What is acceptable quality for game art?
by Anton Bursch · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 12/10/2005 (11:05 am) · 13 replies
Say I want to make a 3d game. What is the standard for art quality that I should be shooting for? I know that there is a standard in many people's minds because I read comments in plans and images of the day about the quality of the artwork in snapshots. So, I would like to know what people in this community think is acceptable quality for game art. I know that the answers will differ especially since level of detail differs greatly between different game types such as FPS and RTS. Tell me what you think. Snapshots of examples of art that does it right or wrong or better or worse than average are especially welcome. This is a topic that weighs on the minds of every aspiring game artist and I think that a discussion on the subject would be very helpful.
To start it off. Here's a snapshot of a AAA MMO in development based off of Conan the Barbarian. For an MMO, it looks damn good to me. What do you guys think? If I wanted to make a medieval game, would I be safe to aim for this level of quality?
To start it off. Here's a snapshot of a AAA MMO in development based off of Conan the Barbarian. For an MMO, it looks damn good to me. What do you guys think? If I wanted to make a medieval game, would I be safe to aim for this level of quality?
About the author
I design and direct games for Somatic Vision. We primarily make games for use with biofeedback, but our latest game, Tropical Heat, a jet ski racing game, is for regular gamers and is available on PC/Mac and will be available on ipad and iphone soon.
#2
a) what do you want your game to look like
b) can your art team take it
c) are you willing to put the effort needed to make sure that everything runs smoothly with the high level art.
d) you are willing to deal with the inflated development time(and trust me. it WILL inflate)
The game i'm working on(The Third Reich) has *very* high graphical standards, and as such, it is taking us a long time to get everything done and the like. If you are willing to deal with the terms above, sure, you could have higher level of details ingame. But it's also a balance between if you wanna let people with older machines play.
(and agreed that does look nice)
But as for very high ends of detail:
That's some of our stuff(we're still working on alot of map/decorative content. i wasnt kidding about high detail taking longer)
But we're on the high end of graphics even by some next gen standards. Most games would suffice for far lower than that.
It's really a decision based on 2 things: 1) where is your target platform, and thusly, how hard can you push the graphics; and 2) do you NEED high quality graphics, or can you suffice with faking stuff and making it low poly to fit your game needs etc. basically, what fits your game(you probably wouldnt need 8k poly models for a cel shaded game really...)
Hope that helps a tad, though i'm sure people can give a better insight on this sorta thing.
12/10/2005 (11:14 am)
It's really a question of a) what do you want your game to look like
b) can your art team take it
c) are you willing to put the effort needed to make sure that everything runs smoothly with the high level art.
d) you are willing to deal with the inflated development time(and trust me. it WILL inflate)
The game i'm working on(The Third Reich) has *very* high graphical standards, and as such, it is taking us a long time to get everything done and the like. If you are willing to deal with the terms above, sure, you could have higher level of details ingame. But it's also a balance between if you wanna let people with older machines play.
(and agreed that does look nice)
But as for very high ends of detail:
That's some of our stuff(we're still working on alot of map/decorative content. i wasnt kidding about high detail taking longer)
But we're on the high end of graphics even by some next gen standards. Most games would suffice for far lower than that.
It's really a decision based on 2 things: 1) where is your target platform, and thusly, how hard can you push the graphics; and 2) do you NEED high quality graphics, or can you suffice with faking stuff and making it low poly to fit your game needs etc. basically, what fits your game(you probably wouldnt need 8k poly models for a cel shaded game really...)
Hope that helps a tad, though i'm sure people can give a better insight on this sorta thing.
#3
There are pro's and con's to that decision.
Con's could be: Limited customer base, more extended and expensive development time.
Requirement of some serious hardware to develop.
12/10/2005 (11:15 am)
Hello Anton, I think a simple answer would be, Yes TSE would make that quality or better. There are pro's and con's to that decision.
Con's could be: Limited customer base, more extended and expensive development time.
Requirement of some serious hardware to develop.
#4
If the detail adds significantly to the gameplay then you need it. If it doesn't, then you have to weight how much the details are worth for marketing your game against their cost for development. And also take into account what hardware your target audience is running. Telling them they have to buy a new card or pc to play your game usually doesn't go over very well with a casual gamer.
12/10/2005 (12:13 pm)
I think its more important that the artwork for a game be consistent and polished rather than super-high detail. Of course this also depends on your target audience. If you are trying to target the hardcore fans of AAA FPS titles, then most of them are going to laugh at anything less than HL2 at this point. But, if you are going for a target that doesnt upgrade their video card every year then lower detail with a consistent look would be the better goal.If the detail adds significantly to the gameplay then you need it. If it doesn't, then you have to weight how much the details are worth for marketing your game against their cost for development. And also take into account what hardware your target audience is running. Telling them they have to buy a new card or pc to play your game usually doesn't go over very well with a casual gamer.
#5
I think good art does enhance the playing experience, but as others have said it's tough and time consuming to reach that. If it comes down to where to spend your time, I would think the time is better spent on enhancing game play rather than graphics. If it's a matter of money, then it really comes down to how much you're willing to spend vs. the return you think you'll get because of the great graphics.
12/10/2005 (12:16 pm)
That's some serious eye candy. If you can get that quality, more power to you.I think good art does enhance the playing experience, but as others have said it's tough and time consuming to reach that. If it comes down to where to spend your time, I would think the time is better spent on enhancing game play rather than graphics. If it's a matter of money, then it really comes down to how much you're willing to spend vs. the return you think you'll get because of the great graphics.
#6
My all time favorite game is still an old vector graphic game.
Having said that, art should not detract from a game either. Ideally, it complements the game design on all levels.
As far as quality goes, if you don't notice the art because you are having fun, then the art is good enough.
That is my opinion, for what it is worth.
12/10/2005 (12:38 pm)
Speaking as an artist who has worked on a number of published games, art takes a back seat to game design.My all time favorite game is still an old vector graphic game.
Having said that, art should not detract from a game either. Ideally, it complements the game design on all levels.
As far as quality goes, if you don't notice the art because you are having fun, then the art is good enough.
That is my opinion, for what it is worth.
#7
I agree that the fun factor is far more important than the art. But its the screen shots (aka the visuals for the game) that sell it. It's like a book cover, It's what gets people to pick it up and take a look.
12/10/2005 (1:20 pm)
@ Joseph,I agree that the fun factor is far more important than the art. But its the screen shots (aka the visuals for the game) that sell it. It's like a book cover, It's what gets people to pick it up and take a look.
#8
01/08/2006 (1:56 pm)
Yes, I second, third, whatever that the fun factor is king. For instance, Morrowind is probably the most fun RPG I have ever played. It is right up there with the Mines of Moria (text based version like Nethack). Compare that to "The Lord of the Rings, The Third Age" which has some of the best graphics I have seen in a RPG (if you can call it that). The game way too linear and can only really be played once. You might as well save yoursellf some time and just watch the movies. So the question is, spend time on game play, or spend time on how it looks. I have probably had at least 20 characters in Morrowind and may NEVER finish the Lord of the Rings game.
#9
Most of this is redundant but I believe that artwork is very important regardless of the scope of the game. It is not as important as actual gameplay but still it is high up there as one of the top 3-5 selling points.
Art is the packaging around your gameplay. In online markets you could say it is even more important to have a good looking game than in the retail markets. People are going to read reviews and look at screenshots of your game not only to evaluate whether or not they should buy it... but they are going to evaluate whether it is even worth their time to download and install. If you can't get people to download the game you are not going to get the conversion rate into actual sales.
When people read about and look at screens of your game they should immediately be captivated by what they see. If you fail to draw their interest you have potentially failed to get a sale out of them.
The flip side of this argument is that brilliant titles should get the recognition they deserve regardless of appearance. The question is how many truly brilliant titles are there out there and are you working on one? Even if you are working on one then why would you take the chance of having someone pass your awesome game by because you did not take time to polish the graphics? You should be doing everything in your power to make your brilliant game sell like hotcakes.
Being successful in this business is hard enough... do all you can to make sure things work in your favor.
I actually think some indie games are doing themselves a disservice by not taking art seriously. This does not mean you need the most realistic artwork ever... just that when people play your game they are not distracted by poorly animated or textured art. There are many art styles out there, find one that fits within the scope of your project/budget/skillset without sacrificing quality.
If you don't have an eye for art then finding someone who can play that role for you is important.
That said... you still need a core design that is fun/challenging/and captivating or else people are not going to buy your game anyway. =)
-Unk
01/08/2006 (3:16 pm)
Hey Anton,Most of this is redundant but I believe that artwork is very important regardless of the scope of the game. It is not as important as actual gameplay but still it is high up there as one of the top 3-5 selling points.
Art is the packaging around your gameplay. In online markets you could say it is even more important to have a good looking game than in the retail markets. People are going to read reviews and look at screenshots of your game not only to evaluate whether or not they should buy it... but they are going to evaluate whether it is even worth their time to download and install. If you can't get people to download the game you are not going to get the conversion rate into actual sales.
When people read about and look at screens of your game they should immediately be captivated by what they see. If you fail to draw their interest you have potentially failed to get a sale out of them.
The flip side of this argument is that brilliant titles should get the recognition they deserve regardless of appearance. The question is how many truly brilliant titles are there out there and are you working on one? Even if you are working on one then why would you take the chance of having someone pass your awesome game by because you did not take time to polish the graphics? You should be doing everything in your power to make your brilliant game sell like hotcakes.
Being successful in this business is hard enough... do all you can to make sure things work in your favor.
I actually think some indie games are doing themselves a disservice by not taking art seriously. This does not mean you need the most realistic artwork ever... just that when people play your game they are not distracted by poorly animated or textured art. There are many art styles out there, find one that fits within the scope of your project/budget/skillset without sacrificing quality.
If you don't have an eye for art then finding someone who can play that role for you is important.
That said... you still need a core design that is fun/challenging/and captivating or else people are not going to buy your game anyway. =)
-Unk
#10
I unfortunatly dont own tge and dont do any 3d type art, so i dont know what it takes to get 3d art at a semi-profesisonal level.. i mean, besides a lot of money (money can buy anything)
for 2d art, i have some ideas that i think will give me a good bang-for-the buck...
if you know of good ways of getting art to a respectible level cheaply, i'd love to hear :)
01/08/2006 (3:59 pm)
Lol.. anton, that's a good question you asked.. but using this as your benchmark? that's like asking if having FX as good as StarWars Episode III is good enough to be taken seriously.I unfortunatly dont own tge and dont do any 3d type art, so i dont know what it takes to get 3d art at a semi-profesisonal level.. i mean, besides a lot of money (money can buy anything)
for 2d art, i have some ideas that i think will give me a good bang-for-the buck...
if you know of good ways of getting art to a respectible level cheaply, i'd love to hear :)
#11
Two recent games I have played used low poly counts and texture sizes, but their utilization of stylized art was remarkable. Stylization can be used to work within limitations, and World of Warcraft along with Psychonauts shows how it should be done. The art direction in those games just surpasses the technical limitations of the objects to such a level that you no longer notice that everything is low poly and the textures are low resolution.
So I would say even more important than focusing on the technical merits of each piece of art would be focusing on a consistent and compelling art direction for your game. Consider using stylization to work within the limitations of your art team's production capacity while maintaining a look that will sell your game. If you go for the "realistic" look keep in mind that your art will be compared to the latest games going that route, like Half-life 2, FEAR, and your Conan screenshots. Creating art content for a game like that could take up twice as many resources and not really have any greater visual impact than say, World of Warcraft.
edit:
For your question, I think it would be feasible for you to aim for that level of artwork, it just depends on how many artist resources you have. I would say you would need a pretty big team if you are creating a large world with lots of creatures and characters to interact with. If you were able to come up with a game design clever enough to encompass a small area with only a few characters then it becomes much more feasible.
If you want something larger like Morrowind or an MMO try to determine how many weeks each artist will need to concept, model, texture, normal-map each character/creature, and animate then bug test them. Determine the same for each object, building, level design and mapping of complete areas. After a while I think you will understand why art teams are growing to 50+ in AAA titles and costs are in the millions.
01/09/2006 (2:04 am)
Personally I think Art Direction would make all the difference. Looking at those pics they do not look very enticing to me. Their color palette seems to consist of 90% browns and the world does not make me want to explore it.Two recent games I have played used low poly counts and texture sizes, but their utilization of stylized art was remarkable. Stylization can be used to work within limitations, and World of Warcraft along with Psychonauts shows how it should be done. The art direction in those games just surpasses the technical limitations of the objects to such a level that you no longer notice that everything is low poly and the textures are low resolution.
So I would say even more important than focusing on the technical merits of each piece of art would be focusing on a consistent and compelling art direction for your game. Consider using stylization to work within the limitations of your art team's production capacity while maintaining a look that will sell your game. If you go for the "realistic" look keep in mind that your art will be compared to the latest games going that route, like Half-life 2, FEAR, and your Conan screenshots. Creating art content for a game like that could take up twice as many resources and not really have any greater visual impact than say, World of Warcraft.
edit:
For your question, I think it would be feasible for you to aim for that level of artwork, it just depends on how many artist resources you have. I would say you would need a pretty big team if you are creating a large world with lots of creatures and characters to interact with. If you were able to come up with a game design clever enough to encompass a small area with only a few characters then it becomes much more feasible.
If you want something larger like Morrowind or an MMO try to determine how many weeks each artist will need to concept, model, texture, normal-map each character/creature, and animate then bug test them. Determine the same for each object, building, level design and mapping of complete areas. After a while I think you will understand why art teams are growing to 50+ in AAA titles and costs are in the millions.
#12
01/14/2006 (3:26 pm)
Having been working on ONE piece of artwork for my game for 3 weeks I have come to understand why there is a limit to the number of objects each game employs. I am hoping to either: get better at creating art work, and 2 be able to reuse artwork by using the original IP in other games.
#13
@Anton: As it has already been stated, I agree that you can aim for that level of quality, as long as you consider the level of expertise your artist(s) has, your art direction, which I think is essential to outline, and to the degree of technical abilities the engine you are using has to enhance the effect. In the case of TSE, this is quite attainable.
01/14/2006 (5:58 pm)
@Joe: I very much agree with you in regards to the importance of art direction. I do think that the technical as important, but in a different capacity. In WoW, there is a good use of specular lighting on the terrain, sky glow (similar to TSE if I'm no tmistaken), and a few other effects that help to add to the experience without an overreliance on them. I think at times people think its the other way around, and you get these discussions on how one engine compares to another graphically, without considering what you can do potentially with the one that might not have all the bells and whistles of it counterpart. @Anton: As it has already been stated, I agree that you can aim for that level of quality, as long as you consider the level of expertise your artist(s) has, your art direction, which I think is essential to outline, and to the degree of technical abilities the engine you are using has to enhance the effect. In the case of TSE, this is quite attainable.
Associate Joseph Euan
(So many games have failed because of it)
As long as the game is fun... not many people are going to care about how it looks.