Adventure Gamers - Forums
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
Post Marker Legend:
-
New posts -
No new posts
Currently online
How important are graphics to you in an adventure game
Hey folks. I am inspired to start working on my own adventure game after seeing the influx of awesome indie adventure games the last few years, and I was contemplating using Adventure Games Studio for that. It is free, and saves me lots and lots of development work on a new engine. The major drawback of that is that the resolution tends to be much lower than 1080p or 720p. There are some awesome retro looking games that use AGS though like Gemini Rue, Resonance and the Blackwell series. So my question is, how important are graphics(and especially higher resolutions) to you in an adventure game?
It’s extremely important to me personally that all adventure games be 320x240 resolution. I will suffer through 640x480 if I must, but few games that I can think of have ever really justified having such a high resolution as that.
Hey folks. I am inspired to start working on my own adventure game after seeing the influx of awesome indie adventure games the last few years, and I was contemplating using Adventure Games Studio for that. It is free, and saves me lots and lots of development work on a new engine. The major drawback of that is that the resolution tends to be much lower than 1080p or 720p. There are some awesome retro looking games that use AGS though like Gemini Rue, Resonance and the Blackwell series. So my question is, how important are graphics(and especially higher resolutions) to you in an adventure game?
I love beautiful graphics but Resonance & the Blackwell series are amongst my favourite games despite their retro look. The reason is that they both have an engaging story, likeable characters with good voice acting & dialogue along with intricacies on the puzzle side - they stand out as good games! If you want to make a game using AGS my thought is that you need to take a leaf out of WadgetEye’s book & look at how they have compensated for the lesser graphics so that they are not the dominant feature of their games!
It’s very important to me, only puzzles stand higher on my list. That saying I find 3D graphics in 95% of the cases okayish, bad or even horrible and the most beautiful for me are VGA/SVGA games (naturally not all of them) from early to mid 90s, concluded with Curse of Monkey Island and Leisure Suit Larry 7. Of course there are bright examples now like The Whispered World, Broken Sword 5 and even Runaway series.
It´s extremely important for me. I can’t stand those pixellated retro graphics - 320x240 was fine in 1990 but I see no reason to use it in this day and age. Except nostalgia and lower production costs maybe. I want my games in resolutions that look good on my 27” screen - 1080p is fine for now. Also, animation is very important for me - even a bad walkcycle animation can ruin a game for me. To each his own i guess 
Graphics are always important. An ugly game will repel even the people who play the game just for the puzzles. Not because graphics are so much more important than the other components of a game. It’s just that they are a part of the overall representation of the game. For me in a brilliant game every component of the game work as one. Story, puzzles, graphics, music, dialogue… Each of them serves the purpose to represent the game’s concept. That’s why certain developers chose a certain graphic style for their games. (it’s not only a matter of budget, nostalgia, creativity or other well known reasons). It’s needless to say that good graphics are an irrelevant thing because of personal taste. I for example value the visual outlook of a game very much. But at the same time I consider certain retro games such as Gemini Rue to be gorgeous whereas some seem to hate it for it’s appearance. My point is that good graphics are not measured in pixels (we’ve all seen some pretty tasteless HD visuals). Art is hard to be measured at all. But the thing that can be perceived more objectively is the relevance between the graphic style and the game’s concept and overall feeling.
well said, badlemon.
In some cases the lower resolution (And even limited palette) is something that benefits the visual design. In some cases, it isn’t.
I strongly recommend AGS (especially for low res stuff) and I also strongly recommend starting small. Don’t start with your magnum opus, it won’t get anywhere. Save the magnum opus for later when you’ve finished a couple smaller projects so you’ve got a better understanding of the process.
Now developing: The Journey Down: Chapter Three
I like good graphics, but it really depends on the style. There are games with beautiful hi-res backgrounds and all kind of neat visual effects, but the mood is often ruined by lazy 3D characters that just feel out of place. And there are blocky dated fully 3D games that feel awesome. Not to mention huge pixels in all-time classics that look great even on modern PCs. I’ll choose Larry VGA over that flashy mess Larry Reloaded any time.
As for AGS, there are both great low-res games (see everything drawn by Ben Chandler) and games that feel too amateurish/unpolished/unfinished even when they utilise the style of Curse of Monkey Island or some other not-so-dated gem, simply because the devs didn’t catch the original feel. Like Flight of Amazon Queen that tried really hard to look like a LucasArts adventure back in the days - and failed.
PC means personal computer
Graphics are important and a game needs to look good. I agree with badlemon ^^^ that a pixel count has NOTHING to do with the quality of the graphics.
There are gorgeous 320x240 games and butt-ugly 1920x1200 ones, as well as everything in-between. The important thing is that the graphics look good.
The truth can’t hurt you, it’s just like the dark: it scares you witless but in time you see things clear and stark. - Elvis Costello
Maybe this time I can be strong, but since I know who I am, I’m probably wrong. Maybe this time I can go far, but thinking about where I’ve been ain’t helping me start. - Michael Kiwanuka
......there are bright examples now like The Whispered World, Broken Sword 5 and even Runaway series.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding the meaning of retro graphics as I wouldn’t describe the graphics of those 3 games as retro - they to me are well-drawn animated ‘cartoon’ graphics that are highly defined (oh hell! I don’t know how to describe them properly!) that fit perfectly into the modern age. Retro graphics to me = either pixelated or emulating the style of older games to make them look like older games.
Graphics mean a lot to me. Resolution means almost nothing. Contradiction? Maybe. I just really don’t think you can lump all ‘retro’ games in the same category. Many are ugly. Some look stunning. And the same goes for hi-res games. It’s the quality of the drawing that counts, not how many pixels.
I haven’t tried doing a retro game myself, but the huge gulf in quality between mid-era Sierra and most of these new ‘retro’ AGs makes me think you need to be very talented to pull it off.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding the meaning of retro graphics as I wouldn’t describe the graphics of those 3 games as retro - they to me are well-drawn animated ‘cartoon’ graphics that are highly defined (oh hell! I don’t know how to describe them properly!) that are perfectly acceptable in the present. Retro graphics to me = either pixelated or emulating the style of older games to make them look like older games.
No no, we misunderstood, I didn’t say I like retro graphics, I only gave some examples of which I consider beautiful and it seems the most of them incidentally are from 90s. I don’t even like gfx from most of the games that are using that retro style (Wadjet Eye Games for example), but I like their other aspects.
Graphics mean a lot to me. Resolution means almost nothing. Contradiction? Maybe. I just really don’t think you can lump all ‘retro’ games in the same category. Many are ugly. Some look stunning. And the same goes for hi-res games. It’s the quality of the drawing that counts, not how many pixels.
I haven’t tried doing a retro game myself, but the huge gulf in quality between mid-era Sierra and most of these new ‘retro’ AGs makes me think you need to be very talented to pull it off.
This.
Yes! I agree!
Well, the thing is we always tend to mix the quality of the art per se with the resolution. Yes, you should have great art. No, you shouldn’t necessarily worry about the resolution. There of course are exceptions, but I think most people on this board’s favorite games are probably 320x240 or 640x480. Mine for ex. are DoTT, CoMI, Grim Fandango… none of them HD. But boy oh boy do they have sweet graphics!
Especially if you are heading into a 2d adventure, I wouldn’t worry about the resolution that much - but I would worry about having good art. Right now pixel art games are all the rage, for example. Who knows how long the fad will last, but probably pretty long, since they’re ideal for indie devs (they require less artistic output, simplified animations etc).
So please don’t think having a game that’s lo res means it’s necessarily ugly. For example, I know it’s not an adventure game, but this gem has some of the most awesome characters and animations I’ve seen in a while, and check the pixel count on them zombies 
On the other hand, I had no idea AGS was limitative when it came to resolution, so that’s a little weird. We’re working on an adventure game right now, too, and it’ll be in HD, but if something came up and we had to stick to lower resolutions it wouldn’t be a death blow to the game, since good art is good art and good puzzles are good puzzles. I say just go for it!
Think others have hit it on the head. Although personally, I’m not a fan of the older pixel styled game. If the story etc make up for it though, then I can go along with it. Gemini Rue springs to mind.
Recently completed: Game of Thrones (decent), Tales from the borderlands (great!), Life is Strange (great!), Stasis (good), Annas Quest (great!); Broken Age (poor)
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
