Steam Strategy now that Greenlight is gone

Okay, here is how I see these games. There are a few things about them that I think are different from the vast majority of Indie games and certainly AAA games.

First, they are solid games that do not rely on superb visuals or even great visuals. And that is very different. Different from AAA. Different from most Indie games. So this makes them stand out already (bad to some good to others). If I saw screenshots of any of these games sitting in a collection of 5 or 6 other Indie games the screenshot for these would likely stand out to me where the others would basically look the same. The others would have that basic Indie game look to them I have seen so many times now.

Second, the games themselves are made quite well (I have them in my Steam library). I don't think they are nearly as good as they could be but they are very solid games. They have a decent feel to them when playing. The levels in the FPS game are pretty big. And kind of seems like a bit of a maze at times. The atmosphere is actually quite good while playing. So these games represent a very solid core. There is nothing wrong with the games as they are but all could be improved.

Third, the price of the games matches the games. This is a very different idea as well. When I spend $1 for a game this is what I would expect to get for $1. No more. No less. Again using the FPS game as an example... I would like it to have a couple of more enemies and some secrets and so forth. If it did I would expect to pay more. Maybe $3. Maybe $5 just depending on how much more they added.

I think these games hit a sort of micro niche of delivering a very basic game experience for a very low price. And they help to establish a much more realistic expectation of what $1 should get you for a game. Just a good simple fun basic game.

Fourth (and these all kind of go together), this interests my game dev side... I see these games as being a great way for these developers to enter game dev as a business. They didn't (at least I would hope they didn't) labor for many months and years on some epic grand vision. They probably completed these games in less than a few months (maybe much less depending on their experience & skills). This allowed them to quickly get to market and start reaching people.

And on that last bit the main thing I see here that needs to be improved is their marketing. They seem to have done no marketing at all. Unfortunately because of that their games will likely sit unnoticed the same as most every other Indie game does. I wish they would have have taken advantage of the low development time to focus a lot on the marketing side. They could still do that of course but so far I see it as they started out smart but ended up doing the same kind of thing the majority of indie game devs do just relying on Steam to market the games for them.

Finally, I do think there is creativity in these games and I believe in time we will see someone who truly takes advantage of approaching game development this way (less focus on visuals) and uses all of that time saved to add much more into the games to do. Much greater interaction. Unique mechanics or at least twist on existing mechanics. I think it is inevitable. And when it happens that will be sort of like a Minecraft thing happening again. I find it very odd in fact that nobody has done it yet or even seems to think about doing it other than myself.

 

Going to strongly disagree with this. Most AAA games have very solid gameplay that is completely independent from their visuals.

Can you name any AAA games where the game is lackluster when the visuals are ignored?

It seems to me that your preference for simple, pixel-like graphics is causing some bias in your assessment of a game's quality.

 

That is always a possibility after all I am only human. But I did not say anything about a game being lackluster other than the visuals? What I said or at least what I intended is that not trying to impress and stand out visually is very different from most AAA games. And I can't really see how anyone could honestly disagree with that. I think the one immediate thing that comes to most people's minds when they think of AAA is the presentation in general and a lot of that being in the visuals whether it is cut scenes or in-game.

 

I can, but they all tended to bomb as AAA games. So if anything they prove your point.

 

In all honesty, I can't agree with this at all. Most AAA games have a very solid gameplay framework they base the game around. There are only a few games where the game is not "solid" when the visuals are discounted. The Order 1886 is one of the very, very few that come to mind.

But most games where the visuals are highlighted also have strong gameplay. Take Watch Dogs for instance. Everyone was wowed at E3 2012 when that game was announced (and everyone was out for blood when they saw the "downgrade"). But that game wasn't marketed on visuals. It was marketed on gameplay: "Everything is connected. Connection is power." They emphasized the ability to hack things in the world around you to create a new type of gameplay and a relevant narrative (which sadly didn't fulfill its potential). Now, whether or not people enjoyed the game (I did), the point is that there was most definitely a solid game behind the graphics.

Another is The Witcher 3. That was another where people were all amazed by the visuals (and where people took "downgrades" way too seriously). And yet in the aftermath it's hailed as the standard for open-world RPGs, with an intriguing storyline, detailed and meaningful sidequests, and an empathetic protagonist. It had great graphics undoubtedly, but this was never the emphasis.

I could give more examples but that's plenty. Can you give an example of an AAA game (other than the one I mentioned) where it is genuinely not a "solid game" without the visuals?

 

This is definitely a mistake I am making somewhere in my communication. Maybe it is my use of relying on. What I am talking about is AAA games tend to have the best graphics they can possibly do. They tend to try to get attention by being graphically impressive. It is not a one or the other. I am not saying that because they have shiny graphics the game itself was not solid. I am not sure why it is coming across that way.

Like I said maybe it was "relying on". Better way may be to say one of the things they tend to rely on is visuals to impress and gain interest in their games. They try to wow gamers visually. Yes they have more to them that just that. That doesn't change the fact they always have superb graphics for their time and genre and scale of the game. And it seems like most Indies try to do the same thing whether the game is 3D or 2D, HD or pixel art. They try to make it look as best as it can to stand out, get attention, impress, whatever you want to call it.

 

I would also disagree with "relying on." These games do have good graphics, but very rarely do they even spend time talking about it, much less "relying" in them to market the game.

Let's go back to Watch Dogs. Let's take a look at the UbiBlog, Ubisoft's blog site where they post about their games. See this for a list of their Watch Dogs content. Because there's a ton, I'm going to highlight a few. I'm not expecting you to read through these, but please note that I DID (at least scanning each paragraph for the content) before linking to them.

Watch Dogs – 61 Highlights from 30 Minutes of Gameplay

The Secrets Behind Watch Dogs’ Next Gen Experience
Getting Lost, and Found, in Watch Dogs’ Open World
Watch Dogs – Playing In the Open World
Watch Dogs – 35 Highlights From Four Hours of Gameplay
What Makes Watch Dogs a True Next-Gen Game
The second and the last of those are really the only two that say anything about graphics at all. But in both of them they make the key point that what Watch Dogs has is dynamism, a living world that informs gameplay.

I'm not saying it had that. But that was the marketing. They did not rely on graphics to sell their game. They relied on new and unique gameplay mechanics that 99% of indies don't have.

Let me repeat that just so it's clear: a greater percentage of AAA games are more mechanically advanced, and introduce new ideas, than the percentage of indies doing the same.

Let's think about games that have changed the gaming landscape in one way or another, or introduced new and unique mechanicsPong. Elite. Mario. Halo. Half-Life. Minecraft. Playerunknown's Battlegrounds. Final Fantasy VII. The Legend of Zelda. GoldenEye 007. Bioshock. Portal. Dance Dance Revolution. Resident Evil. The Sims. Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare. Metal Gear Solid. Shadow of the Colossus. World of Warcraft. Grand Theft Auto. Doom. Likely more.

How many of those are indies? 2.

See I'll be honest with you: it looks here like you simply don't care for games with fancy graphics. And that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But then you're using that to inform your opinions about the quality of AAA games in other aspects.

The reality is that AAA games are pushing the development of gameplay and story and other not-graphics components every bit as strongly as indies.

I could go on about recent games like Final Fantasy XV or Horizon Zero Dawn or of course Breath of the Wild or Shadow of Morder or Prey or The Last of Us or AC Syndicate or GTA V or Battlefront or Metal Gear Solid V. All AAA games. All (or almost all) with very good graphics. All with rock-solid gameplay that's better than that of 75% of indie games.

There's a reason they're spending millions on these games, selling them for $60, and making bank. It isn't graphics in any way, shape, or form.

Edit: this is a long post. The takeaway is this: AAA games are not relying on their graphics for exposure or sales. AAA games are better than the majority of indie games.

 

Not disagreeing with anyone, but I think there are a few legitimate cases where indie games can try something new that AAA games cannot do for various reasons.

For instance, games like <Her Story>, <Papers, Please>, <Orwell>, <The Cat Lady>, <Undertale>, <The Stanley Parable>, <Firewatch> could be such examples that only made possible because they were created by indie developers.

Being 'AAA' means that they spent a lot of money to create such games, so they need to sell in large numbers to make the ends meet. But games like those mentioned above have only limited audiences despite having quite unique gameplay elements or a theme, so I think it could be an area where indie games can claim their superiority over ones from bigger studios.

 

I agree with this. I don't think that the existence of AAA games invalidates indies. I think that indies can explore ideas that AAA games don't. But the reality is that 99% of the what, 1000 or more? games released on Steam in the last two months are not doing anything new, and are not any "better" than AAAs simply because they're indies.

That's a trap people can fall into if you're in that "marginalized" field like us indie devs (and I cringe when I include myself with that, but whatever) or if you don't like games of a certain type. You can make assumptions about them that are based on your biases rather than reality.

I do the same thing with mobile games. Have no interest in them, even if their gameplay is no different from some of the things I play. Assume that they're all focused on shady, shallow gameplay designed to trigger addictive responses in gamers and make money from IAP, rather than being good games. I know objectively that that's wrong, however, so I don't go around spreading my bias.

 

I think the big advantage that Indies have compared to AAA, is that they can "afford" to be niche, and don't need to aim for creating the next Minecraft/Candycrush/Angry Birds hit, which, I also think is often forgotten.

I purchase and play for the most part indie games nowdays, because I've had my fill of AAA (clone) games and are looking for something new and refreshing.

Actually, the whole reason why I'm using Unity is because I got tired waiting for game companies to explore certain gameplay experiences. So I'll just learn to do it myself.. or fail trying.

 

@EternalAmbiguity That's interesting to me because even here we have seen countless threads focusing on AAA graphics and in reviews of games there is often a focus on the graphics how mind blowing they are etc. So much obvious focus on presentation in AAA games that is surprises me anyone would not notice it or think this is not true. Like you even mentioned with W3 what were they doing... trying to make a graphics even better than what they ended up with. That is what I am talking about. Just all of that effort on that aspect.

Well probably best we just agree to disagree. As strongly as you think AAA doesn't try to wow visually I think the complete opposite.

Besides this is just one thing. And the only reason I mentioned it was those games are not doing that. They are different in that way.

 

Umm.. -_- I kinda played the watchdogs. The articles you linked was building hype. In practice the game had one gimmick added to it. The rest of the mechanics were seen before in every openworld game (GTA, Saints Row, etc) and are standard. The Gimmick in Watchdogs is magic phone that can activate objects remotely and make steam valves explode somehow by "hacking" them.

So, the strategy is:
1. Use tried and well tested formula.
2. Add one gimmick.
3. Build hype.

They are relying on graphics though. There's a high quality visual standard that AAA can afford. Basically the one where you can see every skin pore on a character. If the game can't afford it and positions itself as AAA, people will skip it and it'll be criticized in reviews. People will say it looks bad.

 

Exactly. In fact, the one gimmick is often an incremental improvement to the graphics which is then hyped relentlessly as a huge breakthrough. One reason people play indie games is to get something a bit different than the stock formula. Five Nights At Freddy's would never have been published by any large company - the graphics looked 1990s, the game mechanics didn't even allow the player to move, no cinematic sequences, the plot was hidden rather than being blared into your face as the usual "railroad" that the player has to rigidly follow, etc.

 

Yeah reason I was honestly surprised that someone did not realize how graphics / presentation focused AAA games are. I thought that was a given.

 

No it isn't - ESA (environmental station alpha) Papers Please, FTL, and tons of other games do not have superb visuals, they have polish, and that is something to value. Value = worth = money. Without at least a modicum level of polish means one of two things, either the dev didn't care enough to polish the game or they can't due to lack of ability. Either way - low polished games aren't worth much, especially if they are low quality rehashed minimum attempts of old concepts like the corn game.

OK they are put together well, but they are still unpolished rehashed examples of games created 20 years ago, and over the past 20 years, but not as good.

This is an interesting point, essentially you are playing one dollar for a mvp. I guess if you want to do that - you can experience the extreme utmost basics of a game that could one day end up being something worth value, but I do not think these are worth 1 dollar. Maybe the wave based gauntlet wanna be, or the stealth twitch shooter - but since those genres are overly saturated - - naw, not worth it. Games just like this are the reason mobile market places are terrible and steam gets such as bad rap.
I would much rather see a polished 10-30 minute (demo) priced at 3-5 dollars than under polished mvp games.

I can agree they are reaching people, however IMO they are presenting low quality products - which is not something a budding developer should want to be presenting to the public as something they can achieve. The corn game (I'll concede the gun mechanics look functional) but nothing else. The maze - the enemy - totally un-creative and rehashed. Nothing here says creative or original, besides having the balls to release such a low quality product, although that isn't very original anymore either.

Marketing low quality products does not result in increased sales. It results in youtubers reviewing the product and people making examples of what 'not to do'. If they were to market this corn game - tubers would rip it apart and say how much more time they should be spending on development rather than marketing. Again - marketing low quality products do not increase sales once the game industry knows about it, they avoid it.

Please point out one innovative or original or 'different' twist on the simple core game mechanics those games offer. Besides the stealth instead of bullets in the twitch shooter, I see no creativity in those titles.

Their is a simple reason for this - because POLISH sells - and unpolished - sometimes sells, but usually does not.
I applaud indies who apply a high level of polish to a game that could have been kicked out the door 6 months earlier as the exact same game but with less impressive graphics and mechanics. Those indies should be given credit and supported when they make EXTRA effort to make the game more appealing to a wider audience.
Pushing out an unfinished or mvp product, marketing it as much as possible - is not something that sells, quality sells - and when a game (corn) is a rehashed, unpolished, same same game that has been created by 200 other developers but better than corn - why is this shown as an example of creativity when it isn't? - I don't know.

I agree with @EternalAmbiguity you do have a bias against graphically impressive games, except for Diablo3? I don't know why you can't see quality in games that are both visually impressive and pixel games that are impressive with their gameplay. They both have value - and as long as they both have polish, both type of games are enjoyable and usually worthy of praise. You are missing out on a lot of games (and game design philosophies) that are delivered in games that are visually impressive in addition to having excellent gameplay. Diablo3 is not the only visually impressive game that also has great gameplay.
Graphics are part of the overall experience - the high expectation of visuals and polish AND gameplay is a requirement to maximize sales and gain attention from the overall gaming community. AAA do not rely entirely on graphic, except to get that initial look - so the gameplay can entice them into a sale.
I don't play shooters very often, but I can see the quality in the designs and visuals - apparent enough for me to see them as quality products they are. Graphics and polish are not something that is WRONG with steam or the industry, they are parts of the products that enhance the experiences of the players.
And any indie who wants to be successful - better - at least - pay attention and in some way attempt to mimic triple A games in polish of the product they are creating - because if we/they don't - the game will be less successful commercially, and that is important to at least half of the entire game development community, both commercial and indie.

Agree - and the one thing all these games have in common other than indie - is polish, even if Firewatch was buggy upon release.

Damn good point. I'd add indies can afford to be nimble as well with the design, scope, and aesthetic - something that costs triple A's bucket loads if changes are needed half way through development. This is also why triple A designs and pre-develops so extensively, something some indies could learn to do better, which could result in higher quality game and faster to market. Preaching to myself right here.

 

-.-

Did you even read that second paragraph?

That was written for folks like yourself who disagreed with the hype. It doesn't matter whether it lived up to its potential or not. What matters is how they marketed the game, and whether it was relying on its visuals to sell or not.

And "add gimmick," so what. The nemesis system is a gimmick. The powers in Dishonored are a "gimmick." The parkour in AC is a "gimmick" (probably the only one you'll agree with ). Witcher/Bat/Detective vision is a "gimmick."

Calling something a "gimmick" is reductive and more frequently a sign that someone doesn't like the game than any true objective measure of its quality. The reality is the idea of hacking into the world around you to control it in new ways IS new as far as games is concerned. Things like manipulating driving hazards to interfere with pursuers for example. And the reality is this topic COULD have informed the narrative in truly significant ways (it didn't because they dropped the ball(

Spoiler: My WD plot idea

The story would have been far superior if they doubled down on on the "Jackson's birthday" style stuff - Aiden intruding on people's privacy to save them from criminals, while trying to track down the killers. Have this element increase and increase in time the player has to invest into it (and make it fun, so the player wants to), to the point where Aiden is drowning in his vigilantism, unable to make persnoal progress, and frequently drawing public ire for his intrusion of privacy.

]), but it could have).

Please give examples. While there aren't many counter examples because yes, AAAs do tend to do this, I certainly have one. Breath of the Wild, undoubtedly the one game that has taken 2017 by storm.

Suppose I could say xenoblade chronicles x, though that's a teensy bit niche.

 

LOL I think it comes down to why does anyone like what they like? Why does one person see creativity and innovation in a game and another sees the same old thing they have seen in many other games?

These things are true for basically all games. We all see different things. I'd guess it's at least in part because we all just see what we want to see. We look at different things. We weigh different aspects differently. Some things are more important to some people and other things are more important to other people.

 

Two things here.

First, not long ago at a presentation I was shown a survey result (from Digital Australia or something, but I didn't find it when I looked just then) where a bunch of people were asked about what influences their game purchase decisions, and of a bunch of factors the visuals were the clear top item. So yes, games "rely on graphics", to the point that if you're competing for mainstream purchases as a general rule you need them or you're out of the competition.

Before someone cites Minecraft, that's why I said "general rule". Even there, though, the competition are stepping up the graphical quality as they go.


Secondly, I don't really see an issue with big budget games having fancy graphics. The teams and budgets are big enough that it's not really a question of whether they focus on the graphics or the gameplay. They can do both, and the reason we don't see more radical differences in gameplay is because they choose not to do that.

Watchdogs is kind of an example of that, too. While I agree the hacking stuff is light, it does still afford some cool gameplay opportunities. To keep a broad appeal, though, the game also allows you to shoot through a lot of stuff, and if you take that approach you end up not needing to hack a lot at all, and then people complain about the lack of hacking... even though that's just how they chose to play. The issue isn't that they don't do unique things, it's that they also do all of the samey things people expect from an open-world urban game, which has the unfortunate effect of de-emphasising the stuff unique to that game.

Mind you, I'm not saying I wouldn't have liked more hacking, more ways to hack, more meaningful discussion of privacy in the storylines, and so on and so forth. But I played both games with the MO of not killing anyone unless I had to, and when approached that way both games were both enjoyable and unique enough experiences in their own rights. (Though in the first game I was irritated on the occasions where you're forced to do some shooting.)

 

There is no doubt graphics are cool and certainly get the attention of a huge number of people. I mean looking at it very simply even a person who is not a gamer can look at a game and may think hey that looks awesome.

I'm not quite sure how we got back on this part again. Yes graphics are great to get attention. We know that. I know that. All I am personally saying is I've seen enough games striving to have awesome graphics and that have awesome graphics to last me a long time.

It may come as a shock that at one time I used to be very much into the graphics of games and thought it was very cool how they kept getting better and better. But a few years or so ago I kind of just burned out on it and now I look for other things.

Again like that FPS game or any of those 3 games... to me they would not be better games if they had much better graphics more complex visuals a more artist-approved look. That would actually make those more "run of the mill" to me. I appreciate the very simple visuals and it makes them different in that regard. I mean I can probably find at least 5 to 10 other games that are similar with the main difference being the visuals.

I suppose in a sense I see it as just another form of minimalism. And much like minimalist games and minimalistic graphics games were seen as unique (because they were going the complete opposite direction of AAA and many Indie games) that is how I view the games above.

I don't think I can explain it any better than that.

 

Sure, but that's all about you and your opinions about the games you like.

What I'm saying there is that when you're selling games to other people, such as when formulating a strategy to make sales on Steam, if you're aiming at a mainstream audience then graphics are a major factor of your competitiveness completely aside from your gameplay.

 

I don't think it's ever "all about you and your opinions" but it is about a niche or even micro niche group of people who share the views. Definitely agree not about the mainstream. I never think about the mainstream. The AAA and even many Indies are already catering to those folks.

 

The point is - the thread topic is about steam strategies and the current environment of steam, selling game on steam. Steam is mainstream, for PC games and some (on purpose) minimalistic games do well when they are created in this stylistic choice.
However that corn game mentioned - unless the developer is intentionally making the game look bad on purpose - which is hardly ever a good idea, that game is not intentionally minimalistic and is not a good strategy to follow on steam. Unless the developer is after the very niche audience who enjoys mvp/minimalistic/low quality, cheap games.

A great indie example of a visually minimalistic game with high polish in gameplay which is up res-ing the resolution of the squeal in support of the new/advanced game play elements.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/283714/Why_Nidhogg_2_ditches_the_minimalism_of_the_original.php
Original -

One may prefer the original for its' minimalistic visual representation while another may prefer the sequal due to it's higher visual fidelity. But the developer puts reason behind the choice to increase visual fidelity, and I think that reason is logical and should not be dismissed, just because the seqal has better (different) graphics than the original.

It is unfortunate people ignore games due to a certain art style, high quality vs pixel art, or low poly or 2D.
I've read so many comments of people saying if the game isn't 3d they don't play it. That is so wide open it is really a unformulated statement, but steam commenters say crap like this all the time.
What about Trine? What about a any side scroller created in a 3D environment.

Regardless of graphic resolution - on steam if a higher level of polish isn't applied to both gameplay and visuals, I don't see a large amount of less polished games being profitable, which is why most developers are placing their games on steam, to make a profit.

 

@theANMATOR2b no doubt I agree with that. And you may have hit on something. I see those 3 games as intentionally targeting gamers who are looking for something different... basically as you described... but maybe that isn't the case. I don't know I just gice them the benefit of the doubt and think they are intentionally targeting such gamers.

Reason foe that is there are people who like such things. Not every gamer needs or even wants to see polish or big games etc. Definitely it is a tiny percentage of people but in my view that is what a person should be targeting always... a niche or even micro niche. Of course it needs to be large enough to be worth doing so.

I think it definitely is... just a matter of reaching them. Fortunately there are places covering such games. Again not mainstream. I couldn't care any less about what the mainstream likes and wants for all things games, music, etc. For example there are YouTubers specifically covering all of the overlooked gems... games with very low production values such as the 3 above. There are sites for those as well. There is even a curator or two on Steam doing the same.

Anyway I am not trying to attack people here or convert people or whatever. It just seems like when I am participating in one of these discussions people take it that way. I think it is a very valid niche or micro niche to go after.

Sometimes I think this might be something I could do... something I would have a passion for. Build a website and YT channel dedicated to bringing awareness of such games. I think maybe when I get some ambition again I will do that.

Reason being these games and devs are what and who need coverage simply because the mainstream sites will rarely, if ever, do so. That's the main thing I guess. I rarely even check the main game (even Indie) sites anymore because all they ever cover are the same kind of games again and again IMO. And I get why because they want to appeal to the masses.

Then I can write and say all of the kind of stuff I do here only on my own site and YT channel. I know I am definitely not a mainstream kind of person. To me that is a very good thing.

 

@GarBenjamin do you frequent itch.io or gamejolt?

I've found several gems (of course I can't provide links here/now) that are possibly in the vein as you describe. Thing about those portals (imo) they are free to host and a great place allow access to experimental and hobbyist games that might not reach the threshold of the steam portal. Personally - There are good games on those portals that are better than some released on steam. I often wonder why some prefer to push onto steam at $100 a pop, when they could release for free on itch or gamejolt and set a reasonable price for there games. I guess the audience is just so much bigger, it is worth the attempt at lost revenue to release on steam.
But good offerings are available on other portals - steam isn't in total control - thankfully.

 

Nearly every day. I like GameJolt and itch much more than Steam for diversity of content. There is no comparison IMO. Yeah as you stated the thing with Steam is it is just the top platform. I hope that changes in time. I know GJ is growing continually in number of gamers and time spent playing the games so that is good.

I agree completely if GJ had been the first platform/main platform I'd see no problem but at same time there would have been a big problem due to all of the people complaining I can't believe they let those games on here. Kind of a catch 22. Lol

EDIT: you know I guess really you hit the nail on the head though. I need to just switch completely over to GJ and Itch and support those developers. And promote those platforms. I think the main issue people have with doing that is most of us have a Steam library and it is just nice to have everything in there. But I do already have games I got on GJ and others I got on itch.io so instead of hoping for a more open to all devs of all levels market on Steam it makes more sense to just focus my support on GJ and itch period.

 

Actually, thinking about it, at the time of the release of Watch Dogs there were many angry people, because graphics were not as good as ubisoft previously promised. Also, Ubisoft appears to do it often. See, for example:

So the idea apparently is to promise high quality visuals, downgrade after release without warning anyone and ignore angry customers.

Why? Take any game. Majority aim at high fidelity. EA has one "cartoony" franchise (Sims), but bigger titles usually aim at high quality.

Here are two EA trailers, for example:

Spoiler

The latest high budget titles I personally played were Dishonored 2 and Doom 2016. Those looked like this on my "not top tier" pc:

Spoiler

//By the way image upload on the forum doesn't seem to be working.

 

Meh, I don't really like that video.

They look "worse" in the final product, but much more playable. The trailers have increased contrast and more dramatic lighting, which are gone in the final product, but I think that's more for gameplay reasons than actual technical ones.

I mean, Watch Dogs final product looks worse, The Division a bit worse, Rainbow Six looks different but on par in my eyes and I would argue that both Far Cry final products look better than their trailers.

 

I posted it for illustration purposes. There was quite a lot of noise upon release regarding graphic downgrade. Since ubisoft started language-locking their games, I stopped playing them. Which is a pity, Far Cry 4 looked like it could be interesting.

 

Exactly. It's all well and good for us to have our individual tastes. And if we're targeting an audience with specific tastes then absolutely go for that rather than generalising for the mainstream.

What I was pointing out is that the reliance of big games on high budget, flashy graphics is a commercial reality of aiming for the mainstream quite aside from their gameplay design choices.

 

I already addressed the downgraders, I thought. Anyway, no Ubisoft didn't "promise" any graphics. They showed a game with fantastic graphics, then they lowered the quality (but kept those settings in game - no idea why they didn't make them available - check out TheWorseMod), then sad sacks whined and complained. At no point did Ubisoft rely on the graphics to market their game.

And it's the same for any of the "examples" you posted. I saw them all at E3. And in none of them did the company in question rely on the graphics to sell their game. They relied on "it's Star Wars!" They relied on "it's Destiny!"

The comment I was initially replying to claimed these games relied on their graphics to sell. Not that they had "good graphics." That they relied on them.

The only title I personally can recall doing that is The Order 1886.

Edit: And the downgrade stuff wasn't at launch. It had been going for at least six months, probably more like a year, before launch. Same for TW3. WD's launch was rocky because of technical problems.

 

This is an option, but you might be missing out on products that are only available on steam. I like to support developers where ever they are present, I usually see if a game is available on steam if I see it on gamejolt or itch.io, for the same reasons, I like to access my games from the steam library. But I also support a couple developers on those other platforms who are not available on steam.
I like the direction itch.io and gamejolt is moving in and the options they give to the players and developers. Providing browser based delivery along side standalone and networked builds is really a great offering not available on steam. This is a unique selling point when compared to steam. IMO browser based games will continue to matter to a larger sub-set of gamers as an alternate play choice.

Yep - I was agreeing with you by replying to your writing. I should have pointed that out.

The most egregious games that can be considered to rely on graphics to sell games are sequels that have exactly the same or nearly identical gameplay. Madden comes straight to mind and a LOT of PS1 era games. But this doesn't happen as often now.
However the Order really did rely on graphics to sell the game, not saying it was a terrible game, just kinda not that enjoyable, short and limited in gameplay - but DAMN it is beautiful!
Another one that did this was Ryse: Son of Rome. I've not played it - but from all initial/original reviews, the game was very similar to the Order with regards to quicktime events and broken AI. Beautiful - but - meh.
Very few games that are not sequels without enhanced gameplay rely entirely on graphics to sell.

 

I really wasn't trying to get a graphics thing going on here. I guess it is just one of those things that people feel very strongly about one way or another. So it always captures the focus and discussion happens.

Honestly though... this is nothing new. And I don't quite understand why some seem to think that views of people like myself and @neginfinity are isolated to just us or perhaps a few other people. That is just absolutely wrong.

These focus on graphics and graphics over gameplay subjects have been around for a long time and even can be found all over the Internet.

The discussions range from how important are graphics period to why do AAA constantly focus on graphics obsession over all else. That is not me saying that that is me sharing what many gamers out there are asking.

And definitely if you take the time to read any of these be sure to read the replies. Think of it as market research. As a game dev it is good to understand such things I think. Sure sometimes you will find stupid debates taking up part of the thread just like we have here but they get back on track sooner or later.

A quick search online and I find (and the majority of these discussions are from gamers probably not weighted so much with game developers and artists as we find here and on other game dev forums)...

Are We Too Obsessed With Graphics Quality?
Three Reasons Why AAA Gaming Should Stop Worrying About Photo-Realistic Graphics
Which Is More Important To You: Gameplay or Graphics?
Proof: Gameplay Is More Important Than Graphics
Why Are Video Games So Focused On Improving Graphics Rather Than Gameplay?
Story vs Graphics vs Gameplay
SuperHot: Gameplay vs Graphics Answered
Graphics Over Gameplay: Why I Hate Current Games

I just wanted to share a fraction of these discussions so you realize it is not just the few people here thinking about such things. Sometimes it seems like that is the belief here.

And to be fair... it is very interesting there are people out there who actually say the graphics are the most important thing to them period. And although I am an American who does not fit into this group it appears Americans may be the worst offenders (don't get hung up on my choice of words there)...

Quality Of The Graphics Is More Important Than Story For American Gamers

Granted it isn't saying more important than Gameplay but still it shows the huge importance of shiny things to Americans. And I can believe that because our society has become that way in general in think. Shiny. Pretty. Definitely judge the book by its cover. But that is a deeper cultural thing I really don't want to get into so forget that.

Anyway... my whole point was simply I find it interesting that games with what even I would call junk graphics (not the 3 I posted early I mean literally scribbles and such) can get on Steam now and I am very interested in seeing if over time they will capture a segment of gamers out there (assuming the games themselves are actually good!).

 

I think the causality isn't like that at all. It's a correlation but not a causation. The people that make all the fancy graphics wouldn't be working on gameplay otherwise, they'd not be working on the project, period. It's not like you can just throw more gamedesigners at a game to make the gameplay better, if anything the opposite is going to happen I'd guess. The problem is that everything get's dumbed down into oblivion to appeal to a broader, more casual audience.

Thief is a great example of that:

Granted one might argue that the causality goes: cost of art increases -> risk increases -> dumbing down of gameplay to reach a broader audience and mitigate risk. But I'd argue that it's the consumers in the first place who will not buy 10 million copies of a game if it looks like 10 years behind the established baseline of how a game looks in the AAA neighborhood. I doubt Skyrim would be nearly as successful if it was released today the way it looked at it's original release. But it would still be expensive as hell to make today because it's still a massive game in terms of content. I'm having a hard time imagining how a AAA game with poor production values could be profitable at all. Indie games can, but they also can get away with a fraction of the scope and don't need 100+ people teams to make them.

 

No one thinks this is just one or two people. This graphics vs. gameplay thing probably started 2 decades ago when 3D came about. It's a discussion that's been had by many. But there's a difference between saying "I prefer games that don't waste their time spending money and time on graphics" and "These new games are not solid games without their graphics." One's a subjective opinion that no one can argue with. The other is a declarative statement claiming objective classification.

 

Fair enough. As long as people realize it. Sometimes it comes across in discussions like it is literally my view alone or literally whoever's view alone. So as long as people understand it goes way beyond that then fine.

I'm not here to argue about what is causing it or any of that stuff. Although I think you hit the nail on the head. In simple terms if I have a company and invest 40% of the budget into marketing and 40% into presentation tech and polish then obviously I wouldn't be putting the same amount of focus on gameplay.

For the gamers discussing it it is because they see little, if any, improvement in anything except presentation from game to game. Or at least that is the most significant improvement. I don't think it is just in my head or theirs but this is another thing entirely only brought into the discussion due to the large number of indies who appear to modeling the AAA approach (except they aren't focusing so much on marketing and instead seem to even put that portion on presentation).

Anyway... I just am looking forward to seeing what happens at Steam. Will there be a game that all of those people saying graphics mean nothing to me gameplay is by far the most important can hail as their champion? A game that has awesome gameplay and outright poor graphics to the degree that when it sells very well nobody can misinterpret that. I just find it interesting and hope to see it.

 

The graphics-vs-gameplay balancing act started in the 1980s with the early video games, long before 3D video cards. The old Ultima games up through #4 literally had stick figures for characters and green circles for trees, but they were wildly popular due to their gameplay. I still get a twinge of nostalgia for that type of graphics style (and was seriously thinking of possibly making a game in that style), and in fact those graphics were sometimes oddly beautiful. Here's Ultima 4's intro screen:

 

I think this is a valuable point, but I don't think it has anything to do with graphics. As I pointed out before, most indies (a larger percentage in my opinion than the percentage of AAAs) are not doing anything new. This is more about creative designers than putting focus on graphics.

Edit: not sure what went wrong there

I was talking less about the "balancing act" and more about player response - the call for retro-ism or what have you. Though I was just taking a guess.

 

There's games like that doing well today. Of course Dwarf Fortress is the most widely known probably. Caves of Qud is a more recent one.

I think it is a viable approach for an indie game.

Visually though I see that like this... there is outright raw quality... fidelity... etc.. then there is artistic quality... and these are different. One is more centered around tech and the other is more centered around works of art.

And then I think... just my opinion here there is a third thing that is most important... that being art direction, cohesiveness well maybe just visual interest. The game you show fails on raw graphics quality (tech... shaders... resolution... realism... etc)... it fails on raw art quality (for today.... most any proper artist could make that look more artsy... probably not back then but today they could). It succeeds on the third.

And I think this is kind of an important thing. I do believe raw graphics quality is very important. I believe that every bit as much as I believe that raw graphics quality is not important. I also believe that artistic graphics quality is very important. I believe it as much as I believe it is not important. And I believe art direction / cohesiveness / visually interesti g is very important. Again I believe it as much as I believe it is not important.

Because all of those are true depending entirely on the person checking out the game. For one photo realistic will be boring but give them a true artisty looking game and they will love it. For some give them a game that looks like a great work of art... very artsy style and they will say it is garbage as they look back to their photo realistic style games. This kind of thing.

Alright no more. Lol I rambled enough.

 

@Martin_H that is an excellent video. Thanks for sharing. I've read many articles, discussions and watched videos on the subject but I hadn't seen that one before. I think it does a great job of summarizing what many people have tried to say during discussions here. Especially in context of why they often get more satisfaction from older AAA games than modern AAA games as well as why many gamers out there say things like they haven't seen a great AAA game in many years and then start ranting about the cinematic / graphic obsession.

And bringing that back to the focus of this thread I think it shows Indies what not to do... model the AAA games (because you won't beat them at the visual focus and massive amount of content). And it shows Indies what to do. Which is back to common sense. Fill the holes out there. Give the people what they can't and aren't getting from the modern AAA games. What they are saying they miss and want. Content like the video you shared is all over (as articles, discussions and videos) if a person just opens their mind and looks for it.

 

I intended to respond to this but never did so here I am again. lol

See what I don't quite understand about this is the devs say "Probably the most requested features were more levels and more weapons" basically the gamers were focusing on gameplay. And the devs decided to overhaul the graphics completely & significantly in the process adding what I imagine was a pretty large cost that was probably not only not necessary but in my opinion served to only make their very unique & visually interesting game look more like it could be any Indie game.

Original

Sequel

Original (I think this is interesting and highly readable)


Sequel (I think this has great art but no longer is as interesting because it looks like it could be one of any number of Indie games and is not readable if this is actually playing similar to the first game)


Just my views there. I don't know what gamers will think. Maybe this will blow away the original in sales. I just think it now risks being lost in a sea of Indie platformer games which is what this looks like to me now. Just one of of hundreds of very nice looking platformer games. BUT I could definitely be wrong. Maybe it will blow away the original in terms of popularity and sales.

Definitely not saying they shouldn't have put any focus on the graphics. I think they could have added a little shading here and there. Add a little more complexity / detail to the environments. Basically just some touches on the original game. That way there would be some visual improvement as well but mainly the updates would be on the gameplay. Which is what the gamers were asking to be updated.

I do think obviously they will have a certain built-in number of sales simply from the community of Nidhogg 1 fans. So that could well skew things. Anyway it will be interesting to see how it goes.

 

There wasn't really any art direction for the early Ultimas since the graphics were made by the programmer (Richard Garriott) so it was literally "programmer art". Hence the stick figures and green blobs for the trees. I guess it has a unified "look" but only because it was made by one guy. I guess technically the C-64 version in the video was a port made by someone else but it was done in the style of Garriott's original graphics for the Apple II, except with more colors (the C-64 boasted a whopping 16 colors).

I realize Dwarf Fortress and its imitators have similar graphics (or no graphics in the case of DF) but they only succeed because of the complex physical interactions going on underneath. A FRPG in that style probably wouldn't find much of a market today, and I'm not sure a conquest game (for example) in that style would either, unless it was enormously complicated in order to justify the primitive graphics.

 

I agree. That's how I see it. These days use very simplistic visuals complemented by very good interaction and other forms of depth and / or to provide a much larger (than otherwise would have been) scale... more content... etc. Basically just transferring effort & time spent on one aspect to another.

 

I agree with you on the Nidhogg graphics, I preferred the old style as well. If you look at their steam forum and reviews, then some seem to like the new look and some seem to hate it. It will be very interesting to see how this will sell. BUT, what I do think though, is that making it look entirely different shifted around the userbase a bit (potentially expanding the number of people interested in part 3), and avoided many negative reviews along the lines of "only added a few new weapons and arenas, game is basically still the same. should have been a free update, greedy devs, do not support!". this is how many people think, if it looks very close to the previous game, then "almost no work" was put into it. They don't have the faintest clue how much work goes into gamedesign and programming. So the new look might have been a smart business choice, it's impossible to tell.

 

Agreed. I just think this is probably another example of where focusing on the visuals so much (such a drastic change to the original) did more harm than good. And it is way too common this kind of thing happens.

I just now read a Rock, Paper & Shotgun review of Niddhog 2 and it seems like as much as they want to really support the efforts they are basically discussing the same things.

At one point in there he talks about how really all the sequel needed was better network code.

I guess I just often wonder if a lot of this stuff is in people's minds. I wonder if devs try too hard and much like these reviewers seem to be thinking... I wonder why even do the graphics rework to begin with. It kind of comes across like they don't really understand what was behind the appeal of their own game.

Not saying the original graphics were the appeal rather that the original graphics were neither here nor there as far as a sequel is concerned. Although if anything I think the simpler much cleaner visuals of the original better supported the fast tight gameplay. Basically the visuals should have not even been messed with other than possibly some subtle touches here and there.

Anyway don't want to turn this into a Nidhogg thread. But I do think looking at such things is helpful.

 

Uh, this kind of logic is normally used in fiction in "making a deal with a demon" kind of scenarios. Or in "literal genie" scenarios.

Basically, usually goes like this:
Someone signs a pact to get rich. The demon hands them over one billion dollars. Then kills them, takes the money back and collects the soul. Reason? Because the contract never said that the receipient won't die immediately after receiving the money.

Showcasing a game with great visuals creates expectation of those visuals being in the game upon release. While it is technically not lying outright, but it is still another form of deception.

Likewise merely developing a high budget game creates expecations among userbase. If the expectations are not met, the game will bomb and receive poor review. So they rely on having high graphical standard, because it is a part of "AAA" quality standard.

 

Aha! Knew it was something simple but couldn't quite put my finger on exactly what it is. 3 things... raw graphics quality (basically I tend to think of this as tech minded shaders, resolution, lighting etc) so better term is technical quality. Then there is raw artistic quality (art for arts sake, artsy stuff, creative like a very gnarled tree, etc) and finally the third... functional.

That is what I think is most important for games... functional graphics. Definitely some would prefer their functional graphics to be of a very high technical quality and others would prefer them to be of a very high artsy art quality. But ultimately what is needed is always simply functional visuals. And that is what that old rpg above had and that is what Nidhogg 1 had. They were very strong on functional visualz. As in visuals that directly supported the gameplay and was not made for the sake of technical achievement or for the sake of art itself. Function over form.

Sorry just wanted to bring that to completeness. Lol

 

Did you mean making "deal" with demon? or a deal with the devil?

I disagree. This did not happen with Watch Dogs, or with The Witcher 3. Now granted, both games still look great. but both did receive a "downgrade" upon release, and the majority of gamers flat didn't care.

Those are just two relatively high-profile examples I'm aware of (because someone I used to know used to harp about them). There are others, games which people with too much time on their hands have declared "downgraded!" And the gamers, real gamers, simply do not care as long as it's not something enormously different that has a profound effect on their gameplay experience. That should be evidence that the gamers really weren't holding them to this implied expectation.

They still get many sales (Watch Dogs was Ubi's biggest IP launch, and we're all aware of the profound effect of TW3 upon the industry) even if graphics "betray" expectations, so they aren't "relying" on the graphics to sell the game.

This is getting a little bit away from the original statement, which was that AAA games are not "solid" games without their graphics. But we can run with it. Can you name me a game which relied on graphics, betrayed that expectation, and suffered because of it? As I mentioned WD had enormous sales, and the primary legitimate backlash that game had was technical issues at launch. So it's not an example.

 

Yeah... in a typical "deal with the Devil" scenario the intent behind the deal is intentionally deceptive to begin with. I don't pay a lot of attention to pre-launch hype about games, but I'm not really under the impression that they deliberately miss the mark with stuff like graphics quality.

For starters, in plenty of cases the early graphics for a game are made not knowing what the target platform specs are, and that's what then gets used for marketing. I've been told by people working on early releases for new console platforms that a lot of early art was made based on a "best guess" at what the platform might be able to do, and that those guesses can be... optimistic.

Secondly, the art is a huge part of the testing of a game. Stuff that works well for the marketing team making early footage might not work at all for people who are actually, y'know, playing a game. Something that looks sexy and cinematic when you can just sit back and watch might not at all be clear when it's interactive.

I agree it shouldn't be over-estimated deliberately, but on the other hand I can also see how predicting the high water mark for graphics quality for a game that's nowhere near complete is a really hard thing to get right.

 

Now, I WILL point out bullshots. Those are definitely deceptive, no question about it. But oddly enough no one ever seems to care enough about them to raise a stink, and I don't think they affect sales.

 

What is a "bullshot"?