themanwithnoname said:
twesterm said:
themanwithnoname said:
twesterm said:
themanwithnoname said:
If the game is three hours long, it is the equivalent to paying full price for a twelve hour game, of which I've bought a few that lasted less than that. I don't think it's nearly as a bad of price as people like to think it is.
@twesterm
Why are you trying to remove the art style from the game? If Call of Duty had no multiplayer, would it sell as well as it does? That makes about as much sense as your "if this game didn't have this great art style..." argument...
|
A game should be fun regardless of the art style. If you have a game full of gray boxes in a box world that's fun, you have a winner.
Your Call of Duty doesn't make sense because the multiplayer is directly related to the gameplay. It would be better to say if you had a bunch of proxy characters running around in a box multiplayer world, would it still be fun? Hopefully that would be a yes.
If you played Limbo and it looked like a generic platformer, would it still be fun?
|
Why does it make a difference? Is art style not part of the game? Do you really think the developers would have put out the exact same gameplay and the exact same level design, if it did have a different art style? I don't think that's a fair assumption to make.
|
Art is a part of the game and it should obviously look good, I'm just saying every (good) game is made fun before the art.
Do you think while a game like Call of Duty is being made it instantly looks like it does when it's released? There are months and months where it's full of boxes, gray or single color textures, and very temporary textures before it even begins to even resemble a Call of Duty game.
With Limbo, it just feels like there was a decent game demo there with a really cool art style. There's really not a lot beyond that to me yet.
|
I'm not really sure I get your Call of Duty example. As early in the development process as you're referring to, I can guarantee the gameplay would not be fun at all, if it's even playable at that point. My point is, the gameplay and the level design in this game is all clearly based off the art style. Your argument is "what if it didn't have that art style?", while my response to that is that the game would have different gameplay, level design, and be a completely different game. Everything in this game is tied to its art style, thus throwing it out the window would affect everything.
|
1. The game is playable at the beginning. It may not be playable from beginning to end and it may be a level that's only playable in pieces with prototype mechanics, but it's playable. Art is defined early on, but it's one of the last things to get finished in a game.
When a designer is making a level, it's much cheaper to build a box world with basic shapes and iterate on that than to have an even near art complete level and make changes.
2. You're just plain wrong about the art affecting the gameplay, or at least you are for the first 40% since that's all I can talk about. You could literally make the character a box without animations and make the game out of simple slopes and such and it would be the same exact game gameplay wise.
If you played that game, I have the feeling most people would be bored. Going back to Call of Duty, if you played their early levels, you would probably be having fun.
