i don't understand the hate for dredmor's graphics

i've seen this multiple times on various internet forums:

"this game is proof that good graphics don't make a good game, and that bad graphics don't make a bad game"

"the graphics in this game are terrible but it's so fun"

etc etc

i don't get this. Dredmor has some of the most detailed, imaginative, and full-of-personality sprites i've ever seen. kids these days...grumble grumble.

 

You just answered yourself.

And I agree with you, fact that kids nowadays judge games based solely on their graphics is irking me beyond belief. That is not to say I don't appreciate it when a game has nice graphics (DoD has nice graphics, by the way), but gameplay is much more important and the graphics are just an addition, and it's really stupid that so many people nowadays regard games with pixel art as crap just because it's not some sort of "turbo-burbo-super-3D-whatever with DirectX 666 and high-quality textures".

~sigh~

I hope I die before we get to the future where people with that sort of attitude rule the world.

 

Too late, Kaz. They already do.

FUN FACT -
Real gamers judged based on the following characteristics, in this order, or they are not real gamers.

• Gameplay - Is it fun, or is it not? If it's not, guess what? It's a bad game.
• Originality - Medal of Honor/Call of Duty version X is just the same game republished with new maps, and that's why the games are crap. It's not a great game if its no different than its predecessors. Or at least its harder to be great. Zelda games sometimes pulled this off by providing crazy good gameplay and presentation but virtually no mechanical innovation. That's the exception, not the rule.
• Ease of Use - Games should not have truly draconian interface. You should be able to play at a moderate level of proficiency in a matter of an hour or two. Mastery might take years, but that shouldn't be because you have to hold two buttons with your fingers while tapping the d-pad with your thumb. Capcom games, I'm looking at you.
• Presentation - Why is Bastion a good, solid game? Because it's lush, the music is beautiful, the storytelling is solid and the narrative delivery is a new and interesting approach. And the narrator's voice is like whiskey for the ears. The game has solid gameplay, but nothing terribly new. However, the depth of its presentation makes everything else tick.

There you have it. How to evaluate a game in four easy steps. You're welcome.

 

^ That is basically how I judge games. A game is supposed to be fun! That's the number one thing. Everything else comes after that, especially graphics.

 

The same with me on that. There are some other minor factors (I'm more likely to play a game if it has RPG elements), but that is just something I got used to and perceive as fun, and I play games that are just plain fun even if said elements aren't there at all.

 

I'd just like to say that I am an under-18 gamer who cares very little for graphics at all. Fun gameplay and difficulty that doesn't make me want to kill myself are my top priority!

 

Doing some thinking on this, and Minecraft might just be the best recent example. The game has sold how many millions of copies? Destroyed XBLA sales records in a matter of weeks? And lo and behold, it contains some of the most absolutely god-awful graphics we've seen in a decade, with the blocks comprised of (at times) Atari 2600-size pixels. But that doesn't matter when the building and crafting and sandbox-y goodness keep you in that "just need to grind 1 more stack of X to build Y" mode until 4 AM.

 

I put Ease of Use in front of originality, myself. If a game is similar to and older game, but better, I'll use it.

 

Do this for Spacechem.

 

Actually, you have a very valid point. I probably should put Ease of Use in front of Originality. Everyone, mining is correct. Please read my first post with that correction in mind.

I'm not sure I understand... do you think Spacechem is a example of how this is a bad system, or would you like me to crunch Spacechem through these four criteria and see what I get? And where would I find Spacechem?

 

http://store.steampowered.com/app/92800/

Spacechem is an amazing game, I'm just interested in your take on it.

 

Wow. I just watched the trailer and am now really, really fascinated. On the other hand, I have all these HIB games I just got this week that I haven't played yet... >_<

My kneejerk reaction is, it looks like a game that knocks Originality out of the park, and the Presentation looks solid too. Ease of Use and Gameplay will need me to actually play it, though. I'll get back to you after the weekend, maybe, once I've had time to dig into it a bit.

 

I've found it's a very pick-up-and-play-for-twenty-minutes-then-go-play-something-else game because it's so mentally exhausting (but fun!).

 

I'm pretty sure you left story out of that list where it should be at number 2 - even if it has a * which says that not all games need be about story, but in those that are, the story is a huuuge factor in whether or not a game is great to me.

I'm also not sure I agree with your order entirely (does presentation really belong below originality and ease of use? I would rank it higher as no matter how original a game is, and no matter how good the gameplay, if it isn't presented well, it's just mediocre at best). Other than that, I completely agree.

I'd just like to chime in that I'm sick of people who whine and moan about a game's graphics not being 'realistic' enough and/or games who's only real purpose is to be shiny. Obviously a lot of people on these forums do not care much for Diablo 3, but I think it's backgrounds are an excellent example of this. Taken by themselves, I wouldn't be surprised to find those backgrounds on a canvas painted, sitting on the wall of a fine restaurant. And yet they aren't 'realistic' enough for so many people.

 

Presentation includes all aspects of a game's creative aspects, story, art, sound and music, ect. To be honest, I've never seen a game with a story to rival a good book, in fact many of them seem downright derivative. This is more because of the fact that games demand certain things of their stories than any lack of talent and effort on the writer's parts, but I just can't get worked up about game story very much. There are plenty of good, fun games that have no story what-so-ever. They're still great games because they have great gameplay and are easy to use. Story falls around the same level as graphics for me. It can be the deciding factor between a games that have good marks in the other three, but I never hold shortcomings in that area against it.

 

How can you like a game that does *not* squeeze every bit of your two Crossfire SLI GeForce >9000 Turbo graphic cards' power?
And how the hell did I end in this hole where people play these weird games with shitty graphics?

On a more serious note, I don't care about graphics that much. Hell, I have no problems playing, say, Master of Magic, which would a today's 1337 Halo Eksbawks kid not touch even with a ten foot pole.

I mostly care about story, gameplay and fun. Sure, DoD lacks in story, but it makes up for it in gameplay and fun. I did not like DoD's art style at the beginning, but then I grew fond of it.

 

My one graphics requirement is that it doesn't make me want to gouge my eyes out with a spoon.

 

I actually like the way the game looks. I really enjoy the art-style and the visuals are great. I really don't get what people want...do we want Crysis?

 

No one wants Crysis because no one wants to spend $2000 on a computer to run a $60 game. I'd rather spend $500 on a computer to run a $10 game.