I'm super happy that games that look and feel like those from Spiderweb Software exist. I think it's charming. But the fact that he feels compelled to write an article in defense of the art style is telling to me. I think it's not unreasonable to answer the headline question with "because they're stubborn". Their games look crap, not because of a lack of resources but because of a disrespect for visual design (it's n…
What a weird comment. The guy says he likes the style of his games, and that they make a profitable business for him. Why do you insist there's a "problem"? I thought this was a great article. Why do the games look "ugly"? Because 1) perfect graphics aren't even the point; and 2) this is a way to build a sustainable business. Your technical complaints about the art entirely miss the point. And I guarantee that there…
The author believes there's a problem, or they wouldn't have written an article about it. I agree with the grandparent comment. The tone of the article isn't "yes, the graphics are bad but it's fine", it's "you just don't appreciate the style". The author lists four things they believe to be the cause of the complaints:
> 1. Queen's Wish has a very retro square-tile top-down view, reminiscent of old Ultima games, old Pokemon games, Spiderweb's first games, tabletop D&D, that sort of thing. For some, that old style is really unfamiliar and/or alienating.
> 2. Queen's Wish uses art made by a lot of different artists. That means that the style is not quite consistent. We've done our best to make it blend well, but it's a little off.
> 3. All the characters only look in diagonal directions. I made this choice because I once thought all the art would be hand-drawn, and I desperately needed to reduce the number of icons I needed. This was a mistake, and I'll probably try to fix it in Queen's Wish 2.
> 4. It's not in 3-D. Some people will only ever be happy with 3-D.
Of these four, two are "you don't like the style" (1 and 4), and one is a technical complaint that the author agrees with (3). But in this comment section, the focus is clearly on point 2 (lack of art direction).
The author has an explanation for point 2 (cost), which most commenters find reasonable (some disagree of course, which is to be expected). But it's the large amount of text spent debating point 1 and 4 (which are unrelated to cost) that people take issue with.
To me, the inclusion of point 1 and 4 come off as deflection from point 2, the point that most complainants actually have an issue with.