68 replies to this topic

[Koh]

I did specifically say that not having that kind of attention to detail does make a game look worse though, in a different thread.  In terms of advertising your game it does at least.  We know how much people care about graphics when buying a game, even in the 8-bit and 16-bit market.

 

To use your pizza analogy, it would be the equivalent of someone saying "Hey guys!  I make pizza too!" and then only offering cheese pizza, in a market that mostly prefers cheese pizza with some toppings.  So what happens?  Well ,you might get some people that want your cheese pizza, but most others are going to go to other places that serve BETTER cheese pizza, and also let you have extra toppings.

 

You may ask or think "Well why should I care about the market?  I'm not doing it for the money anyway."  Even if you're doing a freeware game, you still want it to reach as many people in your niche market as possible, don't you?  Why settle for 5 out of 20 people playing the game, when you can bump it up to 11 out of 20?

Edited by Koh, 17 June 2018 - 06:46 AM.

[NoeL]

I thought I'd make a little example better demonstrating what I meant with my post.  I took a screenshot from my save file in Dragon Quest 2, and then played around with it.

 

 

The top version is what's from the original game.  Notice how they just repeat a singular tile for the mountains and forest, because they had to.  They had 2 games on one cartridge (Dragon Quest I and II), and had to save enough memory not only for both games, but also both groups of save files and such.  So, the top one is forgivable because of memory constraints and the time it was released.  Cool.  

 

Fast forward to today's era, we have memory coming out of our ears, so we have certain standards we should be at now with top down RPGs.  And cleaning up that repeated tile look is one of them.  So, if one were to make an 8-bit styled RPG that plays like Dragon Quest 2, I expect at least the level of effort I put in to clean up the overworld graphics a bit now.  Making those extra tiles to make things look a bit more natural with the mountains and trees only took like 20 minutes tops.  Still 8-bit, still the same artistic style in the way the mountains are drawn, except now, memory is no longer an issue, and we can afford to have the variants on the tiles I made to make things look nicer.

 

I don't accept anything short of this for anyone is what I said before.  I hold everyone to the same minimum standards we should be at now, whether the game is 8-bit styled or 1080p HD.  AAA team, singular developer, they can all spare an hour or so to clean things up.

 

IMO the difference between the two is negligible, and as part of "the market" my purchase decision wouldn't be influenced either way. The design of DQ tiles is very much symbolic as opposed to "zoomed out", making it more like a board game than a satellite photo. A mountain tile doesn't mean "a mountain" so much as it means "mountainous terrain". Adding intermediary tiles - especially if it's just the same thing offset - doesn't really add much, and in certain cases (arguably this DQ one) it can weaken the aesthetic. Keep yelling at the clouds all you want, but sometimes less IS more.

 

That said, if you ARE going for more of a "zoomed out" style then yes, you need those extra tiles to make things work:

 

 

Can we please put this topic to bed? You've made your case, Koh.
 

[Koh]

You can say that, but later games or remakes of the same game prove you incorrect.

This is what Dragon Quest 3 the original looks like.


Then the Super Famicom remake comes along.


If they were going for a chessboard feel, they would've done the same thing they did before, but in 16 bit. They did not, which proves they didn't do it out of an artistic desire to have things chessboard esque. They did it because they HAD to do it for compromise.

It's not even just an 8-bit to 16-bit thing, even the GBC version.


I'm telling you from experience, you guys are underestimating how much a little elbow grease adds to the visual appeal of a game. It goes from looking like "Let's do this quick and easy" to "I cared enough to do a bit extra." and gives a totally different vibe when people are purchasing or freely downloading your game. In a nutshell, the differencez in presentation are the equivalent of someone showing up to a job interview with a wrinkled polo, versus another person showing up with an ironed polo. That first impression is the most important, and if you present yourself in a halfassed fashion, you will be brushed off similarly.

Edited by Koh, 19 June 2018 - 08:18 AM.

[NoeL]

I'm not underestimating the value of polish. All I said was that your 20 minutes of polish added negligible value to me. It would be the equivalent of someone running a brush through their hair once: it might look a bit neater than not brushing at all, but it's not going to look "neat". Side by side, my first impression is "they look the same".

 

Regarding DQ, sure, I'll grant the early art was more likely borne out of necessity than stylistic choice, but that doesn't change my opinion on the aesthetic. When working with tile-based art you can only really embrace the grid or try to hide it. Trying to go in between doesn't often work for me - it doesn't hide the grid, and it weakens the functionality of the underlying grid. To explain what I mean, DQ3 on SNES and GBC takes a "hide the grid" approach, where it's not immediately obvious say, how wide the island is. When we look at the NES version we can quickly see it's four tiles wide. In your DQ2 screenshot the upper part of the dunes are clearly four tiles wide (from what we can see anyway), while in your edit it takes a bit more mental energy to (ironically) filter out the "in between" dunes to determine the width. With the exception of the trees (which are an improvement), your edits aren't adding anything for me aesthetically - ironically again, they look like the "Let's do this quick and easy" you're trying to avoid. If you want to hide the grid, hide it. Don't half-ass it.

[coolgamer012345]

Koh, what was the point of inverting the colors on the status box thing?

[Moosh]

Koh, what was the point of inverting the colors on the status box thing?

In the case of NES games at least, I can agree that the Discord light theme is an abomination. That was a much needed change.

[Deedee]

In the case of NES games at least, I can agree that the Discord light theme is an abomination. That was a much needed change.

You take that back! 

Edited by Dimentio, 19 June 2018 - 08:01 PM.

[coolgamer012345]

I need to learn romhacking so I can remove the dark theme

[Deedee]

Maybe people design it in the checkerboard style because they like their nostalgia?

If you aren't willing to buy a game cause it looks slightly less than perfect despite how fun the game may be, that's your loss.

[Koh]

That's the problem I'm describing though.  It's like they're trying the sell the game solely on nostalgia, just because "Oh!  8-bit!"   when they post screenshots of stuff like that, but that simply doesn't work for the majority of people in the 8-bit market as I've stated before, you need more than just nostalgia to back your game up.  

 

But don't just take my word for it.  I highly encourage just taking a few minutes and looking at the many 8-bit advertised indie games on say, Steam, and seeing the kind of reception most get.  Not the "overall positive" or "mixed" reception, but the reviews themselves.  A lot of them will be like "The gameplay was fun, but the game looks bland."  It's not that the people don't like 8-bit games, it's that they don't like it when people use 8-bit as an excuse to be lazy or half ass certain things.   They want QUALITY 8-bit.  Hence why games like Shovel Knight, remain well received in that category.

 

I say so much about the subject because I care about my fellow developers, and want them to actually succeed with their pet projects; I'm also competing in the same market, after all.  Not specifically 8-bit, but definitely the 2D market.  I look through the reviews of especially popular 2D games like Hotline Miami and Undertale to see what people are saying in general.  The latter is definitely a case of the gameplay and story negating the graphical quality in its reviews, but a lot of people still mention it.

 

Why give people such an easy edge to destroy your game over?  Just sit your butt down for an hour or so and polish things off, don't make it so easy for them to just dismiss your game.  At least make it so the worst they have to say is "Well the game looks good, but it plays as generic as the thing it's playing homage to."

Edited by Koh, 20 June 2018 - 05:36 AM.

[Deedee]

I think we have different ideas of "polish" though. For example, in the examples you posted in the other threads, I myself found most of the "upgrades" to the sprites ugly (especially bouncing hat Mario... *shudder*).

Take Shovel Knight. Everyone loves this game, right?

Sprite Sheet

This is his sprite sheet. Notice how most of his animations are simple 4 frame animations, and his longest animations are used in limited scenario's?

[Binx]

I think that those memory limitations are part of the charm, personally. I mean, yeah, a certain level of additional polish will help a game stand out, but, Koh, I think you're overestimating how much people care about the little things, like extra frames of animation that they likely won't even notice, or landscape changes so subtle that I actually couldn't even see the difference at first. I mean, yeah, lower quality graphics can make it easy to half-ass the design elements, but if the gameplay and other elements are solid, then little things aren't going to matter to most players who are specifically looking for games in this niche.

[Koh]

I think we have different ideas of "polish" though. For example, in the examples you posted in the other threads, I myself found most of the "upgrades" to the sprites ugly (especially bouncing hat Mario... *shudder*).

Take Shovel Knight. Everyone loves this game, right?

Sprite Sheet

This is his sprite sheet. Notice how most of his animations are simple 4 frame animations, and his longest animations are used in limited scenario's?

Well actually, his animations are like 6 frames, and it looks smooth. That's all that really matters in the end.  Not the frame count, but the animation smoothness.  You see, it's possible to have smooth animations even in 4 frames, but that's not usually what we end up getting, they're usually more skippy and look like they're lagging.

 

But 6 frames is actually all you need for these low resolutions to have it be smooth.

 

It's all about final appearance for animation.  You can have a smooth looking 3 frame attack animation for example.  A wind up slash frame, a blur effect middle frame, and a final end slash frame is fine, and looks like a fast swing. 

 

Even my own old sprites as examples here.

 3 frames.

 6 frames.

Edited by Koh, 20 June 2018 - 04:04 PM.

[coolgamer012345]

Couldn't you argue that having too many frames of animation is just like using rotating sprites and shit and can detract from the look of it being retro? That's all I'm seeing.

[Binx]

Even my own old sprites as examples here.

 3 frames.

 6 frames.

Well, yeah, the 6-frame animations are smoother (obviously), but the 3-frame animations look just fine, and I highly doubt anyone playing a game is going to care that much about the extra three frames. That's all anyone here seems to be saying: Yes, smoother graphics are nice, but they're one of the least important parts of the game, when dealing with games in this style. These games are about gameplay, not graphics.