It's true, but the opposite is also true. Some games are carried by the good art.these are not art levels. any of them can be better than the others.
generally, if you make something YOU want to see (the story/events, not the image quality) a fair number of people will recognize your passion and like it regardless of the image quality. there's some amazingly crude looking drawn games here that have a loyal following.
Exactly. I think the art is what will make some people TRY or even LOOK AT a game to begin with, and yeah, there are some truly bland games where the art is doing a huge majority of the lifting.It's true, but the opposite is also true. Some games are carried by the good art.
Yes, I'd prefer a text only game to one with terrible art - mainly because terrible art can be distracting, as I said, or make the game feel ridiculous.I'd rather have none than MS Paint, or lazy unedited AI art.
Pretty much same thing applies to animation.
it never hurts, but it's not an option for someone without the skills.It's true, but the opposite is also true. Some games are carried by the good art.
Pretty much this. I personally dislike Daz3D and Illusion models for visual novels, to me they feel like those low-poly Unity assets that every low budget game uses, overused and kinda lazy. I love seeing good 3D stuff around and also spent a lot of time fucking around with porn Skyrim and Fallout.I play all art styles. It's more about execution than any particular style for me. 2D and 3D both cover a lot of different sub-styles as well.
I second what Glib_Gentleman said above, if you're gonna provide art, a minimum quality is expected, otherwise it will distract the person and compromise the overall experience. Corruption of Champions got around this rather well by having simple, small pixelated representations of the characters on the bottom left corner, while the text still had most of the screen.the example I always use is if you tell an incest story with stick figures, the incest fan will still want to see it.
it's, uh, a text game. it's an example that you don't even need the art at all. yeah it has some kind of an interface with graphical elements but it's still a text game.I second what Glib_Gentleman said above, if you're gonna provide art, a minimum quality is expected, otherwise it will distract the person and compromise the overall experience. Corruption of Champions got around this rather well by having simple, small pixelated representations of the characters on the bottom left corner, while the text still had most of the screen.
Exactly my point. The art doesn't draw attention from the text. If it was bad art, like stick figures as I quoted from you, despite the game being text-based, people would complain, thus many scenes in CoC simply lacked any images.it's, uh, a text game. it's an example that you don't even need the art at all. yeah it has some kind of an interface with graphical elements but it's still a text game.
This is an accurate summary to my preference as a fan of 2D art games. I like point number 5, which is very true!In my opinion:
1. Great 2D > Great 3D
2. Good 2D ~ Great 3D
3. Good 2D > Good 3D
4. Average 2D ~ Good 3D
5. Below Average 2D < Below Average 3D because Below Average 3D is limited to (and constrained by) pre-existing products while Below Average 2D can go to... terrible places.
6. Good Fetish handling can make players increase an AVN's overall attractiveness regardless of the art.
Agreed. For visual players, there is a certain limit. I like to look at nice things. It's 80% visual and 20% writing to me. But if the writing is VERY good, it can elevate the game entirely if the game already has an acceptably pleasant art.actively BAD art will still turn me away. It's incredibly distracting.
2D art only, it can be really shitty deviant art 8 year old level shit. but it ain't art unless it's 2D.What do you look for in art when you play a game? I've seen some truly uncanny 3d games get some amount of attention.