Graphics
So I've been looking at a bunch of different games lately and some have amazing graphics, some no graphics and others possibly the worse graphics I've seen in a long time. Also, I was talking to someone about a game he is designing and he was saying how the graphics were a key component of his game.
I'm sure as most people you have read this blog for a while have realized I personally don't care about a game having flashy graphics. My primary concern is game play and layout. Graphics in many web games I find hindering. But I've been thinking. Does a web game need a bunch of fancy graphics?
I think if a player were only drawn into playing the game because of your graphics, I think that player would likely quit not long after sign up. I do think a game needs to look nice, and it can be part of the hook for a game, but to make the graphics a core component is something I don't agree with.
A web game, for several reason I believe, should be graphics light. And I will explain
1) Speed. People want to play the game first and foremost. If there is delay because of loading graphics or even lag do to transfer rates, players are going to become frustrated quickly.
2) Bandwidth. Saving yourself come cash 
3) Simplicity. Some graphics may make it easier to navigate a site. But some also make it difficult and cluttered. That is that must be avoided. If your navigation of the site is cluttered or confusing, not just because of graphic but they can quickly add to the mess, players are going to quit. Or worse... complain.
I sternly believe that graphics should be used to make the the layout function better and make the game not look like crap. Clean, simple, small graphics. Nothing crazy. If the graphic proves to be any form of hinderance, I think it should be deleted or recreated.
So what are everyone's opinion on this?
Related posts:
January 15th, 2008 - 13:39
I agree with you on graphics for web based games, keeping them light and simple is a good idea. I think overall graphics are needed as the majority of people are visually oriented, in that what they see registers faster than what they can read.
That being said graphics are not game play so if your core mechanics are not working then all the graphics in the world will not make the game fun.
January 15th, 2008 - 13:45
that was a quick reply
i think the type of game also should dictate the amount of graphics used. A game that has little information to display would/should likely have either more or more complex graphics than a game that requires the players to overview a large amount of data at a time.
January 15th, 2008 - 14:36
This is really amazing to read i like the way ! Its really good !
January 16th, 2008 - 06:17
It depends on the game..
If you are creating a football manager game, the only graphics you really need are little icons, possibly graphs and charts, and perhaps some images of championship cups.
If you are creating a mainly textual RPG akin to a MUD then graphics are simply going to get in the way unless they are used sensibly. Having images for a monster you are fighting, yourself, and perhaps a map is about all you need. Perenthia (http://www.perenthia.com) is a perfect example of this. A clean layout, health bars, a map, images for you and the monsters are present, but the majority of the interface is taken up with the textual part of the game.
If you are creating a game along the lines of KoL (http://www.kingdomofloathing.com) or Everonia (http://www.everonia.com) where the main object of the game is to have a series of one-on-one battles with a monster in a given area, then graphics will be used quite extensively to give more appeal than just a bunch of text for each repetitive combat (although to be fair, the combat text in KoL is definitely more interesting than the images).
If you are creating a game where you need to move your individual characters around a battlefield, adding locational strategy and tactics to the game, then you will need graphics to represent that, Pioneers of Aethora demonstrates this (http://www.aethora.com). Generally the site is mainly text with occasional graphics, but the combats are fully graphical as it’s the best way to understand who is where.
All the way through this, I’ve been referring to ‘content’ graphics. I think it’s worth mentioning that there are two uses of graphics in a web game, content and fluff. The content covers graphics that have an actual use in the game to represent something of importance and to assist the player in playing the game. Fluff is…. fluff, graphics there to make the site pretty or to pad out an otherwise empty layout.
As much fluff as is practical should be removed from the site. This doesn’t mean all of it, but if you have fluff on your site just ask yourself if the site would remain as effective and look as nice if it was removed or reduced. Also, fluff graphics should always use the same url so that the browser can cache it easily.
Content graphics are clearly needed sometimes but again, it’s worth looking at the graphics that are being used and checking to make sure that their size is appropriate, they are in an appropriate file format, and compressed as much as possible without sacrificing quality (if you’re going to use graphics, use nice graphics).
Content graphics should serve to assist the game and make the player’s experience ‘richer’ and hopefully easier. We’re used to icons representing things and an icon toolbar can be extremely useful in a game where text just wouldn’t work as well (the populous interface for example). However, all images should ensure they have an alt tag (and title tag for mac users).
Whether graphics should be used and if so, how many, really is down to the type of game and the target audience. If the game is aimed at younger audiences then graphics will draw them to your site better than any amount of cleverly written text. Oversized and brightly coloured graphics will win them over every time.
Also, if your site is more about social interaction than the game itself, you will want chat rooms and forums with avatars that can be customised, probably a private ‘room’ which you can decorate and furnish, and so on. In this type of ‘game’ graphics really are the central part of the site.
January 16th, 2008 - 06:26
the other way around: if you have many information to display, you need _more_ graphics to visualize the information. graphics should have the function of visualising information. best case is maps. You need a real good map-graphic if you have a game with territory orientation.
January 16th, 2008 - 22:42
I should have distinguished between fluff and content graphics. But I agree somewhat with you Xalthorn that they are need to enhance elements of gameplay, but even a map or combat for me is something I don’t think needs a lot of graphics.
I generally tend to lean towards a torncity style rpg or a starkingdoms strategy game layout graphic wise. Both those games are very minimalistic but offer a large number of actions and information concerning you and your actions.
But I suppose I suffer the flaw of many programmers: Graphics block/slow information intake. Neatly and logically laid tables are just so nice
January 16th, 2008 - 23:53
Thanks for the props there Xal.
Bardic, I think I must have been checking my feeds in RSS bandit close to when you were posting.
I think a healthy balance is required, just depends on what you are trying to portray and the style of the game.
Raph Koster of http://www.metaplace.com has some great articles on game play and what not, some on metaplace, some on his blog and his book. He’s not a friend of mine, just like his advice.
January 18th, 2008 - 21:52
The only argument I could make for so-called “fluff” graphics (not that I use any myself) is that, sadly, they make a stronger first-impression. They provide an illusion of professionalism. You have to see it through the eyes of Joe Websurf and not a developer.
“But I suppose I suffer the flaw of many programmers: Graphics block/slow information intake. Neatly and logically laid tables are just so nice”
Yeah, it’s a common ailment for many of us. However, the point I think Xal was trying to make is that for a lot of players, it’s actually the reverse. When they see too much information in the form of numbers and abbreviations, their eyes start to gloss over. When you can identify something quickly with a small, iconic graphic, your eyes aren’t as overloaded. You can comprehend the iconic indicators and variables almost peripherally.
I wrote about interface design challenges a couple months ago if anyone is interested:
http://rangersheck.com/2007/9/12/interface-design-in-a-pbbg-sound-familiar
January 20th, 2008 - 16:35
You guys are right. Fluff is needed, especially to grab people as Ranger said. But I will provide some sites which I think have the a great balance between graphics, fluff, and useful information.
These are all games I’ve played in the pass that I have stuff in my mind because of their graphics.
http://www.nukezone.nu
http://www.torncity.com
http://www.travian.com
http://www.earth2025.com
These games are neatly laid out, with minimal graphics, but enough in my opinion to make the sites attractive. Travian is obviously the most graphic heavy, but the majority of it’s graphics aren’t fluff, but iconic like Ranger said.
edit:travian link
January 20th, 2008 - 16:57
I’m guessing you meant travian.com? It is a highly developed fork of tribal wars. (tribalwars.com)
January 20th, 2008 - 17:03
That I am.
I’ve never played Tribal Wars (tribalwars.net) before, but I did greatly enjoy Travian when I did play. I’m thinking of recreating my account soon.
January 21st, 2008 - 02:15
I just got over travian. Too much grind. Too many players who are on 24-7. There’s an article for you. How much should a PBBG reward people who are always on versus making it impossible to play casually. I played the last game of travian casually. I created my village and spent a lot of time getting to the point where I could expand. Then I expanded to a location 400 squares away from the game’s center. Isolated, I just built myself up casually. It was nice and relaxing.
Only had to pummel one other player who had built a little too close.
Had a nice 11 village colony (with 3 15-croppers) before the artifacts were released. Then I lost interest.
Maybe I’ll check out ogame.com again.
January 21st, 2008 - 02:16
Damn… ogame.org – Wow, 36 servers. There were only 18 the last time I was playing…
January 21st, 2008 - 06:06
The big problem we face is that of a changing audience or playerbase.
In the heyday of the MUD, there were no graphics at all, everything had to be typed and typed accurately, all feedback was through text (if you were lucky it would be in different colours) and if you happened to be in a busy area, keeping track of your combat actions whilst everyone was shouting and gossiping and doing their own fights in the same room was darn tricky.
But we loved it.
We knew what was going on, we were clever enough to work out the commands, accurate enough so that our typing mistakes didn’t kill us, and the images were better than any current FPS as it used our imagination. I forget the famous quote but something along the lines of:
‘I prefer the radio to the television, the pictures are better’
This was all because the internet (not the world wide web, that hadn’t really made its mark yet) was accessible only to a relatively few number of people, usually people in higher education institutions which increased the general intelligence and aptitude of potential players. Not to mention players who were accustomed to reading volumes of text.
Then the world wide web exploded, AoL appeared and brought the internet into the homes of the dumb. All of whom wanted to look at pretty sites, click a few buttons and be impressed with their skills (I exaggerate, but not much).
The internet and the world wide web were now at the mercy of the TV shopping community, those to whom brightly coloured, thirty second advertisements were enlightening. Everything was now expected to be delivered in an easy to view format, requiring little or no reading, with animations, music, sound effects, and everything else that could be added to actual content with no real worth.
MUDs started to die out. With very few exceptions (there are still some amazing text only games out there) the playerbase started to dwindle, new players were hard to find as the new generation wanted the pazzazz of the new world wide web stuff.
Technology and games evolved to the point where PBBGs became a real possibility and game coders and designers started to turn their skills to this new format. However, many were more familiar with designing content and a playable game without all the fluff and nonsense like sound and graphics (never needed them before, why do we need them now?).
The big problem here is that although they created a game in the new format, the same thing that turned the players off MUDs was stopping them being interested in the new PBBGs. The games were still text based. The new players wanted eye candy, something to grab their short attention span and hold it long enough to understand what they actually had to do and how it could be enjoyable.
Once a player was hooked, understood what they were to do, they started to ignore the graphics and read the content, passing only a casual eye over the candy. A valuable player is now won over and we could probably remove the graphics and keep the player interested.
If you can tap into a valuable resource of old-school players who like playing the game for its content and are willing to pay to play or play enough for your advertisements to support the site then all power to you.
If however, you need ‘bums on seats’ and have to entice as many players in as possible, you need to have a shiny colourful pretty thing to draw them in and then hold them in long enough to get them hooked on the actual gameplay.
Hmm, that was a bit of a rant… sorry.