of the game - is gonna go way further than a "gem in the rough," 99/100 times.
This is so true. This is one point (of many) where Indies can really shine. Try explaining this to a big name publisher who needs a product by Christmas. Seems like oftentimes they'll more likely send out a product that is 80% done just to get it out the door. But the last 10%-20% is the much needed polish.
Like Mr. Barson said, that last 10%-20% is possibly the hardest part. Be ready to cut features that do not fit with the feel of the game or redo that texture for the 10th time or track down that odd bug that happens every 10th time you play.
More on topic, I'd say that all things being equal, the art of the game is the more important part to a game than the programming/tech stuff, it has way more impact than the programming. I think that usually programming quickly goes into the background in a players mind since the routines are almost always looped ad nausium so you quickly get used to how it behaves. Hopefully at least. If you have bugs then the programming shines -- in a bad way.
Gameplay, in my opinion, is an interplay of both art and tech so it is ultimately more important in the end because it combines the major parts but makes it not really comparable to art or tech since it is the sum of both. You quite literally can't have one without the other in order to have gameplay. When prototyping a new gameplay, you at least need to have programmer art. And art assets alone need some sort of interaction from the programming side to be able to have some sort of gameplay.
Polish is not really comparable to art or tech in my opinion, it's something you do to raise the bar in both areas.
#26
It seems that the developer and artworkers work only on Gore. When they have a powerful graphic engine, they concentrate on a game in an even unhealthy obscure spirit. I do not like Doom3 or HL2. I do not buy a game (50$) to be afraid in the darkness of my room. On the other hand, I like games in way EliteForce2 or COD. A return behind is essential can be. Release haemoglobin and return in GamePlay, major dev ++
Sorry for my bad english ++
02/01/2005 (11:00 am)
Sure, COD is better than MOHAA but i got notified something. It seems that the developer and artworkers work only on Gore. When they have a powerful graphic engine, they concentrate on a game in an even unhealthy obscure spirit. I do not like Doom3 or HL2. I do not buy a game (50$) to be afraid in the darkness of my room. On the other hand, I like games in way EliteForce2 or COD. A return behind is essential can be. Release haemoglobin and return in GamePlay, major dev ++
Sorry for my bad english ++
Torque Owner PuG
One of my favorite all time games was old Dungeon Master, it didn't have a great amount of graphics (the monster looked good but the scenery was all the same), but what made it good was the gameplay and atmosphere. I mean, how many games today do you need to worry about carrying enough food & water to keep your character alive.
Dune 2 and Doom was another good example of quality gameplay, which was never been followed through onto today's market.
I feel that today the major gaming company's are only interested in making a quick buck, by releasing unfinished, untested games which rely on their eye candy rather than gameplay it's self.
Its like how they have phased out the nice boxes that games came in to be replaced by flimsy plastic DVD cases; when I buy a £30 pound game, I want to feel that im getting my moneys worth, and having a descent box goes someway towards it.
Old Stonekeep was a good example, not only did you get an excellent game, but you also got a story book with it based around it.
I do professional graphics myself, I personally prefer working with smaller indie company's as they tend to know the limitations of the graphics engine they are using, and tend to focus on the game atmosphere, script & gameplay rather than fancy effects and graphics.
A lot can be accomplished just using straight Torque, as long as you are willing to sit down and find out what the boundaries are.
The problem is everybody is different on what they want to get out of a game; so unfortunately opinions vary greatly.