• Hey Guest! Ever feel like entering a Game Jam, but the time limit is always too much pressure? We get it... You lead a hectic life and dedicating 3 whole days to make a game just doesn't work for you! So, why not enter the GMC SLOW JAM? Take your time! Kick back and make your game over 4 months! Interested? Then just click here!

Graphics analysis 2: Graphics vs. Gameplay

M

Misty

Guest
So I was playing Mario Kart 8 again. Mario Kart 8 is good but not great. I would say it is good, because I still have urges to play it. A bad game cannot stand the test of time, therefore it is not a bad game.

But lets be honest the physics are worse than 94. I tested it, gravity has no effect when the car is on the ground, even when you are in wheeled mode gravity does not effect grip. So on tracks like cheese land or rainbow mode you will stupidly slide off the map because banks do nothing. Even the n64 and gamecube mario karts had gravity and banks, its a very basic thing.

And what's concerning is that noone cares. Reviewers don't care. All the youtube reviews just complain about the graphics, or not having the characters they want. I lost my faith in society. Where all the good reviewers? On a racing game not a single person notices the broken physics, instead people whine about the graphics. The graphics of Mario Kart 8 are fine. The characters of Mario Kart 8 are good. Anyone who whines about it needs to stop whining.

The other day I watched a 20 minute video called the comparisons between Forza 7 and Gran Turismo Sport. It was a good video but concerning. The entire video he did not compare the physics engine one time. Instead he just talked about graphics. It seems all anyone cares about is graphics, graphics, graphics, graphics. Does anyone even care about gameplay? People only talk about gameplay when it is really, really broken, like Action Girlz Racing. But they don't really notice it, they don't pay attention to it, unless it is totally not working.

Mario Kart 8, is a skill based game, therefore fun. It is fun because it is competitive. But it is not fun because of the physics. The game forces you to drift at all times and sucks the freedom out of the game. For example, on Toad Turnpike there is a long .1 G turn. A turn I don't have to drift on. Yet it forces me to drift, because if I don't drift, the kid behind me will driftboost behind me. It's stupid. I shouldn't have to drift around every corner to win. Is this a racing game, or a Tokyo drift battle? This game is just endless snaking. Snaking is the stupidest thing that ever happened to Mario Kart.

What's also concerning, besides the fact that noone even notices this, is that noone complains that they re-released Mario Kart 8 onto the Nintendo Switch, as the same exact game, basically an updated version of the game, that could have just been a patch. Nintendo always had a tradition of making a new Mario Kart for every console, but yet when they don't make a new mario kart for the Switch, noone cares. And that concerns me. It's like the Rapture already happened. Most of the good gamers souls went and left this world. And all thats left are zombie gamers of call of duty and mountain dew.

So my final equation, is this: graphics*gameplay=game score. Most people use an additive equation. But it is just not the case. IF your game has the worst graphics, or gives people a headache or nausea to look at, noone will want to play it, and will not enjoy playing it. But if you have the best graphics in the world, but the worst gameplay, noone will play it either. Therefore the final score is graphics*gameplay, not graphics+gameplay.

Graphics are important. Gameplay is important. But only enough graphics to create an atmosphere. Polygon count, or realistic looking graphics, is not actually important. Therefore the full equation looks more something like this
final score=min(1,graphics*1.2)*gameplay.

People's insane obession with graphics is ruining the game industry. People don't realize it, but graphics makes the budget and time to make games exponential. For example, it took the makers of gran turismo sport 3 months just to build 1 car model. But the cars of gran turismo 1 only took 1 day. People's insane obsession with graphics is costing companies a fortune and delaying games.
 
I

immortalx

Guest
Well it has always been like this. I still remember the first time I saw Dragon's Lair on the local arcade. It seemed like it came from another world, compared to the other cabinets in the room.
But it was a đź’©đź’©đź’©đź’©ty game. No one wanted to play it, yet everyone wanted to watch someone play it...
Visuals are the "first contact", the magnet. Of course serious gamers usually invest in games with deep gameplay value, but the majority is just casual gamers.

I was re-playing the core design era Tomb Raider games (for the 10th time) the other day, and my daughter was watching curiously as me and wife were lost (again) in a bunch of pointy polygons.
She found the gameplay very attractive but couldn't stand the graphics. She laughed hard when I told her this was state of the art back in the day...
Wasn't graphics what drove me buy the 1st Tomb Raider? Sure it was. But great gameplay is what kept me playing it again and again.
So I'd say graphics and gameplay are of equal importance. And of course I do agree that most modern games tend to focus more and more on graphics and are therefore not so fun to play.

I used to trust reviews but not so much anymore. They are of no use to me when a well-marketed and exposed, mediocre game gets nice scores, while a poor-marketed fantastic game (even if it does get good scores) doesn't make enough noise to be heard.
 

Mert

Member
This is the same question you have to answer. Say that you're in a café with 2 girls, name them Donna and Erica.
Donna is smart, you can have decent conversation with her and she loves Lord of The Rings so you can have some fun being with her. Being with her is fun. She's physically not beautiful.
Erica is blonde girl, has amazing green eyes. She loves decent clothes and really catch the eyes of all the men in the café. Looking at her just makes your heart explode.

You can spend one day with one of them. You can tell your friends that you're with Donna or Erica(in the context of a video game, you tell your friends that you're playing with this game).
Answer depends on people.

There's not a constant formula for this comparison.

The same behaviour can be seen amongst people, some people loves reading Marvel heroes, some just want to watch Avengers on theatre.
 
Give a game a desirable art style and you're set. Get noticed in a crowd. If you look good, you get attention and people will figure well if they put that much time into a game's appearance, it must be good. Sure you can always fight uphill and have an ugly game that has the best gameplay, but how will people know?

It's not even about the quality of art, just the art style. That style can be anything. 8bit, 80s vibe, SNES, low poly PS1, ultra expensive 3D, ASCII, and so on. Make it accomplish the vibe you're going for. Mario Kart is a happy, cheerful game. They spend so much time on minor details to make an incredible, rich presentation that stands out even on what people consider to be inferior hardware.
 
M

Misty

Guest
Give a game a desirable art style and you're set. Get noticed in a crowd. If you look good, you get attention and people will figure well if they put that much time into a game's appearance, it must be good. Sure you can always fight uphill and have an ugly game that has the best gameplay, but how will people know?

It's not even about the quality of art, just the art style. That style can be anything. 8bit, 80s vibe, SNES, low poly PS1, ultra expensive 3D, ASCII, and so on. Make it accomplish the vibe you're going for. Mario Kart is a happy, cheerful game. They spend so much time on minor details to make an incredible, rich presentation that stands out even on what people consider to be inferior hardware.
Yes but how will I find 3d artists who have a Nintendo quality art style, who don't charge up the ar*e? You can't find those kind of artists for indie rates. Thus the indie problem, and corporate monopoly on talent.


This is the same question you have to answer. Say that you're in a café with 2 girls, name them Donna and Erica.
Donna is smart, you can have decent conversation with her and she loves Lord of The Rings so you can have some fun being with her. Being with her is fun. She's physically not beautiful.
Erica is blonde girl, has amazing green eyes. She loves decent clothes and really catch the eyes of all the men in the café. Looking at her just makes your heart explode.

You can spend one day with one of them. You can tell your friends that you're with Donna or Erica(in the context of a video game, you tell your friends that you're playing with this game).
Answer depends on people.

There's not a constant formula for this comparison.

The same behavior can be seen amongst people, some people loves reading Marvel heroes, some just want to watch Avengers on theatre.
I made a thread based on this concept, but the thread got closed because of viscous trolls giving me a hard time about it.

And what's concerning,is how society as a whole seems so overwhelmingly shallow. It's like I get how you don't want to play MS Paint graphics. But what about a decent graphics with great gameplay? It seems like people don't even care about gameplay anymore, at least not on Youtube because I keep running into videos that say it is a "games comparison" yet only talk about graphics the whole video. Or "Mario Kart 8 review" yet all it mentions is graphics, characters and some minor gameplay elements and does not even discuss the physics of the game. And yes, professional game developers get bribes from game companies and they are legal bribes because there is no real agreement. They just know if they give good reviews, they will get rewards and paid trips and perks from game companies. And it's not illegal because there is no verbal agreement, it's all done unofficially. The gaming industry has turned into a sleezy corporate greedfest where noone cares about games as much as they care about money. And the whole point of games is the opposite, to escape from reality, to take a break from the 9 to 5, to reach enlightenment and Nirvana, and not obsess over worldly affairs. The gaming industry has just gotten too worldy and consumed with the mundane.
 
M

Misty

Guest
If you can't find someone to do something... do it yourself. :)
3d modelling does not call to me. I look at blender and what I see is nightmare fuel. :cool:

My 3d modelling experience is an absolute nightmare. Milkshape 3d no longer works and cannot display 2d views. Wings 3D freezes my whole computer after opening a 1 mb file, like a frustration fest comedy episode of a newgrounds cartoon where I punch window glass then gets my hand infected and i become terminally ill or something.

Also, the idea that one person ought to make a project all by themselves is inherently ridiculous, but something us indies are expected to endure.
 
Anything in a blender becomes nightmare fuel.

Perhaps you should become a cog in the machine. Get paid for your talent?

... or shoot for something attainable. Go low poly if you want 3D, but can't afford something grand. It's about style, not cost... even if yes Nintendo prints money and will have the best and most innovative stuff.
 

Toque

Member
I think the gaming industry has always been a greedfest. Now is no different. It’s just how it works. It’s not a charity. Im sure there are many passionate people making AAA games but without profit its a quick demise.

I bought Pitfall for the Atarti 2600 because it had the best graphics I had ever seen. It was a great game too. People like pretty things. We buy pretty things.
If a restaraunt menu has pictures I pick the best looking meal. Only the very best restaurants put pictures in their menus.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I remember one of those TV chefs yelling at restaurant owners to stop putting pictures in their menus. Something about if they want to be Denny's or iHop they'll get beat every time.
 
M

Misty

Guest
I think the gaming industry has always been a greedfest. Now is no different. It’s just how it works. It’s not a charity.

I bought Pitfall for the Atarti 2600 because it had the best graphics I had ever seen. It was a great game too. People like pretty things. We buy pretty things.
If a restaraunt menu has pictures I pick the best looking meal. Only the very best restaurants put pictures in their menus.

I think these are the best times for indi developers. You should of tried making a game 20 years ago or earlier........
For an individual to be able to make a game and be able to sell it to the masses is actually quite amazing. The greedy companies let us in. (maybe they couldn't stop us?).

Reviewers of games are just opinions of games. Just ignore the people you don't agree with.

Of course Nintendo games look beautiful. They have a talented crew of artists and developers to make their games.

I want to go to the moon but I don't have the NASA engineers, talent and expertise. I'm not bitter at NASA. I just focus on things I can do and happy to just dream of the stars.
If you are so happy about it why does your sig say it is like a kick in the teeth?

And the market is just noise and oversaturated, there are too many games just making noise. It would have been much better to be an indie dev 10 years ago, before everyone's pop and their grandma was doing it. And then there's the android spam, usually made by one foreigner guy who spams like 100 games in the Android market which is just a report of all his other games. The sad part is, usually those spam games are much better than the other games in the store.
 
S

Setteduetto

Guest
Honestly your example isn't gameplay vs graphics, it's physics vs graphics. No one cares about a game's physics being realistic so of course they're not going to talk about it. Even the original Mario Bros. had awful physics and people still play it today sometimes.

Your problem is that you've conflated realism with fun. No one complains that Mario Kart has a bad physics engine because it doesn't impact their gameplay experience. And the Forza/Gran Turismo comparison is also worthless because the vast majority of racing game fans buy games specifically for the graphics over all else. Many of them are just looking for a racing simulation, not a "game" in the traditional sense.
 
M

Misty

Guest
Honestly your example isn't gameplay vs graphics, it's physics vs graphics. No one cares about a game's physics being realistic so of course they're not going to talk about it. Even the original Mario Bros. had awful physics and people still play it today sometimes.

Your problem is that you've conflated realism with fun. No one complains that Mario Kart has a bad physics engine because it doesn't impact their gameplay experience. And the Forza/Gran Turismo comparison is also worthless because the vast majority of racing game fans buy games specifically for the graphics over all else. Many of them are just looking for a racing simulation, not a "game" in the traditional sense.
I addressed this all in another thread. Or maybe this thread, not sure. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But all of your arguments have been addressed.

Anyway your arguments don't even make sense on their own. First you say noone cares about realistic physics. Then you say many people are looking for a simulation not a "game".

Then you imply that people who want a simulation only care about graphics. It doesn't even make any sense.

Also, I said that noone plays mario for the realism. They play it for a good time. I already stated (here, or another thread) that I never asked for realism in Mario Kart 8. I asked for driveability, fun to drive. The karts in Mario Kart 8 are not fun to drive. Because they are so unrealistic you can't do some things with them that you'd expect. Flying off the edge of Rainbow Road 8 because of massive understeer because of the fake, 2d kinematic physics, is not fun. The physics engine doesn't even support basic stuff like banking. An example would be a platformer game with rigid movement and no inertia, and you constantly get stuck with sticky movement. It is so unrealistic that it is not as fun to play as a platformer with better physics.

Sonic Racing Transformed is not realistic. But the physics are closer to real life than Mario Kart 8. And its a better game. Each vehicle has a different handling characteristic. The boats handle like boats. The planes handle like planes. In Mario Kart 8 everything handles the same. The gravity car handles the same as the regular car. The underwater car handles almost the same as the regular car. Its all samey.
 

GMWolf

aka fel666
Forza is an arcade racing game.
Mario kart is 100% an arcade racing game. I guess, it may also be the only party racing game!

Arcade racing games try to have tight, fun controls. Real world physics doesn't apply.

If you are looking for accuracy, try a game like dirt rally.


Mario Kart 8, is a skill based game
Check out item smuggling. Though, to be fair, skill is required to pull that off.
 

Bentley

Member
Function > form. Last Jam someone made a game out of squares and circles and it was one of the best games.
 
M

Misty

Guest
Forza is an arcade racing game.
Mario kart is 100% an arcade racing game. I guess, it may also be the only party racing game!

Arcade racing games try to have tight, fun controls. Real world physics doesn't apply.

If you are looking for accuracy, try a game like dirt rally.



Check out item smuggling. Though, to be fair, skill is required to pull that off.
Forza is not an arcade game. It is a simulation. It is called an arcade-sim but I call it just a sim. Because the attitude it has is very different from the arcades. Arcades are more fun and exciting with adventure, with interesting levels. Sims on the other hand, usually have no story and have boring generic levels. Whether or not something is a sim is mainly based on the general idea of the game.

Even though Forza is a sim it is not that realistic. The cars in Forza actually seem to be harder to drive than real life. I would say a true arcade-sim would have attention to physics, but also an interesting and fun atmosphere, not a dry and serious atmosphere like most sims.

I played Dirt Rally. The graphics are nice in many ways, although the trees do look rather fake. My main problem with it is they made some of the races too difficult. I got to play Dirt Rally and Dirt 4 for free. Dirt Rally is the better game. I do not think Dirt Rally is 100% realistic but comes closer than any other game.

Function > form. Last Jam someone made a game out of squares and circles and it was one of the best games.
What was the name of it? If you are talking about the card game with bosses I didn't like it that much.
 

Bentley

Member
What was the name of it? If you are talking about the card game with bosses I didn't like it that much.
Yeah that was it. I hear you, I got bored after a while, but all things are relative. The guy made in 3 days using 0 graphics.
 
Top