You must log in or register to comment.
I like the concept, but visually it looks pretty crude. Somehow I think if devs didn’t care enough to make the game look good (it doesn’t have to look fantastic), then I’m pretty sure the gameplay isn’t all that impressive either.
That’s a weird take. Games like Minecraft showed the world that games don’t need to visually look good to be good. This opened up the world for indie developers to make really good games utilising pixel art. I’m a big fan of Stardew Valley. In fact I’ll call it now that the developer for that game has worked harder than any other developer in any game from the past or present.
I’d argue that Minecraft and Stardew Valley do visually look good. Looking good doesn’t mean that it has to look like a AAA game with realistic graphics. Very old games like Super Mario Bros 3 look great even today. Pixel art games if done with care look fantastic. What I didn’t like about this game when looking at the trailer on Steam is that the world looks barren - specifically, look at the 35s mark on their Steam video. I see that there are some other visually appealing scenes in the trailer, but some scenes just look unfinished. I agree I was a bit harsh, but the couple of close-ups in the trailer left a really bad impression on me.
I think we all know trailers can be deceiving. They can make a poor game look good but, I guess, at the same time make a good game look bad.
As the old saying goes “Don’t judge a book by its cover”.
So you think that Dwarf Fortress has an unimpressive gameplay? You’re really saying that a game that had a bug that made cats die because when a dwarf drinks alcohol he sometimes spills some amount on the floor because dwarfs are messy drinkers, cats walk past it and get alcohol on their fur, cats lick themselves clean and so consume alcohol, and since the smallest amount of alcohol was lethal to a cat they were dying has an unimpressive gameplay?
Graphics and gameplay are completely unrelated, a lot of AAA games stand on graphics alone, and a lot of Indies have great gameplay even if the graphics are not great.
Not at all. I played DF (with sprites) and had a great time. The graphics are not fantastic, but are not unappealing either. I know a lot of people loved the ASCII, but personally I’m not into that.
DF devs did the ASCII, you modded the game to have better graphics. So it’s both your opinion that the Devs didn’t cared to make their game look good and have a good gameplay, invalidating your original point.
Jesus, lay off the guy. Artstyle preferences are a thing…
It’s not about artistic preferences. He’s literally saying the artstyle isn’t good therefore the gameplay isn’t good either. The other guy is pointing out the stupidity of that statement.
Precisely my point. Art style of a game does not influence it’s gameplay and vice-versa. The original claim was “bad art = bad gameplay”, and I’m pointing out that DF has an undeniable bad art and an undeniable good gameplay.
I know this might blow your mind, but different people have different opinions and that’s ok.
Yes, but if you’re opinion is A means B and you agree that there’s an example of A where not B, you’re either stupid, hypocrite or trolling.
He claimed bad graphics means bad gameplay, agreed that DF has bad graphics, and agreed that it has good gameplay, therefore his original point is wrong by his own standard because he agrees that there’s a game that has bad graphics but good gameplay, therefore not all games that had bad graphics have bad gameplay. I really can’t simplify it any more.
If his opinion was that DF had shitty gameplay or good graphics then it’s subjective, and we could have a subjective discussion about those points, but because he agreed to that the original point is logically wrong.
