Irrlicht Engine

Look at Minecraft or Terraria. They have such terrible graphics yet selling huge quantities.

How much graphics does a game really need to succed commercially ? If gameplay is good do you really need any more advanced than basic fixed function materials, directx 8 lighting and stencil shadows ?

Sometimes I wonder if some of us are spending way too much time on visuals when games with way worse graphics than the Irrlicht quake3 level demo are making megabucks.

I am so sorry !

I meant to post this in the general discussion forums rather than clogging up the beginner programming forum.

If a kind hearted mod or admin moves this I woulld be saved from much embarrasment.

I don't think minecraft or terraria have terrible graphics, they have very unique styles
I find it weird that a lot of people automatically rate 2D or more primitive non-photorealistic (not that we can actually achieve real-time photorealism yet, but you know what I mean) graphics as terrible

I've seen some absolutely mind-blowing scenes in minecraft, something I can't say about a lot of games with next-gen semi-photorealistic graphics, and I believe minecraft actually implements some rather advanced graphical features

But in the end, gameplay is always more valuable than graphics, if you don't have good gameplay you can have the most awesome graphics ever and your game will still suck
However, if you don't have a distinct graphical style or good graphics in general people won't be interested in your game (except for maybe a small core group), especially if you want to reach a larger public

Advancements in real-time rendering are needed to immerse the player more in your game, if you can create a 'wow'-moment for the player during a certain scene you can make him/her care more for the current situation your game protagonist is in (if it's an FPS or RPG for example) which makes your game all more memorable

Good gameplay is a must, and should be a priority, but don't pull a hipster and go anti-mainstream by neglecting graphics, because your game probably won't even be looked at; it's all about finding a good balance

Different people value different aspects of games.
For me, gameplay is far more important than graphics. I also enjoy originality a lot. And also some simple fast-paced games.

However, as Radikalizm said. Graphics should not be neglected.
I also agree with him on the fact that Minecraft has some awesome graphics, is has a retro look and everything is square, which makes it kind of funny in the enjoyable way, and there are also some amazing scenes to look at.

Some of my favourite games are online flash games, and none of them has incredible graphics.

Four Second Fury:
http://armorgames.com/play/44/four-second-fury

Amorphous Plus:
http://armorgames.com/play/2044/amorphous-plus

Dino Run:
http://www.pixeljam.com/dinorun/

You don't need huge hw even for good graphics, the first or second programmable gen are rather enough. GL 1.5 + shaders can work for you with something on the level of Starcraft II or Dead Space.

That is, Radeon R300 (9xxx) or Geforce FX.


That said, I firmly believe good gameplay and story > good graphics.

Idea is priceless. If you have great idea and gameplay, the graphics may be not so good. But the problem is that 99% of games has no such great idea, but the money they need as anybody else, so there is only one way to get it - push in great visuals.

You can't forget any of them. Or else we would still be playing Quake I, Doom, or Pong isn't it?

A good idea is a must, a good gameplay is a need, but the same gameplay looks better when it is displayed with good graphics, so they are also very important.

The problem is that the current so called "pro" developpers tend to forget about the good idea and the gameplay, and focus only on the technical aspects of a game creating visual masterpieces of boredum.

Agreed, lately I've find next gen games to be less and less fun..

That being said, I am happy games like minecraft and terraria are being made. Graphics dont have to be heavy as long as its fun. (if there was a game who combines both I'd be hooked (when properly programmed)).

I think it's a case of having "tidy" graphics, but which I mean, when you look at any particular view/scene there's nothing that catches the eye that's either out of place or clashing. Things like harsh lines, clashing colours, modelling errors, floating characters, irregular lighting etc. They make games look cheap and nasty... On the other hand even simple games with a unified seamless nature, look more polished and professional. When your deep in a fire fight playing COD, you never notice, the normal mapped table/walls /characters. You don't notice because its all seamless . You would notice if the floor was bright blue or the wall have uv tiling errors or the terrorists head was poking through the wall. Saying that NO game is ever perfect, you just make it as good and as polished as you can with the resources and time you have at your disposal.

I don't know Minecraft that well but quick look at a few images it's very easy to see where the graphical polish is.... even though the textures are very pixelated (on purpose) they tile reasonably well with a unified colour palette. The block nature of the game makes a virtue of harsh lines so even though in any other game it would be screaming out of the screen at us, hear it works.

Gameplay is much more important than graphics, but grapgics should not be ignored either. The way I see it is like a painting. One person buys all the most expensive paints and materials like canvases and brushes. Then they make a nice piece of art. Then another person with a lot of talent and experience goes to Walmart and buys some cheap paints, then paints Starry Night or The Persistance of Memory. Graphics are a medium, and while some is definatly better than others, it is not as important as what is made using the graphics (in otherwords, the Game).

Unfortunatly, not everyone thinks the same way. I get so irritated when people put down the Wii and DS just because of graphics.

Graphics is part of the gameplay. It can be low res and low level of detail. But it must have something unique else the player will discard the game

REDDemon wrote:Graphics is part of the gameplay. It can be low res and low level of detail. But it must have something unique else the player will discard the game

I can't agree on that with you. I personally like even old games that have 'sucky' graphics and I wouldn't call them unique really. It's the game play of the game that attracts me and not the so called 'unique' graphics.
I would choose cs 1.6 over cs:source and many other, if not all fps games, stronghold (1) over many other strategy games.
Though, now the most fun game is 'Coding' and 'Studying', no fancy/unique graphics here too whatsoever

This topic should have a poll attached.

IMHO; its the graphics that atracts you to the game but the gameplay will keep you playing... as REDDemon and a few others have tried to point out. As a good example, I have a couple Shakes and Fidget accounts... graphics are laughable (you need a sence of humor to apreciate) but the play is adictive.

Amorphous Plus:
is awesome same for minectaft

the only problem enemies I have encountered are the horrors and the queen.


anyway Graphics are ALWAYS after gameplay.
I have played some absolutley beautiful games, but the gameplay was so horrible....

Grumpy wrote: IMHO; its the graphics that atracts you to the game but the gameplay will keep you playing...

Agree to that!
NO matter how realistic and awesome it looks, if the gameplay sucks you wont play it a second or third time.