Cosmetics question

Hi.

I have a question I would like to ask.

Are cosmetics in game design useful? My question is actually, would you still buy or play a game based on the cosmetic or look of things like characters and other elements?

Would you still be cheering for the hero if they looked more like an average joe , than a magazine cover model. Would you still damn the vilian if he was more visually appealing than your hero?

Do aesthics in game design contribute to your enjoyment of video games. Does dolling ip your game make it better? Or do you prefer a form that follows the objects function?

Just a question....nothing serious.

Comments

  • It's pretty clear that so many people buy games purely on how the characters look. "Prettier", better looking games routinely get tons of hype for nothing but looking good.

    But the question of whether games can survive on looks alone isn't really that simple. Just like the "best designed" games aren't necessarily successful, or "best sound" games aren't necessarily successful, etc. Each part of a game contributes to its eventual outcomes, and along with those factors there's a pretty big dose of luck too.

    So... Not really sure if you're asking about "you" as in me, personally, or "you" as in a broader market of people who buy games, or "you" game developers in general....
    Thanked by 1Kulu
  • edited
    From a developer perspective, screenshots, gifs, and other visuals are these are things that, if done well, get people to care enough to take a look at your game's page in the first place, get them to sit through a minute of trailer, get them to care enough to read the description or look at reviews. (I think the vast amounts of money that large studios spend on advertising and marketing -- often in excess of the game's development budget itself (!) -- is testament to this.)

    This doesn't mean that the visuals have to be beautiful, or realistic, or high-budget. They just need to be something that's interesting enough to enough people. For indie games, "different" is sometimes good enough to pique someone's interest -- and different can be grotesque, or 1-bit, or surreal, or pretty much anything that isn't AAA, super casual mobile, or "asset-flip"-looking. Different might be having having an average Jane protagonist. Different might be where gaining more wealth/points/power doesn't make you "better". If enough people are interested in any of these things, then they become more viable as hooks for grabbing players.

    I think it goes without saying that improving any axis of a game improves the game, whether that's the game's art, audio, mechanics, systems, writing, marketing, or any other axis. I think a more difficult discussion is which axes give you the best improvements for the amount of time you spend on them, and how subjective certain improvements are. (For example, making your art look AAA may raise peoples' expectations on other parts of the game, so that when the game doesn't deliver on highly polished AAA-like experiences, players end up being disappointed. In this case a higher visual fidelity might not be considered an improvement, even though you spent much more time on it.)

    As a player, I've bought many, many games based on aesthetics alone, and ended up disappointed at the game's mechanics. But there are also many games with excellent mechanics (at least, based on what friends and colleagues have told me) that I have no interest playing because their visuals didn't grab me at all.
    Thanked by 1Kulu
  • Okay. Thanks for the detailed views guys.
  • This is such a complicated and broad question. Probably the simple answer is that good art draws in players because, along with audio, it's the first thing that potential customers are exposed to in screenshots and videos. Even videos that show gameplay don't always demonstrate the gameplay accurately unless the game's genre is very traditional (a Call Of Duty game, for example - we all know what they look like and we'll all know if something isn't right, even if we've never played any of the games; with an indie game by an unknown developer, however, you may not be sure of what you're looking at and that's why trailers and trailer design is so important so it immediately, and accurately, conveys the genre and gameplay aspects).

    What "good" art means, however, is very subjective.

    I'm generalising terribly but AAA gamers always want ultra realism, 4K, perfect rendering, fast frame rates, ray tracing, [insert buzz phrase], [insert buzz phrase], [insert buzz phrase], and gameplay often almost seems to be secondary. There's a subset of them who also seem to get very nasty if the graphics don't meet their expectations, even if the gameplay is good.

    People with a more nuanced understanding of art and fans of indie games have a much broader interest in the art, its possibilities, and what it conveys. Art styles can range from low poly to 2D animation to ultra realism (and even photography if it's a multimedia game). Pixel art styles can range from 1-bit pixel art to no-holds-barred, no-palette pixel design (although personally I get a bit purist here and think the designer should at least have a palette - but many don't, they just know how to make great art using pixels). Within all of that, the quality can range from awful to superb but you only know the difference if you have art experience or training or have played enough games with that style to be able to discern, even if you don't know the art terminology, why something is good or not.

    Art styles are also important because they can quickly infer the type of gameplay. Pixel art means point-and-click adventure, RPG, RPG fetch quest, or puzzle platformer. Low poly means flying/racing/speed or puzzle. Etc. People basically don't want to be lied to so they want the art style to match up to their gameplay expectations and, within that, they want the art to be good, whatever "good" means for that style of art. (Obviously if you're good enough you can subvert all the genres but you really need to know what you're doing and both your understanding of art and your implementation of your gameplay mechanics then needs to be superb or people will focus on the disconnect between the two instead of enjoying how they have been uniquely matched together.)

    As a gamer I've played games because the art appealed to me (some of those I've really loved, others were meh, some were terrible) and I've been put off potential games that I might like because I didn't like the art. Because I am a journalist and I review games I am more likely than most to try things that I personally don't think I'd be interested in but, in the case of games that aren't free, it's because I can request a review copy. If I was spending my own money, I wouldn't spend the money (well, definitely not without a lot of research) because it would be too much of a gamble. However, like everyone, I have finite time so if I'm exploring games (say on itch.io) for research or personal enjoyment I'm going to aim for the genres I like the most and then pick the games within that that seem to have good art (which means high quality within whatever style/aesthetic is being used). Most of the time it's a subconscious choice but now that I'm typing this out I realise that that's exactly what I do.

    There's also another part to your question, which isn't actually a quality point. Art can also infer other characteristics that I don't really have a word for, such as misogyny or racism (unironically, of course - in other words, it's not a game with commentary on these issues, the developers are just misogynists or racists themselves and this is clear from the art). The art can be technically perfect and very beautiful aesthetically but I will be put off immediately if it conveys any of this.
    Thanked by 1Kulu
  • edited
    Thanks for all the answeres guys. I was just wanting an answer because sometimes I think......that any type of media can sell you any type of story, message or idea, by luring you into a confort zone , using just aesthetics.

    This idea is everywhere and is used all the time. So I was wondering is it healthy to use expected or researched aesthetics to gain potential buyers. Seems clever, but also dodge.

    Like even with aliens and scifi. Some alien designs look quite similar to one another, and it seems like there is almost an expected aesthtic or look that an alien should have.

    Its just a thought I was having guys. Im just saying real life and expectations dont always line up. For me personally , I like how human genes , from an aesthetic point, seem to have no bounds, even with clearly evident things like dopplgangers, twins and people looking like their great great grand father etc.

    But ive met more average joes than super models.
  • Thanks for all the answeres guys. I was just wanting an answer because sometimes I think......that any type of media can sell you any type of story, message or idea, by luring you into a confort zone , using just aesthetics.
    This is true.
    This idea is everywhere and is used all the time. So I was wondering is it healthy to use expected or researched aesthetics to gain potential buyers. Seems clever, but also dodge.
    This is what much of the advertising industry is built on, plus - off the top of my head - some lifestyle (decor) magazines, and many movies. The ethics around it are whether you are selling a "lie" that people are expecting you to sell or if it really is a lie and you are tricking them.
    Like even with aliens and scifi. Some alien designs look quite similar to one another, and it seems like there is almost an expected aesthtic or look that an alien should have.
    Very often this is done because it is a shortcut to communicating information without having to explain too much. If your alien was a flat black circle, what would that mean to players? You'd have to have extra steps or animation or gameplay explaining that this is an alien. If the character already looks like, say, a "grey alien" (probably the most recognisable alien design), people immediately know it's an alien - and it also suggests he's a bad guy unless you say otherwise - and that the game is science fiction.
    Its just a thought I was having guys. Im just saying real life and expectations dont always line up. For me personally , I like how human genes , from an aesthetic point, seem to have no bounds, even with clearly evident things like dopplgangers, twins and people looking like their great great grand father etc.
    This is because media sells lies, often based on attractive aesthetics (attractive people, good music, fancy cars, lots of money, travelling all over the world, expensive hotels), because people are drawn to things they are attracted to or aspire to, and repelled by things that remind them that their lives are ordinary or boring, or that they didn't achieve all the things in their lives that they wanted to. People want escape and escape is embodied in aspirational aesthetics.
    But ive met more average joes than super models.
    That's because most people are average (average is normal and there is nothing wrong with it) and only a very few are supermodels but in media you see many more supermodels and not average people because they "aren't attractive". Media pushes the aspirational aesthetics lie, which in turn pushes a certain kind of visual communication and literacy, as well as a certain expectation about life, which is incorrect. You learn more and more how incorrect it is as you get older.

    Thanked by 2Kulu KRYSH
  • Thanks Watman. That was a nice answer. I agree.
    Thanked by 1watman
Sign In or Register to comment.