25 replies to this topic

[Alextendo]

It's a subject i started talking in a other topic and think it should deserve is own topic as well. Here, we'll talk about the visual in video game, but more precisely the art design. In the industry, some try to make their game look the most realistic possible, others will make their game stand out from the rest by giving their game a visual identity through a specific art style.

 

Some will probably ask me: Alex, why make a game stylize when you can make your game realistic? The anwser is this: Make game cheaper, and help the game to survive the test of time. Game that only want to look ''realistic'' tend to be more brown/grey and become graphicly outdated faster.

 

It's not to say that it's impossible to make a game realistic looking and making the game outdated as soon as a newer game with even better graphic will come out. To avoid such thing, once again, by giving a better art style, you can make your game visually realistic and yet, make you game beatifull for years to come. Look at Silent Hill 2 and 3, or Resident Evil 1 (the remake for the GC): These game right there have realistic visual, and still look good today, despite the presence of more realistic game on the new next-gen system.

 

Yoshi Island for the SNES still look gorgeous today, while other game the last generation can barely look watchable. Bioshock Infinite for the PS3/360 will still look better in the next 5-10 years thanks to his art style, while the newer BF4 for the PS4/One while quickly become visually outdate.

 

What are your thought on that. What do you prefer, realistic graphic or stylize visual and why?

[Uncle Ben]

MineCraft- Showing that Retro is cool

[Alextendo]

Doing a pixelated/retro game is now consider a art style on it's own.

[furrykef]

SimCity is a series that shows the strengths of both approaches. SimCity 3000 was the first game to have high-resolution graphic, and they opted for a highly cartoony style. It is visually one of the best games of the era, and its visual style would easily be competitive even today with an HD makeover.

With SimCity 4, which was the first entry to use 3D graphics, they did a 180 and decided to make the graphics as realistic as possible. I suspect this was in part because toon shading technology hadn't been perfected yet, but also because, well, you're modeling a city. Wouldn't it be cool for it to look like a real city? And so I'm torn, because both approaches make perfect sense, but usually SimCity 3000 appeals to me more. While there's certainly appeal in seeing your city look like a real city, it doesn't have the charm that SC3K's cartoony graphics had.

In most cases, though, it depends on the game. Team Fortress 2 wouldn't be anywhere near the same experience with realistic graphics. Grand Theft Auto IV wouldn't be anywhere near the same experience with cartoony graphics. It's all about what fits.

[Alextendo]

One of the main problem that we will have to deal with on the long term with realistic looking game, is how they'll start to look the same as more as the graphic get closer and closer to reality.

[furrykef]

Doing a pixelated/retro game is now consider a art style on it's own.

Yeah, and this annoys me, because most of the people doing this don't have any idea what retro machines actually looked like. I can think of very few games where I know what machine whose look they're trying to emulate that does it successfully. Mega Man 9 and 10 are about the only ones I know of.

You can't just give something blocky pixels and make it look like a real retro game. You have to know what system you're imitating and at least make a token attempt at abiding by its limitations. For example, the NES only allows one background layer, so if you ever see two background layers, you know you're not looking at an NES game. The NES also had a very limited color palette where all games had to use the same 53 colors. So if you're imitating the NES you need to make sure you're never using anything outside those colors. And so on, and so forth. Most games don't bother and so we just wind up with stupid-looking pixel junk. I'd much rather see an HD style or something. Compare the artwork between Spelunky Classic (which has the problem I've described) and Spelunky HD and it's just no contest.

[Uncle Ben]

Doing a pixelated/retro game is now consider a art style on it's own.

 

Only because of MineCraft clones really.

[Alextendo]

 

Doing a pixelated/retro game is now consider a art style on it's own.

 

Only because of MineCraft clones really.

Not really, it was already a style on his own before Minecraft even exist. Maybe Minecraft could have popularize this style, but he is clearly not responsible for this style by itself.

 

Doing a pixelated/retro game is now consider a art style on it's own.

Yeah, and this annoys me, because most of the people doing this don't have any idea what retro machines actually looked like. I can think of very few games where I know what machine whose look they're trying to emulate that does it successfully. Mega Man 9 and 10 are about the only ones I know of.

3D Dot Game Heroes is one of the most creative idea i saw for a ''pixel'' kind of visual. That is a not only a good game, but it's also a game that didn't simply put pixel onscreen and called it a day.

[Alextendo]

Here's a random list of game i know for the Wii (not the Wii U, the original Wii) that is well stylize and will easily stand the test of time:

-Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2

-Klonoa

-Kirby Return to Dreamland

-Fragiles Dreams

-Madworld

-Wario Land: Shake it!

-Super Paper Mario

 

...and there's certainly more exemple out there. Keep in mind that i only named those i know. Within the next few year, probably even the next few decade, people will look at those game i've just mention and will still find them visualy good.

[furrykef]

Only because of MineCraft clones really.

Funny enough one of my best friends works on Minecraft at Mojang -- he's been obsessed with Minecraft for years now, so it's his dream job -- and he's as annoyed at this trend as I am.

[RedAuthar]

A good example of graphic appeal deterioration is Star Wars Force Unleashed.  When it first came out it was praised for how real the graphics looked...now it's just laughable on how they look.  

 

Yet games like Mega Man Legends which came out years earlier are considered to still look great despite the graphic limitations. 

[Uncle Ben]

 

Only because of MineCraft clones really.

Funny enough one of my best friends works on Minecraft at Mojang -- he's been obsessed with Minecraft for years now, so it's his dream job -- and he's as annoyed at this trend as I am.

 

 

So he knows what junkboy's face looks like? (please tell me you get the joke...)

 

Its the same thing thats happening with flappy bird

[Alextendo]

I've found something that really need to be seen! It's a project, know as ''Total Chaos'' (no, it has nothing to do with the monster from Sonic Adventure) and it's darn good looking. Here's some picture of it:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like i said, very nice looking, don't anyone agree? The art style remind me of Silent Hill 3 (which is a good thing) and the graphic, although maybe slighty a bit rough on the edge, is still excellent. But here's the kicker: Do you know what is the game engine used in this project? Nobody is going to belive me, but it's true: This game use the......Doom Engine. No no no, not the Doom 3 engine, but the first Doom, from 1993!

 

Now here's come the second part of this: It really can make you think of all the industry. What i mean is: Why a company could spent million of dollars, to create a high-tech game engine, made by hundred of programmer and all, when a small couple of guys can take an old-ass game engine, upgrade it in their free time and make a game that is visualy similar to the big triple A games thanks to a excellent art design? It really make you think about it....

 

Here's the page of the project (which haven't been update for awhile now ):  https://wadaholic.wo...ry/total-chaos/

[furrykef]

I would bet that, these days, a game's engine is typically a small part of a game's budget. They aren't "made by a hundred programmers" unless maybe we're talking about an engine that's been around for a decade or has been used in many different games. There was a time when technology was a driving factor and you needed a genius programmer to produce a hit. Now any high school kid can program a game that outperforms the games John Carmack built his reputation on. No wonder he left Id Software; he's not needed there anymore.

No, the engine is the easy part. What sends game budgets through the roof is mostly assets. All the 3D models you have to create, all the textures, all the animations, all the level design, all the voice acting, then all the playtesting you have to do on the monstrosity you've wrought. Grand Theft Auto V didn't cost $265 million because it had a fancy engine. It cost that much because it's frickin' huge.

[Uncle Ben]

No, the engine is the easy part. What sends game budgets through the roof is mostly assets. All the 3D models you have to create, all the textures, all the animations, all the level design, all the voice acting, then all the playtesting you have to do on the monstrosity you've wrought. Grand Theft Auto V didn't cost $265 million because it had a fancy engine. It cost that much because it's frickin' huge.

 

Huge it is, plus all the motion capturing they did for it

[Alextendo]

I would bet that, these days, a game's engine is typically a small part of a game's budget. They aren't "made by a hundred programmers" unless maybe we're talking about an engine that's been around for a decade or has been used in many different games. There was a time when technology was a driving factor and you needed a genius programmer to produce a hit. Now any high school kid can program a game that outperforms the games John Carmack built his reputation on. No wonder he left Id Software; he's not needed there anymore.

No, the engine is the easy part. What sends game budgets through the roof is mostly assets. All the 3D models you have to create, all the textures, all the animations, all the level design, all the voice acting, then all the playtesting you have to do on the monstrosity you've wrought. Grand Theft Auto V didn't cost $265 million because it had a fancy engine. It cost that much because it's frickin' huge.

Making a game engine is surely more expensive now than it probably seem to be. The good thing though, is when an engine is done, you can use it later again.

 

Also, John Carmack left because he jumped into the oculus rift project team (or however it is called), not because he didn't feel needed anymore.

[furrykef]

While I'm not inside his head and can only guess what his reasons are, I'd bet the reason he switched to the Oculus Rift is because he thought it would be a better use of his talents than what he was doing at Id. Which would imply that his work at Id is less fulfilling.

[Alextendo]

According to Carmack himself, he said he want to make game that would play for the Oculus Rift, but Bethesda didn't seem to be interest, so he said that's why he left.

[Uncle Ben]

I have tried the Rift, its freaking awesome

[RedAuthar]

A game engine is the Basic programming of a game.  However if you stripped your favorite games down to their engine they barely cover any of what you enjoy about them.  Most of that work is in the tweaks and gimmicks of said game.

 

For example both Borderlands and Batman Arkham Asylum use the same engine but play hardly similar at all and don't even use the same style of graphics.