/v/ - Video Games

Yeah, sure.

If the gameplay is good then I don't care about the graphics. That tweened pixelshit is pretty rough though

depends on what you mean by best gameplay.

Depends on how zoomed in and unoptimized it is. I tend to find that ugly pixelshit also runs like ass.

Even if it looks bad, If it has good gameplay it's fun to play.

But that animation looks basic as shit. It doesn't seem like the combat is gonna be any fun if the attack is just that tiny ass slow slash with no proper windup and impact to it.

Got any more animations and overall info about this?

>>14668723

https://twitter.com/ander_raso/status/985651223687827456

some shit I found on twitter.

Technical limitations can be overcome with a focus on aesthetics.

If a game is a complete eyesore but has good gameplay, it will still do poorly. They're called VIDEO games.

Stuff like runescape 2 has outdated visuals but a pretty good overall aesthetic to it

Kinda cute, but the pixelshit graphics means it can probably be modded to be better

I have a criticism for the usage of pixelated assets with vectorization.

However, yes.

>>14668738

>>14668741

Serious question, wouldn't this style be perfect for single guys to shit out a shit ton of content fast?

>>14668749

It probably wouldn't hurt to use a simple artstyle if you're doing vectorization of assets anyway.

Any flash developer/animator from 2002 onward could tell you that.

>>14668749

The fact you're asking this instead of shitting out more content should answer your question.

>>14668749

It's more like a style that is simple and easy enough that a non-artist can make art for his game on his own.

Is it really that much work to draw additional frames for such a low-res sprite? And why were you looking at twitter of a shitskin no-name indie dev in the first place?

inb4 OP is trying to sneakily get feedback on his own work

>>14668791

a twitter, fuck me

>>14668791

Anything you have to draw each frame of is going to be more work than tweening/flash/3D animation because you can't rely on interpolation and have to draw all the frames yourself. The amount of time you spend making an animating a small shitty pixel-animated sprite could be spent making a much more polished and visually appealing vector-animated sprite.

I'm not sure. I mostly play old games, but this faux-retro stuff really drives me up the wall.

does it have porn?

I enjoy Rimworld a lot.

Good artwork, sound effects, OSTs, animation, etc are catalysts for the gameplay to truly flow or have that satisfactory punch. Theyre like the spices you add to your grilled chicken to make it tastier.

Answering your question, yes, because gameplay is the core. However, even hiring some ringling undergrad interns can do a better job than that.

The spices you add will depend on the meal. just like the animation, tracks, and sound effects will depend on the gameplay, scenario or moment. If this is some turn based rpg that's totally fine. If it's some silly RTS, it would be fine. If it's a fighting game, then obviously not because that demands better frames.

In conclusion, The case scenario at hand matters, and this is a shit low effort thread for not even elaborating on what type of game this would be.

How a game looks tends to imply how much a developer cared for the game. A game that looks like shit will very often play like shit.

Now that I spat my sick opinions I'd like to say that yes, I would play it if it had good gameplay.

>He asks this

>When Dwarf Fortress exists

>When Dominions exists

>When Rogue exists

Were you born in 2008 by any chance?

>>14669064

Dorffort and Rogue should be played in ASCII anyway.

If it's good yes. Good graphics are just a bonus.

Im pretty sure there's got to be a cap on how good your gameplay can get, that's directly correlated to graphics.

There's a limit on how many mechanics you can fit on a 2D sprite game.

But if youre asking if I'd play a game that looks like shit, but is fun, the yeah, I would.

>tweened animation

>its pixelshit anyway

whats the point?

>>14668674

Hell no. I could have the best-driving car in the world but I won't care if it doesn't have proper seats and a windshield. If I can't look at the game without cringing, I don't want to play it.

>>14675775

>Im pretty sure there's got to be a cap on how good your gameplay can get, that's directly correlated to graphics.

Roguelikes would disagree.

>>14668674

>best gameplay

>shit graphics

Willing to at least try it without bias. Though newer games tend to do the exact opposite, best graphics with shit gameplay and you're left with a terribly written game that's probably buggy as hell too. It's also a sign that the developers aren't all on the same page leading to a disassociation between the game and it's players. When a game does it's best with the focus it was given you can see the developers tended to put a lot of effort towards it while being on the same page.

>>14683304

>What is every good Mario game

I already do. you must be over 18 to post. lurk for 5 more years, newfag

>>14693174

SM64 is 3D though.

>>14698210

>SM64

>Good mario game

>>14704858

>game

>good

What's the next iteration of indie shit art?

Photorealistic rendering of perler bead crap?

>>14704907

Uninspired low poly with pastel colors

Your game looks like shit and won't have "the best gameplay". Go shill somewhere else, faggot.

I played the shit out of Risk of Rain so I suppose I'm willing to put up with quite a bit in terms of shit graphics

>>14668674

>the bestest gameplay

>looks cute

ummm.. yes

I find it kinda cute actually so yes I would play that game.

Yes, I did play cave story.