Would you play something better than Arcanum, if it looked worse than Mario?

[NotAI]

What if it looked even worse than that?

Suppose the graphics really suck........what then say you? Play or no play?

How ****** retro can the graphics be?

Does it matter whether we're talking about 2D or about 3D?

What if graphical fidelity, animations, and art style can be easily modded or patched?

Comment. I feel there needs to be some way to test core game loops and RPG design without actually wasting 90% of budget on graphics, which don't matter if the game itself is utter rubbish. On the other hand, there needs to be a way to improve the graphics, easily, if a game is good.

Thoughts?

I'll start. I have to think about this one. Would I play Gothic today, if the graphics were even worse?

[Val the Moofia Boss]

To me, the main point of audio-visual mediums like TV and games is... the audio visuals. If the audio-visuals are not a consideration, then you mind as well just do away with them and be spending your time on a different medium instead, ie reading books which are just story or playing tabletop games which is just gameplay. So no, if a hideously ugly videogame came out today, I wouldn't play it, no matter the gameplay (which should also be good).

[NotAI]

Good point

Now, how hideous would it have to be to be unplayable today?

What are some of your edge cases on this view?

Yes:
A
B
C

No:
X
Y
Z

?

[Element]

No, but I'd play a proper sequel to Arcanum with the same graphics as the original

[Norfleet]

Graphics, schmaphics. FORSOOTH! Bring back ASCII!

[Tangerine]

Yes, I would play an ugly looking game if it's got solid mechanics and an input system that's not awful to deal with.

To me, the main point of audio-visual mediums like TV and games is... the audio visuals. If the audio-visuals are not a consideration, then you mind as well just do away with them and be spending your time on a different medium instead, ie reading books which are just story or playing tabletop games which is just gameplay. So no, if a hideously ugly videogame came out today, I wouldn't play it, no matter the gameplay (which should also be good).

This is backwards and it blows my mind that your first go-to as a substitute is reading a book. Video is a modifier on game, not the other way around. A game can look ugly and play very well and be a great because it succeeds at its primary goal of being a game. A game that looks beautiful but plays like garbage will never be a good game because it fails that same purpose. It's why criticism of visual novels and walking sims not being video games is valid, since there is almost no gameplay involved.

[DemoGraph]

Comment. I feel there needs to be some way to test core game loops and RPG design without actually wasting 90% of budget on graphics, which don't matter if the game itself is utter rubbish. On the other hand, there needs to be a way to improve the graphics, easily, if a game is good.

Thoughts?

It seems that you don't want to discuss graphics. You're looking for rapid prototyping and modular design.

Yes, you can design the core loop of your game and all the mechanics using programmer art.
Yes, you probably should add graphics engine on top of your game, not the other way around.

[Vergil]

I can't even play Arcanum NOW!

[NotAI]

It seems that you don't want to discuss graphics. You're looking for rapid prototyping and modular design.

Yes and no....

Yes, definitely mechanics should be independent of graphics engine. Further, box art for rapid prototyping has been around forever, and now we'll get AI overlays over grayboxing with good framerates and look and feel consistent and polished soon enough, so long as mechanical combinatorics is reduced.

No, talking about final graphical fidelity and final art style, which have three side effects in the end:
(1) affordances (how much you have to explain for players to be able to play the game well, how much is very "clear" and "obvious" and often enough does not need to be explained)
(2) limits how much can be arbitrarily combined
(3) polish and quality control when all systems combined

Why do we have Robloxes and Minecrafts but we don't we have many "Minecraft-like" or "Roblox-like" RPGs with quests better than a Gothic 2 or a Witcher 3?

Why usually retro graphics with retro quests or else latest graphics with modern quests?

As was noted in another thread, Red Faction came out in 2001. Destructible terrain; you are expected to use that; nice. Why not many big ARPGs that look like that and go beyond Arcanum, Dwarf Fortress, Arx and the rest?

24 cores that average gaming laptops have now can easily run multiple blackboard expert systems and more fun stuff.