Live data from Hacker News

Why All of Our Games Look Like Crap

jeff-vogel.blogspot.com

471–480 of 552 posts

Re: Why All of Our Games Look Like Crap

#471
post #466

The first games I bought online were Spiderweb games (Exile 2,3). I had to convince my parents to let me use their credit card. I got the code back in email to unlock the game, and I got to play the second half of the game! I remember agonizing over stats of things like the waveblades and halberds. The way I knew I absolutely had to go to bed was when I lost over an hour's worth of progress due to forgetting to save.…

Oh wow, are you me? I also remember being young enough to think I could just find a way around the Shareware Demon (lol) if I tried hard enough.

I remember the brief but super fun Blades of Exile scenario community back then, there were some really fun inventive things people did with a pretty barebones engine.

I think at one point someone made a fanservice scenario with a lot of people from the forums and I got a cameo. Good childhood memories.

Re: Why All of Our Games Look Like Crap

#472
post #141

Oh man. This thread is really something else. Like...for miles in every direction, all I can see are pitchforks, and here I am standing alone on a small hill thinking to myself "Holy shit. That's the Spiderweb software guy. I've played every single one of his games, EVERY SINGLE ONE, and loved all of them." The graphics in the games are exactly as good as they need to be to make wonderful story-driven RPGs.

I still occasionally play Nethack. In a terminal. I've seen graphical frontends for the game but IMO that stuff just gets in the way.

Re: Why All of Our Games Look Like Crap

#473

> People who grew up with Nintendo and Sega really like pixel art. As one of those people, I really don't like pixel art at all. Today's pixel art looks nothing like games did back in the day. The simple reason is that those Nintendo and Sega games weren't played on 27" 4k LCD monitors or 65" OLED TV's but on on the barely 14" CRT in my bedroom. We didn't have huge pixely sprites, they were small and blurry. It had a…

Id also argue that pixel art is the default fallback for people who don’t like 3d engine graphics, which I personally can’t stand. I love to see evolution of 2d graphics using our latest and greatest tech.

I think Octopath Traveler is a beautiful example of 2d pixel art reimagined.

Re: Why All of Our Games Look Like Crap

#474
post #370
post #141

Oh man. This thread is really something else. Like...for miles in every direction, all I can see are pitchforks, and here I am standing alone on a small hill thinking to myself "Holy shit. That's the Spiderweb software guy. I've played every single one of his games, EVERY SINGLE ONE, and loved all of them." The graphics in the games are exactly as good as they need to be to make wonderful story-driven RPGs.

I'm with you on the games being excellent examples of a super niche style done well but he's basically writing an article attacking the very concept of art direction as a waste of resources. That comes off a little disrespectful towards people who care. I think there's no point in making their games looking any different than they do (because it's part of their brand, now) but the correct response to a question of wh…

> but the correct response to a question of why they don't make a "better" looking game is that they don't care. Or, maybe, it's a taste issue.

No, he plainly states it is a cost issue. He can't afford to hire the people who could create truly "good" art for his games.

Re: Why All of Our Games Look Like Crap

#475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hah! He knows what he's doing better than anyone here thinks. Here we are discussing his ugly cheap art, browsing through his games, at almost no cost to him (writing a blog post?) He must have had at least a few hundred sales today, because I saw this blog post on twitter and reddit as well. That's really quite brilliant.

He even said his title was click-baity later in the article. He wrote this for the attention, and HN gave it to him. This has at least four times as many comments as most game dev articles I see that get linked here.

Fine by me, it's interesting enough :)

Re: Why All of Our Games Look Like Crap

#476
post #141

Oh man. This thread is really something else. Like...for miles in every direction, all I can see are pitchforks, and here I am standing alone on a small hill thinking to myself "Holy shit. That's the Spiderweb software guy. I've played every single one of his games, EVERY SINGLE ONE, and loved all of them." The graphics in the games are exactly as good as they need to be to make wonderful story-driven RPGs.

It's not my understanding that having a fond nostalgia for somebody's works excuses the article's salty tone that basically tells people they're wrong for thinking the games are ugly, coming up with all manner of excuses but never once embracing that the problem is entirely the developer's own and nobody else's; yes, that point is laid out there but it's given as an excuse, not as a justification. There's a fine line…

> that basically tells people they're wrong for thinking the games are ugly

Uh, no, he freely concedes his games are ugly. The title of the article is "Why All of Our Games Look Like Crap".

Re: Why All of Our Games Look Like Crap

#477
I'd probably call Spiderweb games one template, with some variations. Not much has advanced in the twenty odd years I've looked at them from time to time. First one was OK, all others I've tried for a few minutes and been pretty underwhelmed with the progress.

Re: Why All of Our Games Look Like Crap

#478
post #141

Oh man. This thread is really something else. Like...for miles in every direction, all I can see are pitchforks, and here I am standing alone on a small hill thinking to myself "Holy shit. That's the Spiderweb software guy. I've played every single one of his games, EVERY SINGLE ONE, and loved all of them." The graphics in the games are exactly as good as they need to be to make wonderful story-driven RPGs.

Looking at the screenshots in the article, I actually liked the graphics in Avernum 3 and even Escape from the Pit, they seemed consistent and actually pretty well done if a bit simple. I understand the complaints about Queen's Wish. They're not necessarily bad, I don't mind a lot of the tiles, but something does seem off with it. That being said, I've seen far worse and if the gameplay's good then it doesn't seem li…

> They're not necessarily bad, I don't mind a lot of the tiles, but something does seem off with it.

The problem I have with it is that it all looks really generic -- like default "RPG Maker" tiles or stock art. The old-school Exile art was simple, but it was unique and had its own distinctive style.

Re: Why All of Our Games Look Like Crap

#479
Speaking of looking like crap, I was recently going through my old backups, and ran across an ancient forgotten installer for "The Sims Steering Committee" dated June 4, 1998, an early pre-release version of The Sims that we distributed internally at EA shortly after they bought Maxis, more than a year and a half before we released The Sims in March 2000.

Here's a screen recording of a demo I made in a VM, which walks through the scenarios, objects, and tools, and also shows some of the "SimAntics" behavior tree code behind the different levels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zC52jE60KjY

It's got a "sketchy" user interface, a dot above the selected character's head instead of the iconic spinning plumb-bob, a horrifically crude and ugly object placement tool with yellow squares and big red X's when you can't place an object (but that gladly lets you place bathtubs on hills), and a bare minimal number of crappy objects, some of which have astoundingly terrible graphics and prototypically implemented behaviors.

Especially @ 24:25: the vintage Stereo with colorful musical notes dancing above it, the stinky Fish Tank (permanently attached to its own table), the unbelievably nasty Pink Flamingo, the goofy looking Flower (also growing out of a pot on its own table), and the blue bakelite Telephone (glued to its own table as well) which looks like it has Halloween Candy Corn springing out when it rings @ 12:45, then the caller asks you if you'd like your fingers chewed off by rabid ferrets for $42. It has pixelated censoring @ 13:31, which attempts to disguise the embarrassing fact that they shit and shower with their pants on. Also @ 2:00 it has weird pie menus with placeholder programmer art, and the original characters, including Archie Bunker permanently holding a burning cigar in his hand! Also there's some unfortunately worded dialog text that probably wouldn't have made it past the ESRB @ 40:50.

As ugly as it was, it was just playable enough to convince The Sims Steering Committee at EA not to cancel our project, and to give us another year and a half to complete it.

Here's an interview with Chris Trottier, one of the designers of The Sims, in which she describes "Tuned Emergence and Design by Accretion".

Sims Designer Chris Trottier on Tuned Emergence and Design by Accretion

https://web.archive.org/web/20110408034710/https://www.donho...

>The Armchair Empire interviewed Chris Trottier, one of the designers of The Sims and The Sims Online. She touches on some important ideas, including "Tuned Emergence" and "Design by Accretion".

>Chris' honest analysis of how and why "the gameplay didn't come together until the months before the ship" is right on the mark, and that's the secret to the success of games like The Sims and SimCity.

>The essential element that was missing until the last minute was tuning: The approach to game design that Maxis brought to the table is called "Tuned Emergence" and "Design by Accretion". Before it was tuned, The Sims wasn't missing any structure or content, but it just wasn't balanced yet. But it's OK, because that's how it's supposed to work!

>In justifying their approach to The Sims, Maxis had to explain to EA that SimCity 2000 was not fun until 6 weeks before it shipped. But EA was not comfortable with that approach, which went against every rule in their play book. It required Will Wright's tremendous stamina to convince EA not to cancel The Sims, because according to EA's formula, it would never work.

>If a game isn't tuned, it's a drag, and you can't stand to play it for an hour. The Sims and SimCity were "designed by accretion": incrementally assembled together out of "a mass of separate components", like a planet forming out of a cloud of dust orbiting around star. They had to reach critical mass first, before they could even start down the road towards "Tuned Emergence", like life finally taking hold on the planet surface. Even then, they weren't fun until they were carefully tuned just before they shipped, like the renaissance of civilization suddenly developing science and technology. Before it was properly tuned, The Sims was called "the toilet game", for the obvious reason that there wasn't much else to do!

Chris Trottier (Sims Online) Q&A

https://web.archive.org/web/20111211182436/http://www.armcha...

>Q: On paper, a game where you simulate daily life doesn't sound that interesting. Yet The Sims is really fun to play, so much so that it is now the biggest-selling PC game ever. Although any development team working with Will Wright has to feel confident in the product they are creating, has the unbelievable popularity of the franchise shocked even the development team?

>A: Absolutely. When I was first assigned to The Sims, it was not-very-affectionately-known within the company as "the toilet game." Will Wright had tremendous stamina for the risk involved with trying something very new, but there were certainly a lot of head-scratchers both on the team and outside of it. In all honesty, the gameplay didn't start to really come together until a couple of months before ship. Being involved in that tuning process, and seeing the game take shape from what had previously been a mass of separate components, was one of the most powerful experiences of my career.

Re: Why All of Our Games Look Like Crap

#480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your aside comment. That quote in the original article really jumped out to me. There are a ton of great indie games that have solid cohesive art direction but wouldn't be considered even close to AAA quality in terms of production effort. Some beloved heavy hitters would include the Steamworld series, Celeste, Undertale, Super Meat Boy. These are games made on a shoestring development team that don't lo…

JV spends astonishingly little on art because his games don't make very much . His audience is small (I am part of it) and his audience values that particular kind of game way more than it does art-- and the marginal return from making it look a little better to appeal to a little wider of a crowd is historically negative. He cited as much, and he's talked about his numbers in concrete terms before. Every game you li…

One thing that bothers me in this discussion is the 'business model' justification.

>his audience values that particular kind of game way more than it does art

Isn't that ridiculously self-selecting? If he's always been making ugly games, then it follows that his current customer base will be limited to people who don't care as much about visuals. This will always be true, regardless of what genre games you're making.

It absolutely does not mean that he wouldn't expand his audience by making good-looking games. In fact, if what he said is true and most of his current customers don't care about looks, it's more likely an indicator that the subpar visuals are indeed costing him customers.

I honestly have a hard time grasping that this even passes as an argument. It's like someone who sells shit sandwiches saying their customers don't mind the shit taste.

Post reply on HN