Topic: The presumption of equal effort

[KDR_11k]

I don't know about other people but when I encounter a game I don't know much about I apply this rule of thumb: The amount of effort the maker of the game put into each component is roughly equal. That means if e.g. the box art is shitty (seriously guys, that's gotta be the cheapest part of game development, don't skimp on it!) or the graphics look badly made (that's different from technically bad, compare the looks of many flash games to the 16 bit era and the flash game will look technically superior but badly made) I assume the other parts of the game like the gameplay and level design will be similarily badly made.

Most of the time that assumption holds true, while there are some shitty high-budget (which usually means they don't have any obvious faults on the box) games and some good games that have a shitty presentation in most cases the good games also appear good while shovelware will give itself away with its box design and screenshots.

Maybe that plays a part in the perception that the Wii is the shovelware system, its bad games tend to be more obvious while the crap on the HD systems (e.g. Legendary) tends to be coated in the appearance of a good game.

I don't know if others use the same rule of thumb but I think it's likely. I do apply different standards at times though (e.g. excessive bloom and 3d rendered sprites count as bad design for me).

[Kairon]

Interesting theory about how it affects the Wii's perception.... but basically you're admitting that it's worhtwhile to judge a book by it's cover?

[KDR_11k]

With games, yes. Books don't need as much effort put into them as games in order to be good so a good cover for a book could cost too much, a good box for a game is cheap in comparison to the game and I really don't know how some of these atrocities can be okayed. This isn't the 8bit era anymorwe where noone knew what those blobs were meant to represent. Also while graphics don't make a game good I'd wager the correlation between graphical quality and game quality is pretty high. Most companies will make sure the graphics in a game are good if they think the game is worth it and when they think it isn't they won't do much testing either and the resulting game is often flawed in ways that more time could have fixed (broken or badly thought-out mechanisms, bad camera and AI, bad balancing leading to spamming one action over and over, etc). Additionally graphics can contain telltale signs of incompetence and usually the skill within a dev team is equal as well (not going to let bad devs into a top tier team but a crappy team will take anyone who's willing to let his salary go low enough).

[Kairon]

I completely agree with what you're saying about the usefulness of considering whether a game is worth further attention by things like presentation or graphical competence. It's a lot like sampling really... it's too expensive to actually read the book, so you just flip a couple pages around, see if it catches your attention, and if not put it back on the shelf!

Still, there's something to be said for opening yourself up to risk and discovery every now and again.

[Bill Aurion]

Ehhh, I don't follow this creed...For me, if I like the concept of a game enough, and I like the genre, I'm not going to let something like the visuals (or the box art) throw me for a loop...

Take Arc Rise Fantasia, for example...The lighting in the game is pretty much atrocious, and I don't think there's anyone that will admit to believing otherwise, but the concept of the game is fantastic and it's being worked on by Tales series vets...There's no way in hell I'm going to let something as minor as lighting prevent me from trying the game!

[Kairon]

Ah, but Bill, you've already done more research into the game, you've already moved onto the next stage of critical evaluation. I think KDR is just talking about deciding whether or not to do more research on a title he's just run across and not done much research on to begin with.

[Bill Aurion]

What's so hard about doing extra research?  It's not like it's a year off your life every time you use Google...Or is it?...

[Kairon]

What's so bad about having a heuristic to minimize the extra research you have to do? We all have busy lives you know! &P

[KDR_11k]

Yeah, ARF is a game you know a lot about and can probably judge the effort put into by other means. Do you have the same level of oppinion on, say, X-Blades (PC and PS360 it seems, picked the example because there's almost no info on it despite having its release date this week)? I'm tending towards crap on that one using only the screenshots, box art and developer (located in Russia despite the game's anime style) as a guide.

As for research, if I didn't use this rule of thumb I'd have to do a search on every piece of shovelware that comes out which would quickly become tedious.

[Bill Aurion]

I'm not saying you have to research EVERY game, but at least knowing the genre (and developer, I guess) can limit your list down so you have a baseline based on some of your more general tastes...

[GoldenPhoenix]

Boom Blox box art destroys this whole thread.

[broodwars]

Boom Blox box art destroys this whole thread.

Oh, I don't know about that.  I certainly think that cover art was indicative in the amount of effort that went into the game's overall polish, as well as the "Story" Mode.

And before you go shouting "Blathering Blatherskites!" on me, I do think Boom Blox is a good game...just not a game that really appealed to me when I played it.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Boom Blox box art destroys this whole thread.

Oh, I don't know about that.  I certainly think that cover art was indicative in the amount of effort that went into the game's overall polish, as well as the "Story" Mode.

And before you go shouting "Blathering Blatherskites!" on me, I do think Boom Blox is a good game...just not a game that really appealed to me when I played it.

Well it is a highly praised game and one of the best games this year. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't a great title. (Parts of story mode weren't great but like any game there is always something in it that isn't up to snuff).

[broodwars]

Boom Blox box art destroys this whole thread.

Oh, I don't know about that.  I certainly think that cover art was indicative in the amount of effort that went into the game's overall polish, as well as the "Story" Mode.

And before you go shouting "Blathering Blatherskites!" on me, I do think Boom Blox is a good game...just not a game that really appealed to me when I played it.

Well it is a highly praised game and one of the best games this year. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't a great title. (Parts of story mode weren't great but like any game there is always something in it that isn't up to snuff).

Amazing, it's like she read my post and yet totally didn't.  Ever think of running as a politician, GP?   

[GoldenPhoenix]

Boom Blox box art destroys this whole thread.

Oh, I don't know about that.  I certainly think that cover art was indicative in the amount of effort that went into the game's overall polish, as well as the "Story" Mode.

And before you go shouting "Blathering Blatherskites!" on me, I do think Boom Blox is a good game...just not a game that really appealed to me when I played it.

Well it is a highly praised game and one of the best games this year. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't a great title. (Parts of story mode weren't great but like any game there is always something in it that isn't up to snuff).

Amazing, it's like she read my post and yet totally didn't.  Ever think of running as a politician, GP?  

I also have anotehr example, the Mega Man games. Some of the worse box art in HISTORY. Heck Nintendo's games usually have lame box art. So that combined with Boomb Blox pwns this post.

[Ian Sane]

A lot of my favourite games not only have great gameplay but do also have great graphics for the time period and the hardware they were released on.  It's funny that everyone is all "gameplay over graphics" when the best games of all time usually had a great presentation.  It's not so much graphics as attention to detail.  If you've got spooky looking mannequin men in your game that's suggests a few possibilities:

1. You lack the talent to make something that actually looks half-decent.

2. You didn't have the time or budget to make something better.

3. You don't care and just did the bare minimum to get your game out.

The little details are important and they make the great games great.  If you can't design an area that looks interesting how can you design an interesting level?  How many times in the 16 bit era did I play a game where the dev thought that moving from left to right while jumping an enemies was all it took to make a platformer?

I think it really makes a difference if the developers care about their game.  You play some generic EA game and it's just product.  No one gives a f*ck.  They were just assigned the project by an exec.  But when there's real passion on the game design you usually get a real classic.  When you care you don't want your game to look like crap.

Though I usually use the publisher's name to spot the shovelware.  Lousy graphics help but if I see the THQ logo guess what?  That means it's worthless horsesh!t.   And if you can spot the spin-off on your console but not the main series you're probably getting shovelware as well.  Has any spin-off like that resulted in anything good?

[broodwars]

Though I usually use the publisher's name to spot the shovelware.  Lousy graphics help but if I see the THQ logo guess what?  That means it's worthless horsesh!t.   And if you can spot the spin-off on your console but not the main series you're probably getting shovelware as well.  Has any spin-off like that resulted in anything good?

Well, I thought Dragon Quest Swords was actually a fun game and a decent effort, just one that needed a lot more development and more substance (I'd love to see future DQ games take Swords' concepts and expand upon them).  Hell, I played Dragon Quest VIII a few months ago, and I actually liked Swords better.  Yeah, it surprised me, too.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

"just one that needed a lot more development and more substance"

This the simple truth for most game products.

[Kairon]

Lousy graphics help but if I see the THQ logo guess what?  That means it's worthless horsesh!t.

Poor THQ. T_T

[GoldenPhoenix]

Lousy graphics help but if I see the THQ logo guess what?  That means it's worthless horsesh!t.

Poor THQ. T_T

Deadly Creatures says Ian MAY be wrong (we'll see).

[UltimatePartyBear]

de Blob?

[GoldenPhoenix]

de Blob?

That can count too even though I have not played it.

[Ian Sane]

For every THQ gem I miss with my bias I also avoid 1000 duds.  To me the odds are worth it.

[KDR_11k]

THQ is fairly mixed, they've got some high quality stuff and a ton of shovelware but usually one glance at the box will tell you which you're looking at.

[Bill Aurion]

A lot of my favourite games not only have great gameplay but do also have great graphics for the time period and the hardware they were released on.

Key phrase...But what if those games were released today?  Would they still be considered to have "great" visuals? (Particularly those from 3D consoles?)  Would you not play those games because their visuals are sub-par for the course?  THAT, my friend, is where the "gameplay over graphics" creed comes from...