Adventure Gamers - Forums

Difficult to really answer to your question because, as you can see, everyone has a different opinion, which is not surprising. Most people nowadays will probably prefer HD and sweet graphics, while others really have a strong feeling for retro games and pixels (nostalgia or tastes). Happily when it is about adventure games, people tend to be more open-minded than other players on other kinds of games (FPS…)!

I personally like them both (HD and pixels) if they’re justified. I mean, I like working on a HD project where I can add as much details as I want in the pictures (it’s quite comfortable for the graphist), but in the past I also liked so much to play old games on my Super Nintendo and my old computers, that I’m now often pleased to discover new old-school games.
Well I’m not sure it all makes sense, but what you can be sure is that the gameplay and puzzles (= ideas) are much more important than the graphics, and on the other hand, everything in a game is very important(if a part of the game has been neglected - graphics, music, gameplay, story… - it’s not good). So there is a balance to find.

What I wanted to say through this gibberish is that, imho, you should just use the tools with which you feel at ease, in order to create the best game possible with your own skills. Don’t try to look like Monkey Island 1 if you’re not familiar with this style, and don’t try to create the most beautiful 3d realtime HD graphics if you don’t know how to do that!
You don’t have to work in HD because people prefer HD, it has to be a personal decision, just like a painter choosing his technique. The artistic side in the graphics is very important, and HD or not, if your art is good, then your game will receive a warm welcome (regarding the graphics at least). Pixels might be seen like the impressionism of games, while HD is more for realism. See what I mean? There’s no wrong choice.

I know for sure that AGS is a very good tool and allows to create all kinds of games (even arcade racing games!), so it’s probably a good idea to have a look at this engine! There are other tools that are totally free and give different possibilities: Wintermute Engine (allows HD and 3d characters), Unity3D (the free version), Godot engine, etc. You have the choice! Good luck

Simon_ASA - 21 January 2015 05:42 AM

Pixels might be seen like the impressionism of games, while HD is more for realism.

Great analogy.

Bogi - 21 January 2015 06:14 AM

I think there was already a discussion about this, but nevertheless my greatest problem with 3D is that current technology still isn’t (and won’t be for at least some time) up to the task. No matter how praised a game’s graphics is, for me it always looks like a cardbox set where animated corpses are running around, and I’m not a big fan of animated corpses running around

That’s why mr Schafer made the best choice possible when going with Grim for his first 3d game, heheh

Graphics aren’t really important to me now compared to art design. Maybe back when the genre grew alongside the incredible leaps in graphical power from the late ‘80s to the HD era but now not so much.

However, there is a real disdain for low resolution pixel art inherited from this snobbery that sprung from the rapid evolution of graphics that’s spread towards all indie games and not just adventures. It’s ludicrous to think someone spending hours and days and years producing a pixelated indie game on their own dime is somehow being lazy. However, it’s a very real bias and if you can only deliver a low resolution pixelated game you might be better served coming up with a unique art design. I think this was a real strength of Papers, Please, which used drab monochromatic caricatures to draw players into a comically miserable world.

3D is a real issue for low budget games as Jane Jensen could attest. Like 2D, you could also find some creative solutions to this that will produce an appealing art design. One recent trend is the emergence of low poly models with pixel art texture maps: http://www.kennethfejer.com/lowpoly.html

Good luck with it.

^I’m with you. The graphics were never very important to me, I ask nothing extraordinary in that sense, if they are decent is enough, for me there are other more important qualities than the graphics, eg story.

However, I understand or think that I’m part of the minority too, it seems to me that the majority are always eager for better graphics and effects. I don’t really care too much about them.

^I’m with you. The graphics were never very important to me, I ask nothing extraordinary in that sense, if they are decent is enough, for me there are other more important qualities than the graphics, eg story.

However, I understand or think that I’m part of the minority too, it seems to me that the majority are always eager for better graphics and effects. I don’t really care too much about them.

I agree - story and plot first and always. I enjoy playing quite a few of the older adventure games as well as the new ones.

bokkie - 22 January 2015 03:20 AM

I find Gemini Rue nicer Than LSL:Reloaded. So, style and execution over resolution. On the other hand, there is a lower threshold. I didn’t back Thimbleweed Park because the graphics were a bit too simple. I Guess I draw the line somewhere around LSL5/Resonance at the moment.

I don’t think there’s really any way to appreciate the Thimbleweed Park graphics unless you have a huge nostalgia hard-on for Maniac Mansion. I don’t, and I find them, ahem, ugly… but having said that, I’m convinced the game is going to rock, because it’s Gilbert at the helm after all. So yeah, even though I’m an artist by trade and looks are important to me, I’ll still play that game and enjoy it thoroughly, I’m sure.