|
I spend a lot of time looking at videogame artwork. A *lot* of time. And I am always comparing games against one another, what makes this one feel more polished than that, why does this game feel like a well considered product, while that one feels like it was shoved out the door in a hurry? It’s a tricky, dicey question, and it’s not all about publisher support or bugs in the programming. A goodly portion of it is in the details.
I was playing through several of the Lego themed games (Lego Star Wars, Lego Indiana Jones, etc) and I noticed something interesting about the graphics. Each and every Lego character you can play has a different set of animations.
Now, while you may be thinking to yourself “No DUH, of course they do” the truth is, they don’t always. It’s not at *all* uncommon that a single set of skeletal animations are created (one walk cycle, one run cycle) and they are, in turn, mapped onto a dozen different character meshes to save time (and equally importantly, to save space).
Take a look at several similar games, in just about any genre, and take a look at the *depth* of the visuals. Not whether or not they are using normal-mapping, or rag-doll physics, or whether or not you get accurate light-bloom when passing from an inside space to a courtyard. Is there detritus on the ground?
Are the rooms full of stuff? Do all the NPC’s have the same wooden walk? How many idle animations does the main character have? Lots of these elements are considered “fluff” and are stripped away in the interest of getting to market, but without them your worlds, no matter how many technical “bleeding-edge” tricks you slap on top of them, are going to feel thin.
It’s one of the key elements you find, that extra trashcan in the corner, the fact that your UI animates rather than sits static, that make your game feel like a finished, polished title.
|
Of course, there's a minimum standard that art directors push for, and adding that depth and variety in animations is often his or her call. it's probably what separates AAA game budgets from A game budgets.
That said, I cannot tell you how many times players have confused "looking good" with "fun" - even going so far as saying that the AI was superior just because it had a few more idle animations. So, what do I know? It's entirely subjective. That's the real devil.
I know they both fall under Art's umbrella, but I count the visual elements different from the kinesthetic elements. Mainly because I know little of visual art, but I'm sensitive to the way things move. Indeed, one of my pet peeves is the way Street Fighter 4 characters move. The characters' basic punches & kicks start and end quick, but near full extension they "hang" out there a bit long. To my eye the characters move like they have short springs attached to their wrists & ankles, and to kick or punch requires fighting the spring. It looks precisely opposite of how it should. I know that for gameplay reasons it's wise to let the full extension hang out there for awhile so the attack (and its distance) can be clearly seen, but it still irks me. It doesn't help that many characters' bring their punch or kick back to starting position by playing the exact same animation in reverse. Makes the whole game look like the characters struggle to reach out and gently touch someone, only to have that spring suddenly and forcibly keep their hands to themselves.
But yeah, though I liked the PS1 series Galerians, the second game's locations had a severe case of "warehouse-ish-ness" -- large, empty, echoey places where nothing much happens.
Eventually, good visuals will make a game noticed, and good gameplay will make players love it. Of course if a player doesn't notice your game, he won't be able to love your gameplay as well.