So I've noticed something

[NylonBandit]

I don't play adult games. I have the Illusion games, but honestly, I just use them for character creators. Still, I see them popping up all the time on Steam and here and recently I've been enjoying creating characters and renders in Daz3D so recently I've been checking out a lot of the posts here on the games just to check the preview images and look at the renders.

Now I'm not an expert by any means. Here's a recent render I've done as proof of my noobness.

Spoiler: Render preview

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Now I know it's not the greatest, but it seems better than like 80% of the renders I've been seeing in these previews. Mostly I seem to be seeing:

• A lot of noise in the renders
• Relying on a HDRI to light the scene giving off flat lighting, or just using the default Daz3D lighting
• Just poor lighting in general...
• Actors looking like they're made of rubber or just out right ugly
• Character presets just used outright that look identical to their sales page
• 0 use of depth of field

Then I look at their Patreon and they've got 1000 members.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is every game. I've seen some renders that genuinely look phenomenal and I kind of want to download their games just to see the renders in HQ. It's just mostly... mostly... I've been seeing bad renders.

This could be because the game dev doesn't understand lighting, or because they're trying to churn out so many renders they don't actually want to spend the time rendering scenes properly. But does it not bother people how fake or rather artificial the renders look in some of these games? If you're making a visual novel, you only have 2 real things to worry about. A good story that will keep people clicking, and something pretty to look at while they're clicking through all the text. Just seems to me that a lot of these games really fall short on the later, yet still seem fairly popular.

But again, I'm no expert. It's just an observation.

 

[Deleted member 6385753]

And your point is?

I mean look at Being a DIK. Renders look terrible but it is an amazing game, a masterpiece. So visuals are not everything.

 

[morphnet]

I don't play adult games. I have the Illusion games, but honestly, I just use them for character creators. Still, I see them popping up all the time on Steam and here and recently I've been enjoying creating characters and renders in Daz3D so recently I've been checking out a lot of the posts here on the games just to check the preview images and look at the renders.

Now I'm not an expert by any means. Here's a recent render I've done as proof of my noobness.

Spoiler: Render preview

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Now I know it's not the greatest, but it seems better than like 80% of the renders I've been seeing in these previews. Mostly I seem to be seeing:

• A lot of noise in the renders
• Relying on a HDRI to light the scene giving off flat lighting, or just using the default Daz3D lighting
• Just poor lighting in general...
• Actors looking like they're made of rubber or just out right ugly
• Character presets just used outright that look identical to their sales page
• 0 use of depth of field

Then I look at their Patreon and they've got 1000 members.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is every game. I've seen some renders that genuinely look phenomenal and I kind of want to download their games just to see the renders in HQ. It's just mostly... mostly... I've been seeing bad renders.

This could be because the game dev doesn't understand lighting, or because they're trying to churn out so many renders they don't actually want to spend the time rendering scenes properly. But does it not bother people how fake or rather artificial the renders look in some of these games? If you're making a visual novel, you only have 2 real things to worry about. A good story that will keep people clicking, and something pretty to look at while they're clicking through all the text. Just seems to me that a lot of these games really fall short on the later, yet still seem fairly popular.

But again, I'm no expert. It's just an observation.

As you don't play adult games, ask yourself the same question and apply it to movies and tv shows and you'll have your answer.

 

[Rafster]

What you saw it's a lucky exception. The vast majority of creators, barely pass the 100$ barrier. If you saw a patreon with over 1000 members, maybe it has other qualities besides the render quality. Maybe an interesting plot? many branches? engaging characters? interesting mechanics? or just raw luck getting into a kink that no one has before.

 

[NylonBandit]

And your point is?

I mean look at Being a DIK. Renders look terrible but it is an amazing game, a masterpiece. So visuals are not everything.

I've seen Being a DIK. Based on the previews, I wouldn't put it's renders in the category I described. It looks like the creator is actually putting time into getting good skin and lighting the renders properly.

 

[baneini]

Lots of devs are from shitholes like ex-soviet countries, they use awful pc's/laptops with long render times, and suffer from general lack of skill since they only got into it after seeing someone else make money on patreon.

Then once they're in the patreon grind they divide their time on all things that are required to get next patch out, interacting with patrons, marketing and so they wont just work to make better renders, which might require them buying a new pc. Never noticed a game project get much better renders as time went on.
As for ugly characters its a mystery.

 

[| Vee |]

My man I have this motto in my head "A good story can sell and make records with a mediocre/no art but a high quality art can too you just know what is selling in market and how to sell it".

There are some games with shitty story and making tons of money, not all of them though. BUT do remember a good story always will sell. It all falls on you, how much of a good story you are selling.

"Bully" had shittiest renders but many liked the story, GTA, NEED FOR SPEED, COUNTERSTRIKE, these are games evolved over time (evolved in sense that more play time, quality renders, many quests, side stories, achievements). But in all these games ONE thing is common and that is emotional connectivity of audience with the characters/story/rewards of the game. But in this era if the renders are not that good some people might not like but not all.

Some are not good with writing but with renders, some are good with writing but not with writing, some hire those people which will make their game more "suited for audience" by hiring people which are good in certain things. Example: colorist, coder, translator etc.
Some done have this advantage and go Solo into development handling every thing. So, in the end it is all exhausting and a burden for them to keep the game running will low or no support. It takes time(much time) to build a community of supporters that like your art and writing style.

If you are trying to make a good story than all you need is a good story and 65%-80% render quality than most games and can get your job done but consistency is must and building a community who supports you is harder for every one who is starting.

 

[EvolutionKills]

Good renders certainly help, but they're not the be-all-end-all. Personally I hold writing, narrative, and characterization in much higher regard than visual ascetics, even if I do think that good ascetics is important. None of my favorite games here are my favorite purely because of the visuals. Pale Carnations, Now & Then, The Interim Domain, Friends in Need, Cozy Cafe, Seeds of Chaos, Eternum, Crimson High, and the rest of my personal favorites are all more than just their renders (and a not insignificant amount of them use Illusion game assets rather than a bespoke 3D renderer like Blender or Daz3D).

I will say however that using 'popularity' as a metric to gauge the 'quality' of a game is a fool's errand. There is a lot of slop here that is inexplicably popular, despite how demonstrably poor the games are on various levels; and people will coming swarming out of the woodwork to defend any garbage so long as it is their favorite garbage. Also, good renders can't save a game from poor writing, a nonsensical narrative, or a poor translation. Some games, no matter how 'good' they look, are still pretty bad and not worth your time. You'll see this a lot with AI generated visuals, because they have become the new low-effort standard to making something that looks superficially good at a glance, but utterly falls apart upon closer scrutiny.

 

[woody554]

"I wrote one word and I think it was excellent. why can't george r. r. martin make better books when it's this easy?!?"

 

[Meaning Less]

Honestly, I don't really notice as much of a difference as you imply from your render to general DAZ games.

And I'm not saying your render is bad, but since the difference isn't that impactful I could understand other devs priorizing different things like quantity over quality or similar.

And that explains a lot of your points as to why they stick to default lighting and generic models.

 

[simarimas]

Honestly, I don't really notice as much of a difference as you imply from your render to general DAZ games.

And I'm not saying your render is bad, but since the difference isn't that impactful I could understand other devs priorizing different things like quantity over quality or similar.

And that explains a lot of your points as to why they stick to default lighting and generic models.

Agreed. I average 10-20 renders a day. This is on top of working a full time job. Our last update was close to 1900 renders. If I took the time to get the lighting perfect in each render, that average would be cut down to half or maybe a quarter. So how long would it take to make 1900 renders in this case? All for something 90% of the players wouldn't notice, or care about?

Sometimes you just have to decide which is more important. Perfection and twice as long between updates, or good enough and more timely updates. (of which ours are already long enough inbetween)

 

[anne O'nymous]

Now I'm not an expert by any means. Here's a recent render I've done as proof of my noobness.
[...]
Now I know it's not the greatest, but it seems better than like 80% of the renders I've been seeing in these previews.

How many time did you needed to build the scene, then render it, and on what computer ?

Because here's the point you are missing. And average update is around 300 renders, and the average creator earn less than US$ 100/month.
An average creator build, then render, 10 images/day, on the computer they can afford to have, while going to their fulltime job, working on the story and code, doing a bit of public relation and support, and also trying to live if they still have a minute or two.
So, globally speaking, they have thirty minutes to build a scene ; the rendering can be done when they sleep or are at work. I'm sure that you needed way more to build the one on your preview, probably including some test renders.

 

[Baka_Energy_studios]

Also, good renders can't save a game from poor writing, a nonsensical narrative, or a poor translation. Some games, no matter how 'good' they look, are still pretty bad and not worth your time. You'll see this a lot with AI generated visuals, because they have become the new low-effort standard to making something that looks superficially good at a glance, but utterly falls apart upon closer scrutiny.

Avatar 2 had stunning visuals but the story was mediocre like a pile of dogpoop. Marvel Movies look very good(most of the times) but their stories are ranging from barely interesting to nobrainer. Disney makes a ton of money with those movies.
But maybe that's just my perception. People like what they like. Stopped trying to understand it a few years ago.

 

[anne O'nymous]

Avatar 2 had stunning visulas but the story was mediocre like a pile of dogpoop. Marvel Movies look very good(most of the times) but their stories are ranging from barely interesting to nobrainer. Disney makes a ton of money with those movies.

Well, I'll probably go to see Avatar 3 when it will be released. If I'm in the theater, it's because I have the time, so if I'm going to be bored for 2 hours, I might as well do it in front of something visually beautiful.

What doesn't mean that I'll not prefer the time I'll pass watching Dune 2. Beautiful images are still better when served by a good story. But when it come to movies, the context make it that the visual can stand on its own.

But it's something that can't works for games, because they are interactive. Unlike with movies you can't just stay there, half sleeping, being carried by the flow.

 

[FleshSac]

There's one thing that really stands out to me about your example render. I can't for the life of me think of a single situation in which I would need a scene that's lit like that. You have a single character against a wall lit by a spotlight whose sole purpose is to light that single character. It's not a lit scene, it's a glamour shot... which is fine if your purpose is just doing one-off shots but for a visual novel it's just not going to cut it. Exactly how much can I advance the story in this scene? If the camera turns around to reveal someone who might be talking to her, is there another spotlight shining down on that person?

I'm far from an expert in lighting shots... in fact, I absolutely suck at it, but I'll take a hit in lighting quality if it means that I have a location lit for the entirety of the scene I need to shoot in it with all the characters in the scene being covered by that lighting. You can have the perfect shot, but the truth is that real life isn't lit like that. My living room isn't lit like that. Neither is my dining room or any store I've ever been in. They're just... lit. I understand that there's such a thing as "Hollywood magic" where the light falls perfectly across Morticia's eyes, leaving her face in shadow, but most devs with games on here are doing this solo and like it's been mentioned before, time IS a factor. Morticia is just going to have to deal with being lit like Gomez.

It's not a terrible aim to put out the highest quality, but it's not realistic for most of us due to the pressure of getting that next update out before we're called milkers and the pitchforks come out.

 

[Baka_Energy_studios]

Well, I'll probably go to see Avatar 3 when it will be released. If I'm in the theater, it's because I have the time, so if I'm going to be bored for 2 hours, I might as well do it in front of something visually beautiful.

What doesn't mean that I'll not prefer the time I'll pass watching Dune 2. Beautiful images are still better when served by a good story. But when it come to movies, the context make it that the visual can stand on its own.

But it's something that can't works for games, because they are interactive. Unlike with movies you can't just stay there, half sleeping, being carried by the flow.

The new dune is shite. Despite it's good visuals. Thanks for proving my point.

There are good looking games out there that are just mediocre in gameplay but sell good enough.
But judging game visuals is totally subjective. What looks good today is outdated one year from now on.
Horizon zero dawn looked awesome when it came out although the gameplay loop was basic af.
Still sold like hot cakes. Granted, the background story of HZD was fairly unique which pulled a lot of people
in I think. Oh and Aloy's character's gotten abrasive and grating some times in the Sequel, story is tickling
mediocre balls. Yet here we are and Horizon forbidden West is a console seller nonetheless.

Hell, Milfy city was considered good looking visually back in the day.

 

[anne O'nymous]

The new dune is shite. Despite it's good visuals. Thanks for proving my point.

Thanks for your deep, and so argued insight, that have not really much to do with what I said.
I never judged the movie, just saying that it's served by a good story. But what did I know, perhaps that Herbert wrote shitty books.

There are good looking games out there that are just mediocre in gameplay but sell good enough.
But judging game visuals is totally subjective. What looks good today is outdated one year from now on.

And the relation with the fact that a game can't stand on its own due to its sole visual, therefore what I said, is ?

Hell, Milfy city was considered good looking visually back in the day.

Milfy city was always considered as a bit above the average. Yet average renders, consistent to the story and that carry a feeling of natural, are better than over post worked renders that totally feel off.

 

[Baka_Energy_studios]

And the relation with the fact that a game can't stand on its own due to its sole visual, therefore what I said, is ?

First, you don't state a fact just a mere opinion. And as I said before that, people like what they like.
2nd You said that games can't stand on their own only by the visuals and yet I gave some examples.
So, what kind of comprehension are you lacking?

Milfy City was always considered as a bit above the average. Yet average renders, consistent to the story and that carry a feeling of natural, are better than over post worked renders that totally feel off.

Just another opinion. Milfys style is more on the cartoony side than realism. Again, people like what they like.

To make it simple, Games with good visuals can be successful just as games with simplified visuals can.
(Undertale is a good example of very simple graphics but the gameplay and story gets people hooked)
I don't judge if anyone likes a game just for it visuals or not.

 

[nulnil]

But judging game visuals is totally subjective. What looks good today is outdated one year from now on.

*WRONG BUZZER SOUND*

This only applies to games that aim for 'realistic' graphics, and that might not even be true soon.

I'd say Triple-A games are approaching a point where there won't be much to improve in terms of graphics (hell, we might already be at that point). There's a big difference between 2001-2004, and 2004-2007, but 2021-2023? Eventually, the details to refine are so small you probably won't notice them anyways.

But besides that, there's also Stylized graphics. In short, these games use a unique artstyle to which makes their graphics hard to compare to the graphics other games. Here's some examples:

• Risk of Rain 2
• Team Fortress 2
• Minecraft

 

[Baka_Energy_studios]

*WRONG BUZZER SOUND*

This only applies to games that aim for 'realistic' graphics, and that might not even be true soon.

I'd say Triple-A games are approaching a point where there won't be much to improve in terms of graphics (hell, we might already be at that point). There's a big difference between 2001-2004, and 2004-2007, but 2021-2023? Eventually, the details to refine are so small you probably won't notice them anyways.

But besides that, there's also Stylized graphics. In short, these games use a unique artstyle to which makes their graphics hard to compare to the graphics other games. Here's some examples:

• Risk of Rain 2
• Team Fortress 2
• Minecraft

Even stylized games can look outdated. When the textures are low res or the figure was
poorly optimized and has shitty anti-aliasing. Or when the game runs poorly even on modern rigs.
But in a lot of cases stylized graphic design stands the test of time oftentimes better than 3D
because of the advancements of the tech behind it. It's also the reason why I'm reluctant to get Chrono Trigger
on Steam bc I got a 4k monitor recently and it may be possible that these old graphics
aren't looking good on it.

Also, Nostalgia can "blind" the gaming experience. I'm a huge Gothic Classic and Gothic 2 DNDR fan
but honestly, I can't play any of them without mods and DX11 renderer because those two games
are 20 years old. Modders til this day are making mods and enhancements for Gothic 1+2.
I would get eyecancer if I would have to play them unmodded. The visual improvement helps a LOT
to enjoy the games.