Good vs Bad vs Average Graphics

[Rudrabhoj Bhati]

How to really define bad graphics vs good graphics. Is it absolute or relative to your game. Is good graphics mean accrutely showing the dept where ever possible with correct shading, or something else. Shape and coloring? What are your views. Did compnay ever rejected your  work because of bad graphics or said your game don't have good graphical quality? If so, can you show screenshot of what was called bad graphics?

[rich]

I've heard of a number of developers who have had games rejected because the graphics were not good enough, so yes I think it matters a lot.

 

It's nothing to do with the style of the graphics (realistic, cartoon, flat, shaded, etc) - it's just to do with the quality of them and how they work within the game.

 

At the end of the day it's quite subjective, but I think if you were honest you can tell right away when a game has good graphics or not.

[shanatron]

Graphics matter a lot but there are a lot of styles to choose. You can use a simple style with simple gradients or simple pixel art

[Solidus]

Graphics are ridiculously important.  Before a player knows anything about a game, they see the icon/screenshot of it.  If that does not draw them in to play it, it won't earn a publisher any revenue.

 

And the more professional a game looks, even a remake of match 3, solitaire or bejeweled, the more likely it will be accepted by publishers VS a game with amazing and unique gameplay.

 

Of course, a combo of great gameplay and great graphics would be best... but again it's a business so you can't sink 2 months of work into something that may only yield 2-3k.

[Rudrabhoj Bhati]

Graphics are really a problem for programmers who are good at programming and maths but not graphics. I can give end result good but it takes me too much of time. Like in my current game it took me 6 hours to make good sprites for protagonist(8 sprites in total) when only one sprite was main sprite and for other movements you can easily adopt them as they are vector.

 

Some common art such as trees, grass, etc. are available for free even for commercial use... While we should get our protagonist and opposing forces as unique as possible, what do you say about using free graphics for tree, grass, huts in background, etc?

[Solidus]

It's tough to have a bunch of assets that have the same style unless they are custom made for your game.

[Rudrabhoj Bhati]

It's tough to have a bunch of assets that have the same style unless they are custom made for your game.

Yeah true. And if it takes more time to find good art to make better yourself, then here dies all reason to do so.

[Daikrys]

in my opinion, when it takes to long for you to make graphics, you could hire an artist

since you can outsource graphics for an affordable price to a much more skilled and faster artist, this result in a timeprofit

 

you can spend the time to develope another game, you can charge slightly more for better graphics (my opinion) and overall you make at least the same profit per working hour you normally do (even with paying the artist)

[eriksolem]

No matter what the style, a games graphics have to support the game-play mechanics while also looking the best they possibly can. 

[benny!]

[Offtopic]

@eriksolem:

Welcome to the forum, but please use a smaller version of your signature image. Thanks!

[xatruch]

Some grass or trees from free resources will look good in the game and won't be so noticeable for the player.

[Rudrabhoj Bhati]

Some grass or trees from free resources will look good in the game and won't be so noticeable for the player.

yeah true... But with more practice with vector graphics I come to know making grass, land, cloud and wallpaper are easiest thing and making animated human charecter is most difficult lol.

[Imnotreal]

If you really don't like creating graphics, I would recommend hiring an artist. But you can also come a long way with simple graphics, and creating special effects to hide that you're not actually a good artist.

[Qqwy]

Of course, 'good'  and 'bad'  are very subjective. I think the most important part of game graphics is:

-The different sprites and pictures have to feel coherent, i.e. they have to look like they belong together when seen at the same time.

-The art style has to work well with the story, setting, concept or whatever your game is about.

[KyleNau]

Don't forget that programmer art can look gorgeous. You have just have to make it "juicy"! http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/178938/Video_Is_your_game_juicy_enough.php

 

The Canvas drawing API gives you everything you need and you can make it all dynamic and random.

[joannesalfa]

I've heard of a number of developers who have had games rejected because the graphics were not good enough, so yes I think it matters a lot.

 

It's nothing to do with the style of the graphics (realistic, cartoon, flat, shaded, etc) - it's just to do with the quality of them and how they work within the game.

 

At the end of the day it's quite subjective, but I think if you were honest you can tell right away when a game has good graphics or not.

 

Would they reject retro graphics?

[TheHermit]

Picking a style you're comfortable with creating is important I think. Some styles are a lot easier to make look good than others. If you can't do realistic shading, choose a style where shading isn't expected, like a game where everything is scribbles on a text pad - but of course this also constrains the kinds of games you can make.

 

I think the catch with hiring people to do things is, you can quickly invest enough resources into something that it doesn't even pay for its own production if you're not careful. If you have someone who is working very cheap, or just to get their art out there, thats one thing. But if you're paying $500 for the art for a game that won't make more than $1000, thats a problem.

 

In my own case, I've been using a lot of arranged textures for interface art since composited photos will look a lot more professional than anything I can draw. I can make a decent-looking map, but when it comes to human or creature art I'm not yet up to the point where I'd call the results professional, so I try to avoid needing to make that kind of thing. If I'm drawing a bar scene for a game, I'd rather people ask 'where are all the people' than 'why do the people look like that?'

[Yora]

Would they reject retro graphics?

So long as the game itself has interesting and entertaining gameplay, I don't see why that would be grounds for rejection.  Retro games are a relatively popular style.

[Psychho]

It all depends on the game and whether or not the game can work with the type of graphics, for example look at Dwarf Fortress http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/

[KyleNau]

It has more to do with the sponsor's target market than the game graphics. Most sponsors are going for an extremely generalized "family" audience. They want cutesy and colourful.

 

Retro graphics and arcade-style games can be a very hard sell. You can have the best graphics in the world and still have a very hard time selling something like a bullet-hell shooter.

[Yora]

It has more to do with the sponsor's target market than the game graphics. Most sponsors are going for an extremely generalized "family" audience. They want cutesy and colourful.

 

Retro graphics and arcade-style games can be a very hard sell. You can have the best graphics in the world and still have a very hard time selling something like a bullet-hell shooter.

I always figured this would be the case in the back of my head, but hearing it does scare me.  I much prefer more difficult retro style games, so from the sound of it then that's a generally hard sell to sponsors.  

 

I'm hoping for more of a reliance on IAP and game portals with my initial project from the players who are interested, though I won't be surprised or crushed if that doesn't work out.  I wouldn't want to be forced to change my style to a 'cutesy colorful' easy style of game, but if that proves to be far more profitable in the end I may have to try.