So, a certain level of graphics is important to get the initial sales of the game going and to get yourself up to a critical mass of players: enough to form a decent initial community.
But, after that it's all about gameplay.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
So, a certain level of graphics is important to get the initial sales of the game going and to get yourself up to a critical mass of players: enough to form a decent initial community.
But, after that it's all about gameplay.
Form vs Essence. Form catches your eye, but Essence keeps your interest. Best to have pleasing both, but if not? Who knows ... ?
I think people need to admit that graphics matter. Otherwise, you could just have colored squares moving around instead of pixel people. You might be more 'tolerant' of poor graphics (Whatever your definition of good/bad is), but it matters. With graphics capability, we often take good graphics for granted. Gaming graphics are almost like painting.. You got different schools and styles. Pixel School...Anime School.
I think for most, graphics fall in the middle and don't affect your decision on whether to play or not. It's the graphics style that you really really dislike that matters. Going back to my painting analogy, it's like going through a museum. Most rooms, are ok and you enjoy it. Some Rooms you really enjoy and take your time (For me ancient). On the other hand, there are rooms that you avoid or go through, but you have to grit your teeth (For me modern art. For me, Modern Art = Anime style graphics. I really dislike them as a rule and I have to grit my teeth. On the other hand, simple, yet well-done graphics like Albion, I really enjoy.
I'd temper this by saying in some cases, graphics matter. There are instances where graphical fidelity is desirable, and some where it may be a detriment.
Have you seen Dwarf Fortress with ASCII art? It's part of its charm; it runs a historical simulation and then invites the user to imagine things in his/her mind's eye. The 'flight of imagination' aspect would be changed if things were rendered, similar to how reading a book is different from viewing a movie.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
So, a certain level of graphics is important to get the initial sales of the game going and to get yourself up to a critical mass of players: enough to form a decent initial community.
But, after that it's all about gameplay.
I agree with this in concept, but good gameplay sells games also.
How else can you explain games like Vampire Survivors, Dwarf Fortress, Terraria, Rimworld, Stardew Valley, Factorio, Slay the Spire etc... I could go on and on with games from steam with low graphics and high sales, with overwhelming positive reviews.
So, a certain level of graphics is important to get the initial sales of the game going and to get yourself up to a critical mass of players: enough to form a decent initial community.
But, after that it's all about gameplay.
I agree with this in concept, but good gameplay sells games also.
How else can you explain games like Vampire Survivors, Dwarf Fortress, Terraria, Rimworld, Stardew Valley, Factorio, Slay the Spire etc... I could go on and on with games from steam with low graphics and high sales, with overwhelming positive reviews.
I would say that those games have a very particular audience who know what to expect, don't mind retro graphics or pixel art or "whatever" and so they buy no matter what.
I would say that Cameltosis' statement works with general audiences.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
So, a certain level of graphics is important to get the initial sales of the game going and to get yourself up to a critical mass of players: enough to form a decent initial community.
But, after that it's all about gameplay.
I agree with this in concept, but good gameplay sells games also.
How else can you explain games like Vampire Survivors, Dwarf Fortress, Terraria, Rimworld, Stardew Valley, Factorio, Slay the Spire etc... I could go on and on with games from steam with low graphics and high sales, with overwhelming positive reviews.
Ah, what you are referring to is more like word-of-mouth sales (i think).
You dont buy a game like Dwarf Fortress because you found the store page and thought it looked good. The store page shows terrible graphics and very little about the actual gameplay.
You buy a game like Dwarf Fortress because a geeky mate has just sunk 6 months into the game and has been filling your head with all the weird and wonderful things that have happened to them.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
So, a certain level of graphics is important to get the initial sales of the game going and to get yourself up to a critical mass of players: enough to form a decent initial community.
But, after that it's all about gameplay.
I agree with this in concept, but good gameplay sells games also.
How else can you explain games like Vampire Survivors, Dwarf Fortress, Terraria, Rimworld, Stardew Valley, Factorio, Slay the Spire etc... I could go on and on with games from steam with low graphics and high sales, with overwhelming positive reviews.
Ah, what you are referring to is more like word-of-mouth sales (i think).
You dont buy a game like Dwarf Fortress because you found the store page and thought it looked good. The store page shows terrible graphics and very little about the actual gameplay.
You buy a game like Dwarf Fortress because a geeky mate has just sunk 6 months into the game and has been filling your head with all the weird and wonderful things that have happened to them.
Yeah so I think that is probably the main issue why people say graphics sell.
Its hard to showcase gameplay. Graphics takes about 1 second to notice first hand in a video, however gameplay probably requires Word of Mouth, review sites, etc...
The problem is people cant really even trust review sites or initial Alpha/Beta tester reviews. Alpha/Beta testers are normally just fanbois who dont mind lieing about if the game is good or not.
So general audiences really have to wait for overwhelming response to see if it will actually be good and worth their time.
TLDR, Graphics can be seen first hand and dont require reliance on others, where gameplay is difficult to show and requires feedback from others to get WoM out there.
So, a certain level of graphics is important to get the initial sales of the game going and to get yourself up to a critical mass of players: enough to form a decent initial community.
But, after that it's all about gameplay.
I agree with this in concept, but good gameplay sells games also.
How else can you explain games like Vampire Survivors, Dwarf Fortress, Terraria, Rimworld, Stardew Valley, Factorio, Slay the Spire etc... I could go on and on with games from steam with low graphics and high sales, with overwhelming positive reviews.
I would say that those games have a very particular audience who know what to expect, don't mind retro graphics or pixel art or "whatever" and so they buy no matter what.
I would say that Cameltosis' statement works with general audiences.
Terraria sold 44million units with 97% overwhelming rating, thats more than some "very particular audience". 44 million copies with that high of a rating has to be general audience wide.
The games I mentioned all sold millions of copies. There are plenty of others with similiar popularity. Its not like there is just this 44million customers buying every single one of these games. There are tons of low graphics games with millions of copies sold and have high ratings. Your theory of the audience size I feel is opposite of the facts.
When you compare High Gameplay Low Graphics VS Low Gameplay High Graphics it seems Low Graphics is winning that by far.
If anything its the high graphics low gameplay crowd that is niche. When you look at the top selling games of all time, I see many low graphics games at the top. How many high graphics low gameplay successes are there?
"Graphics don't make the game" is what some people would say. I will say that it adds to the enjoyment. Some older games, the graphics are forgivable, other games not so much.
For example: EverQuest2, with its glitchy shadows, and a ugly world overall. Character models I thought were good. Opinions vary and it's understandable. I could have forgiven the bad graphics if game play was good; it wasn't.
I am sure it is hard to find a balance to graphic fidelity and game play. Game producers/directors need to have some talent in what they are doing, to make a great game. To have a clear vision of what they want to create, with the help of artists and engineers.
So, a certain level of graphics is important to get the initial sales of the game going and to get yourself up to a critical mass of players: enough to form a decent initial community.
But, after that it's all about gameplay.
I agree with this in concept, but good gameplay sells games also.
How else can you explain games like Vampire Survivors, Dwarf Fortress, Terraria, Rimworld, Stardew Valley, Factorio, Slay the Spire etc... I could go on and on with games from steam with low graphics and high sales, with overwhelming positive reviews.
I would say that those games have a very particular audience who know what to expect, don't mind retro graphics or pixel art or "whatever" and so they buy no matter what.
I would say that Cameltosis' statement works with general audiences.
Terraria sold 44million units with 97% overwhelming rating, thats more than some "very particular audience". 44 million copies with that high of a rating has to be general audience wide.
The games I mentioned all sold millions of copies. There are plenty of others with similiar popularity. Its not like there is just this 44million customers buying every single one of these games. There are tons of low graphics games with millions of copies sold and have high ratings. Your theory of the audience size I feel is opposite of the facts.
When you compare High Gameplay Low Graphics VS Low Gameplay High Graphics it seems Low Graphics is winning that by far.
If anything its the high graphics low gameplay crowd that is niche. When you look at the top selling games of all time, I see many low graphics games at the top. How many high graphics low gameplay successes are there?
If they have good graphics that's a bonus but obviously not needed. Good Graphics and Animations attract Moths for sure , but without Good gameplay the flutter and die out fast . New World being the newest and best example of this, pretty game , terrible shallow systems , and why they have 2% of there playerbase logging onto there game.
So, a certain level of graphics is important to get the initial sales of the game going and to get yourself up to a critical mass of players: enough to form a decent initial community.
But, after that it's all about gameplay.
I agree with this in concept, but good gameplay sells games also.
How else can you explain games like Vampire Survivors, Dwarf Fortress, Terraria, Rimworld, Stardew Valley, Factorio, Slay the Spire etc... I could go on and on with games from steam with low graphics and high sales, with overwhelming positive reviews.
I would say that those games have a very particular audience who know what to expect, don't mind retro graphics or pixel art or "whatever" and so they buy no matter what.
I would say that Cameltosis' statement works with general audiences.
Terraria sold 44million units with 97% overwhelming rating, thats more than some "very particular audience". 44 million copies with that high of a rating has to be general audience wide.
The games I mentioned all sold millions of copies. There are plenty of others with similiar popularity. Its not like there is just this 44million customers buying every single one of these games. There are tons of low graphics games with millions of copies sold and have high ratings. Your theory of the audience size I feel is opposite of the facts.
When you compare High Gameplay Low Graphics VS Low Gameplay High Graphics it seems Low Graphics is winning that by far.
If anything its the high graphics low gameplay crowd that is niche. When you look at the top selling games of all time, I see many low graphics games at the top. How many high graphics low gameplay successes are there?
But isn't Terreria also a mobile game? Seems to fall inline for what one can expect on a mobile game.
Not familiar with it other than what I just looked up but it seems like a nice "time waster" game where players can do a bit of this and a bit of that while on their commute or whatnot.
I was referring more to PC games.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
So, a certain level of graphics is important to get the initial sales of the game going and to get yourself up to a critical mass of players: enough to form a decent initial community.
But, after that it's all about gameplay.
I agree with this in concept, but good gameplay sells games also.
How else can you explain games like Vampire Survivors, Dwarf Fortress, Terraria, Rimworld, Stardew Valley, Factorio, Slay the Spire etc... I could go on and on with games from steam with low graphics and high sales, with overwhelming positive reviews.
I would say that those games have a very particular audience who know what to expect, don't mind retro graphics or pixel art or "whatever" and so they buy no matter what.
I would say that Cameltosis' statement works with general audiences.
Terraria sold 44million units with 97% overwhelming rating, thats more than some "very particular audience". 44 million copies with that high of a rating has to be general audience wide.
The games I mentioned all sold millions of copies. There are plenty of others with similiar popularity. Its not like there is just this 44million customers buying every single one of these games. There are tons of low graphics games with millions of copies sold and have high ratings. Your theory of the audience size I feel is opposite of the facts.
When you compare High Gameplay Low Graphics VS Low Gameplay High Graphics it seems Low Graphics is winning that by far.
If anything its the high graphics low gameplay crowd that is niche. When you look at the top selling games of all time, I see many low graphics games at the top. How many high graphics low gameplay successes are there?
But isn't Terreria also a mobile game? Seems to fall inline for what one can expect on a mobile game.
Not familiar with it other than what I just looked up but it seems like a nice "time waster" game where players can do a bit of this and a bit of that while on their commute or whatnot.
I was referring more to PC games.
Was/is a huge massive success as a pc game long before it made a mobile version .
44 million copies sold
Over 23 mill on pc 9 mill on mobile Th rest on consoles Is in the top ten all time sales.
So, a certain level of graphics is important to get the initial sales of the game going and to get yourself up to a critical mass of players: enough to form a decent initial community.
But, after that it's all about gameplay.
I agree with this in concept, but good gameplay sells games also.
How else can you explain games like Vampire Survivors, Dwarf Fortress, Terraria, Rimworld, Stardew Valley, Factorio, Slay the Spire etc... I could go on and on with games from steam with low graphics and high sales, with overwhelming positive reviews.
I would say that those games have a very particular audience who know what to expect, don't mind retro graphics or pixel art or "whatever" and so they buy no matter what.
I would say that Cameltosis' statement works with general audiences.
Terraria sold 44million units with 97% overwhelming rating, thats more than some "very particular audience". 44 million copies with that high of a rating has to be general audience wide.
The games I mentioned all sold millions of copies. There are plenty of others with similiar popularity. Its not like there is just this 44million customers buying every single one of these games. There are tons of low graphics games with millions of copies sold and have high ratings. Your theory of the audience size I feel is opposite of the facts.
When you compare High Gameplay Low Graphics VS Low Gameplay High Graphics it seems Low Graphics is winning that by far.
If anything its the high graphics low gameplay crowd that is niche. When you look at the top selling games of all time, I see many low graphics games at the top. How many high graphics low gameplay successes are there?
If they have good graphics that's a bonus but obviously not needed. Good Graphics and Animations attract Moths for sure , but without Good gameplay the flutter and die out fast . New World being the newest and best example of this, pretty game , terrible shallow systems , and why they have 2% of there playerbase logging onto there game.
I agree with you on this.
However I think that its actually Good Gameplay that is the defining quality for most of the highly successful titles.
Even your New World example, the gameplay in that game is probably just average, I wouldnt say its the worst. So the reason its failing is that average gameplay is not good enough to be super successful regardless of graphics. Had the game had amazing gameplay it probably would have been the most popular game currently.
Seems devs should be focusing on gameplay first and foremost. As there are many successes with extremely poor graphics 2 of 10 but had good gameplay that pulled it over the top. Yet I cant think of any successes where Graphics is amazing but gameplay is a 2/10. Maybe a few exist, but its not dominant like gameplay is.
Somehow I think its the high graphics that is likely the most costly part of the budget also. These devs are focusing on graphics design instead of gameplay programmers.
Terraria sold 44million units with 97% overwhelming rating, thats more than some "very particular audience". 44 million copies with that high of a rating has to be general audience wide.
The games I mentioned all sold millions of copies. There are plenty of others with similiar popularity. Its not like there is just this 44million customers buying every single one of these games. There are tons of low graphics games with millions of copies sold and have high ratings. Your theory of the audience size I feel is opposite of the facts.
When you compare High Gameplay Low Graphics VS Low Gameplay High Graphics it seems Low Graphics is winning that by far.
If anything its the high graphics low gameplay crowd that is niche. When you look at the top selling games of all time, I see many low graphics games at the top. How many high graphics low gameplay successes are there?
If they have good graphics that's a bonus but obviously not needed. Good Graphics and Animations attract Moths for sure , but without Good gameplay the flutter and die out fast . New World being the newest and best example of this, pretty game , terrible shallow systems , and why they have 2% of there playerbase logging onto there game.
I agree with you on this.
However I think that its actually Good Gameplay that is the defining quality for most of the highly successful titles.
Even your New World example, the gameplay in that game is probably just average, I wouldnt say its the worst. So the reason its failing is that average gameplay is not good enough to be super successful regardless of graphics. Had the game had amazing gameplay it probably would have been the most popular game currently.
Seems devs should be focusing on gameplay first and foremost. As there are many successes with extremely poor graphics 2 of 10 but had good gameplay that pulled it over the top. Yet I cant think of any successes where Graphics is amazing but gameplay is a 2/10. Maybe a few exist, but its not dominant like gameplay is.
Somehow I think its the high graphics that is likely the most costly part of the budget also. These devs are focusing on graphics design instead of gameplay programmers.
I've just had a look through that list of top selling games, and I gotta say I dont feel the same way as you.
1) Minecraft - crap graphics, shallow gameplay. Popular with young children, then bundled and heavily marketed to get massive sales.
2) GTA5 - Great graphics, average gameplay.
3) Tetris - Crap graphics, shallow gameplay, leaning on the nostalgia / quick timewaster crowd
4) Wii Sports - Average graphics, shallow gameplay. Bundled with every Wii and appealed to non-gamers, hence good sales.
5) PUBG - Average graphics, average gameplay. Possibly the first "viral" game?
6) Mario Kart 8 - Average graphics, simple gameplay
7) Super Mario Bros - Average graphics, simple gameplay
8) Red Dead Redemption 2 - Great graphics, average gameplay
9) Pokemon - Terrible graphics and gameplay, but this is combining sales figures for multiple games covering 30+ years.
10) Terraria - Only game in top 10 I haven't played.
So, looking at the top 10, I'm just not seeing any correlation between graphics and sales. Some have great graphics, some have shit graphics. Not a single one of them has great gameplay.
The main correlations I can see is that most of these games are aimed at children (under 16s) and most of them are very accessible.
I am also curious about some of these figures. Granted, its wikipedia so not reliable, but where is WoW? Runescape? Roblox? Wow peaked at what, 13m subscribers? That means over its lifetime it should easily have sold 50million copies of the game, which would put it in the top 10. Same sort of thing with Runescape and Roblox, both have claimed massive numbers of people playing and paying for their games.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
So, a certain level of graphics is important to get the initial sales of the game going and to get yourself up to a critical mass of players: enough to form a decent initial community.
But, after that it's all about gameplay.
I agree with this in concept, but good gameplay sells games also.
How else can you explain games like Vampire Survivors, Dwarf Fortress, Terraria, Rimworld, Stardew Valley, Factorio, Slay the Spire etc... I could go on and on with games from steam with low graphics and high sales, with overwhelming positive reviews.
I would say that those games have a very particular audience who know what to expect, don't mind retro graphics or pixel art or "whatever" and so they buy no matter what.
I would say that Cameltosis' statement works with general audiences.
Terraria sold 44million units with 97% overwhelming rating, thats more than some "very particular audience". 44 million copies with that high of a rating has to be general audience wide.
The games I mentioned all sold millions of copies. There are plenty of others with similiar popularity. Its not like there is just this 44million customers buying every single one of these games. There are tons of low graphics games with millions of copies sold and have high ratings. Your theory of the audience size I feel is opposite of the facts.
When you compare High Gameplay Low Graphics VS Low Gameplay High Graphics it seems Low Graphics is winning that by far.
If anything its the high graphics low gameplay crowd that is niche. When you look at the top selling games of all time, I see many low graphics games at the top. How many high graphics low gameplay successes are there?
But isn't Terreria also a mobile game? Seems to fall inline for what one can expect on a mobile game.
Not familiar with it other than what I just looked up but it seems like a nice "time waster" game where players can do a bit of this and a bit of that while on their commute or whatnot.
I was referring more to PC games.
Was/is a huge massive success as a pc game long before it made a mobile version .
44 million copies sold
Over 23 mill on pc 9 mill on mobile Th rest on consoles Is in the top ten all time sales.
Well, like I said, don't know anything about Terraria. When I see games like Dwarf Fortress or Vampire Survivors I think of "particular audience."
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Highly detailed graphics are not always good graphics.
Good graphics = easy on the eyes, pleasant to look at.
Games that are pleasant to look at are played by more people for longer periods of time. If a game is not pleasant to look at, it won’t have many players regardless of gameplay. People first see a game before they play it, and if it’s ugly, they’ll turn away.
Therefore, graphics trump gameplay for drawing a crowd, which is the biggest priority for an MMO.
When judging the relationship between the goodness of graphics and sales/player count for old games, we should also consider how advanced its graphics were for its time.
Comments
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
How else can you explain games like Vampire Survivors, Dwarf Fortress, Terraria, Rimworld, Stardew Valley, Factorio, Slay the Spire etc... I could go on and on with games from steam with low graphics and high sales, with overwhelming positive reviews.
I would say that Cameltosis' statement works with general audiences.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Its hard to showcase gameplay. Graphics takes about 1 second to notice first hand in a video, however gameplay probably requires Word of Mouth, review sites, etc...
The problem is people cant really even trust review sites or initial Alpha/Beta tester reviews. Alpha/Beta testers are normally just fanbois who dont mind lieing about if the game is good or not.
So general audiences really have to wait for overwhelming response to see if it will actually be good and worth their time.
TLDR, Graphics can be seen first hand and dont require reliance on others, where gameplay is difficult to show and requires feedback from others to get WoM out there.
The games I mentioned all sold millions of copies. There are plenty of others with similiar popularity. Its not like there is just this 44million customers buying every single one of these games. There are tons of low graphics games with millions of copies sold and have high ratings. Your theory of the audience size I feel is opposite of the facts.
When you compare High Gameplay Low Graphics VS Low Gameplay High Graphics it seems Low Graphics is winning that by far.
If anything its the high graphics low gameplay crowd that is niche. When you look at the top selling games of all time, I see many low graphics games at the top. How many high graphics low gameplay successes are there?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games
For example: EverQuest2, with its glitchy shadows, and a ugly world overall. Character models I thought were good. Opinions vary and it's understandable. I could have forgiven the bad graphics if game play was good; it wasn't.
I am sure it is hard to find a balance to graphic fidelity and game play. Game producers/directors need to have some talent in what they are doing, to make a great game. To have a clear vision of what they want to create, with the help of artists and engineers.
If they have good graphics that's a bonus but obviously not needed.
Good Graphics and Animations attract Moths for sure , but without Good gameplay the flutter and die out fast .
New World being the newest and best example of this, pretty game , terrible shallow systems , and why they have 2% of there playerbase logging onto there game.
Not familiar with it other than what I just looked up but it seems like a nice "time waster" game where players can do a bit of this and a bit of that while on their commute or whatnot.
I was referring more to PC games.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
44 million copies sold
Over 23 mill on pc
9 mill on mobile
Th rest on consoles
Is in the top ten all time sales.
I agree with you on this.
However I think that its actually Good Gameplay that is the defining quality for most of the highly successful titles.
Even your New World example, the gameplay in that game is probably just average, I wouldnt say its the worst. So the reason its failing is that average gameplay is not good enough to be super successful regardless of graphics. Had the game had amazing gameplay it probably would have been the most popular game currently.
Seems devs should be focusing on gameplay first and foremost. As there are many successes with extremely poor graphics 2 of 10 but had good gameplay that pulled it over the top. Yet I cant think of any successes where Graphics is amazing but gameplay is a 2/10. Maybe a few exist, but its not dominant like gameplay is.
Somehow I think its the high graphics that is likely the most costly part of the budget also. These devs are focusing on graphics design instead of gameplay programmers.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo