Friday, December 30, 2005

Graphics vs Gameplay

Which do you think is more important?
I read an article today on my internet travels.
I believe that without gameplay a game is not worth playing. However without the graphics to tempt people, they are not likely to pick it up in the first place.

If you were able to create a game that looked bad but had fantastic gameplay, and then you somehow managed to get that game into a game-players hands, I think that person would become interested in the game. The problem is how to get people to actually play the game, there are a few possible solutions:
  • So far, from what I've seen, most publishers solve the problem with fancy graphics
  • Another possible solution is "reviews"
  • Or Demos - these can be cut down and missing features from the full game though (Jets'n'Guns)
  • Trials - time or usage trial. These are fully functioning games that only last for a certain length of time. Most small developer companies I've seen, seem to use this method. (e.g, Xeno2 (30 min), Platypus (60 min) ,
If more of the development resources are spent on making the graphics of a game look good, then that would mean less resources are available to make sure the gameplay is as good as it can be. It usually takes a lot of time and money to create the art for a game. Plus there is a fear that you must not be too creative or original, so the game is stuck with high visuals and reduced gameplay.


Post a Comment

<< Home