I, for one, find MacGuffin's Curse's art charming.

Now this is an example of a game with, IMO, bad art. Though having played the alpha/demo I'm still going to get it because the story is quite good.

I've just skimmed through the thread, so I might have missed some things, but anyway, here is my view on things:

No, being indie is not an excuse for crappy graphics.

Any game needs to be looked at as a whole, and graphics is a part of this whole. If the whole makes up for an enjoyable experience, then that is good, but any single part of the whole that is bad will drag down the rest of the game. If gameplay & sound design is good enough, then a game can get away with poorer graphics, but if those two parts are just alright, then the poor graphics might well be what pushes the game into the "unplayable" category.

In fact, being indie does not excuse anything bad. I play games to have fun, and as games are so cheap these days, time is the most important part for me. If I can buy a 2 year old AAA title for 5€, why then would I spend 10€ on a recent indie game, unless the indie game is better than the 2 year old AAA game? Actually, why would I play any game that is worse than a 2 year old AAA game? Old games, indie games & new games, they all need to compete in the same field, and only the better games are worth your time. Indie games & old games need to work harder, as they can't compete with today's graphics (at least from a technical point of view, of course a great art design is much more important than just being a technical powerhouse).

But I don't blame indies for picking a more "retro" art style, it is easier and cheaper to work with, and it will usually look better than if they tried to go full 3D. It is when "retro art style" becomes a top bullet point for the game on a game's list of features that you should be worried, because this might mean that the developers expects the game to sell because it is "retro", and not because it is good enough to stand on its own.

Try playing the Wadjet Eye games with the DirectDraw + hq3x filter if pixel art isn't your thing. (run winsetup.exe). See attached images for comparison.

Edit: huh, I have 2 images attached, but only the first one shows up. Do multi-image posts not work anymore?

Edit 2: Attached 3rd image, 2nd one still not displaying.

This is as good a thread as any for ranting about FMV.

I HATE FMV.

When the Mamet memo hit the internets, people who were offended that someone was getting heaps of praise started aggressively criticizing Mamet's work. Mamet is famous for making characters speak in natural language. That is, how people speak IRL, with all the pauses, interruptions, junk words, etc. And someone wrote an excellent post (which I cannot find right now) in which they claimed that (conventional) novels and movies are written in a kind of code, which the brain reconstructs into a natural scene. If people IRL started talking like in movies, in full grammatically correct sentences, we'd be weirded out.

Now, games also use that memetic code. For instance, when we ask an NPC about something and he repeats the same line over and over, it is understood that neither the PC nor the NPC has some sort of mental condition, the situation that would've been ridiculously absurd IRL actually stands in for something completely normal.

With FMV realism, some typical conventions look actually ridiculous, this mental post-processing is negated. Worse, to counter it, designers try to make games more realistic and consequently less fun. The game goes away, what remains is a movie that I have to click through.

And this is why I hate FMV.

Edit:
Whoa, unlike the vomit-inducing washed-out mess that is AGS's antialiasing filter, that actually looks good. (But then, I love pixel art as it is.)

Yes, Nintendo itself had a long history before then and some of the earlier attempts were unsuccessful,but coming in with that seal of quality at that particular time was what it took to finally enter the console market for good. Or at least for 30 years, we'll see how much longer that lasts.

As long as it's evident that the developer has at least put some effort into making the game not look like crap - whether that means recruiting an artist, using open assets, or spending the time to put together some half-decent pixel art on their own - I don't see why I should give them a hard time. All else being equal, I'd rather the game be attractive than plain, but if it isn't... okay? So what?

I am also not going to condemn someone as "lazy" for taking the DIY approach. If that's what they want to do, then they have their reasons, and I'm not about to call those reasons into question (unless they're running a Kickstarter campaign, in which case I'll call everything into question).

While I'm indifferent to graphics given the era of gaming I was born into, I can safely say that being indie does not excuse a lack of effort any more than having mind-blowing graphics excuses a lack of effort. Those that bypass games simply because of graphics miss out on some of the best of the best. And those that flock to pretty graphics are at risk for receiving nothing more than a glorified 1.1.2 of the same game months, or years at a time.

Here's the thing: while pretty graphics are nice, you're going to miss out on some amazing gaming experiences if you are a graphics snob.

Minecraft is accused of bad graphics, but it's incredibly inventive and one of the most refreshing games in the past decade. And its blocky design is fundamental to the gameplay. It would be near impossible to play without the simplicity of blocks.

VVVVVV is accused of bad graphics, but it's endlessly charming and enjoyably challenging with a fountain of creative ideas for utilizing a simple gameplay mechanic.

To The Moon is accused of bad graphics, but it uses its old pixel art to evoke a nostalgic sense of adventure and wonder that was present in the 16-bit RPGs of yore in order to tell a unique tale about going back through one's personal history.

Thomas Was Alone is accused of bad graphics, but it's miles better at telling a story than most games because the gameplay and storyline intertwine perfectly. This becomes even more apparent when you realize you are assigning all of this emotion and personality to differently hued rectangles.

Barkley: Shut Up and Jam Gaiden is accused of bad graphics, but they fit perfect in the games it is lampooning and the game is hilarious.

Hotline Miami is accused of bad graphics, but its breakneck speed and half-planned murder fantasies are one-of-a-kind and the twisted synaesthesia of wobbly rooms and flashing neon peripheral vision are integral to the psychological experience.

These games all stand on their own. They don't need better graphics. They are great as they are. How many "HD remakes" have managed to totally botch the feel of the originals? Many. Realism in graphics and animation is appropriate for simulation. You want everything as real as possible in a simulation. But videogames are not always about simulation. This is why I would rather play Outrun or Mario Kart over Gran Turismo IV. By all counts, Gran Turismo has better graphics, more realistic handling, more options, more everything. However, I would argue that Outrun and Mario Kart get more at this intangible concept of what we consider a fun racing experience and it is because they sidestep realism. Call of Duty/Rage/Modern Warfare or any other number of modern FPS games are more realistic than DOOM, but DOOM is more fun because it's fast as hell and you can actually dodge missiles being launched at your head! If you want realistic animations, then you can't have DOOM. It's too fast to be real, but if you want a rush of an experience then DOOM is for you, just please excuse the leg movements that don't make sense with how fast the characters are moving.

My point is that "crappy" graphics are necessary. Now, it is true that you can often use style to blur over some of this stuff, but that does require a lot of communication between your artists and your gameplay programmers, and they may not always see eye-to-eye on what is going to be best. Bring in enough artists to make a modern AAA game, and that's almost bound to be the case. So I wouldn't oversimplify and say there is "no excuse" for poor graphics.

Indie itself is not simply enough of an excuse for "crappy" graphics, but the idea of what indie represents (innovative gameplay ideas not possible in the mainstream game industry) is a perfectly good reason to have simpler graphics in service of superior gameplay.

I would not really say that those games have "bad" graphics. Technically unimpressive, yes, but they all have a consistent art style that work quite well, and I would not call them ugly.

That's the point I wanted to make.

I didn't mean bad as in technically unimpressive. You can have the best technology and still make something really unappealing. Same with old technology or mock-old technology as we have today.
I don't get people accusing games of bad presentation only on grounds of the technology used, when often the game itself is beautiful.

In this regard, VVVVVV looks really good for the style it tries to emulate. I've seen To The Moon and it's beautiful. Even awkward things as Super Amazing Wagon Adventure look really good for atari-style. ;)

Hotline Miami might not be a good example, because the style may be intentional, and I admit I didn't play the game. However, From what I see there are sprites that seem to be mouse-drawn in MS Paint. And that doesn't work too well for my need for eye-candy. ;p

Other example I actually played recently and mentioned before is MacGuffin's Curse. I completely take into account that small developers may lack the talent in the aesthetic department, but...if you actually try to sell something to someone...make sure it's presentable. And the presentation of this game is lazy. In my opinion at least.

Seriously, what's the problem with MacGuffin's Curse?

http://cdn.steampowered.com/v/gfx/apps/58230/ss_cf5d6abbe64563fc6c40f9c5a2a44140e4061e06.1920x1080.jpg

Reminds me of Dungeon of Dredmor, though maybe less detailed.

There's also Dwarf Fortress, which not only has ugly ascii graphics (it doesn't even play through a true command terminal) but also had the worst user interface ever the last time I played it (and I'm doubtful recent updates have improved this). And I don't mean worst as in there are too many menus and buttons, I mean the interface is actually inconsistent. To close a menu sometimes you press enter. Sometimes you press space. Sometimes you press a freakin' function key to close a menu. That said, would anyone accuse Dwarf Fortress' developer of being lazy or cheap?

By the way, since Dwarf Fortress is freeware/donationware, are we including freeware and open source games in this discussion? Because obligating freeware game developers to pay money for an artist is just cruel.

Yeah but dorf fort has tonnes of fan-made tilesets which make the game more playable and easy on the eyes. There's no reason you'd actually use the ASCII graphics unless you've been playing roguelikes for a long time and find ascii more understandable.