Sick and tired of what you say?
I'm tired of people always saying that Larry Vales and Pleurburgh have bad graphics.
People always seem to recommend PB and then immediatly say "Look past the graphics" or that PB is proof that good graphics aren't needed for a good game.
What are these people talking about? PB has some of the best AGS graphics, especially taking into account that it is a full length game and huge. How can people think PB has bad graphics and not realize that they are talking utter bunk! Is it the backgrounds?
PB has some of the most detailed and consistent backgrounds out of all AGS games, each room makes sense architectually and they're all beautiful. If there's a computer on a desk there's a power chord plugging into a wall socket powering that computer. Chrille over looked very little when it came to laying out that game, its details and its hotspots. I'd walk into a room and a hotspot would ring up for something and I'd be like "Oh looks like I'll have to use that thing at some point in the game..." But nope! It was just a detail in the room adding to the amazingness of the game.
Is it the characters? The characters are also consistent and again... Amazing. Obviously this is my opinion but how can you fault Chrille when the majority of AGS games use text boxes to explain away animations and PB actually had those animations. Chrille doesn't like to animate as far as I know and he did [and continued to do with Revenants] an amazing job, the animations are very smooth and wonderful. Each character is original, not based off of a previous sprite from another game and definetly stylish. Each character also has it's own unique look.
So what is it? What about PB's graphics are so horrible? Someone who thinks they're bad please respond.
Also Larry Vales... Let's take this comment by Vel in the games page:
Posted by Vel on 2003-12-18 at 09:39 (IP logged):
This game is simply un-playable. I dont know what the plot was. Nor the dialogue. It all ends for me when I see the graphics. Every 5 year-old can make around 50-60 backgrounds or characters like these. This may be an AGS award winning game, but it certainly isnt playable for the average gamer.
BUNK! Utter bunk! Let's break down Larry Vales now... Character animation. Not much but Larry's walk isn't that bad at all. He doesn't just get flipped horizontally, his legs actually move. Considering again that the majority of AGS games don't have stellar walk cycles [especially back then]. Also, all the characters are original sprites made by Phil, not rips or paint overs [which can't even be said about Who Wants to Live Forever, Vel]
Backgrounds. Also detailed. Lots of hotspots and not just the bare minimum details needed to convince someone that you're in a certain type of room. When I walk outside in LV1 there are bushes clouds and such, not just a green line drawn horizontally across the screen with a flood fill.
When talking to people you usually get a close up, a close up! Meaning that Phil went out of his way to draw yet another graphic just to make the dialogues different when it wasn't necessary at all [again for the bare minimum]. Towards the end of the game you get lots of different scenes, up a pole, inside an air duct, on the phone, on the phone with your head smashed... Just tons of art and new backgrounds that really added to the game.
So what is it about Larry Vales that makes it so ugly?
I'm so curious...
Eric
Actually, I haven't played either game for a long time, but I do remember I enjoyed them both throughly. I won't mention LV, cause I don't really remember it, but let's see Pleurghburg -
I think what most people see on the graphics isn't the dedication, which is obvious from the word go, as you pointed out yourself, but the style. That style doesn't have much of an audience anymore, especially not in a serious game. In a serious game, people want serious graphics. Police Quest 2 was only like that because of the technology of the time, I'm sure it waqs meant to look like Police Quest 4. Pleurghbugh's (sp wrong, but what the hell) style is unique, indeed, but it's the sort of unique people usually consider "badly drawn", "MSPaint-ish". Especially non-AGSers. When you tell a non-AGSer about an AGS game, you either show him KQVGA 1 or 2, Mourir en Mer, and such gems, and you also mention Pleurgburg (how could you not), but unlike the other games, if the player gets disappointed with the graphics (in this day and age, that's bound to happen), he might miss out an incredible experience.
Also, IMO, Pleurghburg's dialogs could use some SERIOUS rewriting. It was a bit generic and... well, too much like, "Boss, bad news. Someone killed Hugo." "Oh my god, that's horrible. We have to do something about this." "I know boss. I'll get to the bottom of this." "Thank you, Jack. You're a good man." Now, this isn't a transcript, this is what I remember the dialogues feel like. Too generic. The game deserved better.
This is gonna be one fierce GTD.
I think it's important to define "good" graphics. Is it graphics where each background is like a piece of art that you could hang on the living room wall, and visiting guests wiould stop and be in awe for half a minute?
One common misinterpretation is that a great game doesn't need great art; that's not really the case. You see, if the game is great, it usually has very functional graphics, otherwise it would be a bad game. Every background won't necessarily sweep you off your feet, but they will probably be consistently drawn, enriched with details, original in style, etc.
Chrille didn't just pull something out of his arse and then go "I don't care about graphics, graphics don't make the game!"
In the critics lounge, there are bad graphics on display daily. Graphics hastily drawn, without purpose, without dedication, graphics drawn rather for the sake of quickly making something that could pass as art, than actually creating and developing a style that would suit your game.
The relationship between graphics and playability is more intimate than most people think. You can't always pick them apart and say "yeah the gameplay was good, but the grahpics SUCKED!" Graphics can be a show horse, but it's more often a working horse.
But people DO look at graphics when downloading a game. There are countless games with crap graphics AND crap story/puzzles. When the graphics are good you'll know that the maker took time and effort to create that game, thus worth playing. I'm not saying that people ONLY play the good looking gamesor that good looking games are only worth playing, but it is an important factor in their choise.
It's like choosing music you never heard. You judge it by looking at the title and the picture. You can't know if you'll like the music by this but it's the only clue you have.
As for people who played LV and PB: Dark Ages. They are just chitchatting. "I liked the game but the graphics were not that great" The general opinion of these games, thus proving that they indeed played it.
I don't think you should that that comment of the alwais contraversial ;) Vel too serious. Larry's walkcycle was better that that of WWTLF and he knows it.
BUT, to get to my point: Even when you're not very good at drawing, put time in your art so people can see that you care about the game. It is easy to see that Crille and Phil Reed cared.
Well I totally agree with eric, especially with Larry Vales, or more specifically LV2/3-demo. The LV games were the first one that I did play when I discovered AGS. I spent so long playing LV and loved it. I loved the humour, the way it was all put together, and most importantly the graphics. That is the syle I tried to emulate when I made my own game, which I didn't fifnish, but you get the point. The style may be simplistic, but it is an awesome style that is consistent through the game. I can't agree with people who say the graphics are bad, but I can respect their opinion. It has been years since I played LV2, but I still remember quite alot of the game, and the graphics.
The same goes for Pleurburgh. Sure the graphics may seem simplistic, but there is detail in the backgrounds, and a nice style for the characters. I think the side view of the characters was the only thing that mildly annoyed me about the graphics. And I played this game before the awesome close ups were added.
There is a general misconception in game graphics that good equals pretty. This is obviously not the case.
Most important is functionality, so as to aid the game playing experience. Take a game like X-Files, which had very well produced videos and photographic images, but had many points where you had to desperately pixel-hunt to progress. This is not very good for a game, as it takes away the enjoyment.
But then, with Pleurburgh you get very functional graphics. They are not pretty though, but they serve the game well and make the experience worthwhile. But consider this: if the graphics were as functional but much much prettier, wouldn't it enhance the experience as a whole? You cannot ignore that.
The important point is, of course, what your "market" is, who you are aiming for. It seems that the AGS community at large has no problem with un-pretty games as long as the story and puzzles are worthwhile, so I don't feel it is much of an issue. It's certainly nothing to get upset about.
For me graphics of Pleurghburg have always created great atmosphere along with the excellent music. I wouldn't say that the graphics in Pleurghburg are bad. While not the greatest graphics, I love them. As earlier stated, the graphics are detailed and there's a lot of neat animation in there too. I couldn't imagine Pleurghburg with different kind of graphics. (Also, eric said that Chrille doesn't like animating. For 'Chainsaw Wedding' Chrille made most of the walking animation and oh boy do they look good? Look forward to it!)
About Larry Vales, it's easy to see how Phil's skills have got better when you get further in the game. And in later Larry Vales' the graphics are much better than in the first one. I think Phil wanted to make the graphics in his own style and make everything from scratch. In my opinion, that is really admirable. And I have always loved Phil's usage of close-ups.
Oh, one more thing. Richard Longhurst and box that ate time. Holy crap. You can only love that crazy graphics style.
PLeurghburg had good graphics; I especially liked the park screens and the images of the town at noon/sunset.
And about LV - it is my opinion. I have tried 3 or 4 times to play it saying 'graphics are not important' etc. However, on the fifth minute my eyes hurt - it was probably the huge contrast of colors - the same as when I read white text on black background. Haven't tried the second and the demo of the third, though.
Hmmm :)
I never hear anybody complain about Leisure Suit Larry 1, or Peasant's Quest.... or hell kings quest 1.
those games are concidered great while their graphics don't really differ much from graphics in pleurghburgh. I always love the pixelly dudes which are small. When I look at the critic lounge I see loads of charactars that are huge and are very hard to animate. Cause when the graphics are more simple, the animation will look good when that is simple too i think. The most important thing is that the game graphics are all the same and match with eachother. I love retro pixels and music :) but that's me Ã, :=
(http://sarien.sourceforge.net/screenshots/lsl1-06.png)
(http://sarien.sourceforge.net/screenshots/sierra-kq1-01.png)
(http://www.gaspop.com/pb5.jpg)
Maybe nobody complained about AGI games because that was the absolute graphical maximum at the time(mid-80s).
Or, despite the low amount of colours, they were absolutely packed with details?
The technology available at the time couldn't produce better graphics. But now we can, so people tend to dismiss retro-looking as bad.
Meh, when ever I read someone dissing PB graphics I often think to myself, 'Make a game that long, detailed and enjoyable, with better graphics, and THEN say that the graphics aren't good.' but I dont post anything.
Also on a side note: when I read the subject the first thing that came to my mind was Mr. C leaving AGS D:
I think that some people might especially have a problem with the flat colours of Pleurghburg's graphics (i.e., the lack of shading within characters and general large spaces) and the "stiffness/ straightness/ squareness" of some of the sprites.
That's just a guess, though.
Damnit Eric, the title scared me for a second. I agree with you. They where some of the best games ever made with the ags engine. People could argue Qaulity over Quantity, but then again, these games are highquality. I wouldnt mind playing them if they where one room. Its the effort and plot that matters, not the graphics unless they are horrid.
Obviously these are just opinions, but I also feel that these particular games are hard to judge for some people as they are some of the classics of AGS, and will always remain in certain peoples hearts.
For me I didn't really like Larry Vales and couldn't understand what all the fuss was about.
But that doesn't mean the graphics were bad, I'm no art cricket, but all I can say was there was a good improvement in most areas from LV1 to LV2.
I loved the graphics of PB and the game as a whole was fantastic, this one deserves the credit it has received.
I also like FenderQ's style and his short games, wonder where He's disappeared to?
I think PB is a marvel of a game, expecially for a game that is mostly the work of one man. The graphics never bothered me, but then again I've never been a huge advocate of "a game must have brilliant graphics". I think PB has suitable gfx for the type of game. Chrille said he wanted to emulated games like Manhunter and Police Quest. I think he's done a brillo job in all areas.
As for LV, the graphics never bothered me. For all Phil's shortcomings with LV's graphics, he compensated with a fantastic sense of humour. And I must note that the graphics got better through each game in the series (LV2 and LV3 Demo). I think this shows that Phil's graphic abilities have developed immensely.
QuoteChrille said he wanted to emulated games like Manhunter and Police Quest.
Oh, well, if that extends to the graphics it changes things a bit. It means the game's look is intentional, and if it were any other sort of graphics it'd be a different experience than the one the author proposed.
Specifically speaking AGS now, we can never tell why the graphics are like they are - laziness, lack of talent, choice? So we assume. Some of us assume laziness, others assume choice. Only the whole game can really tell it with any assurance, but it still leaves much room for wondering.
I haven't played Larry Vales, but I think the graphics in Pleurghburg are stylish and cool. I honestly wouldn't change them for anything.
I think you have to give people who say the graphics aren't great a little slack. I agree, I LOVE Pleughburg (haven't played LV) and the graphics are great for the style of game, and emulate that early style of game very well. They're GOOD in the sense that they do what they're supposed to do very well.
You can't just get angry at people who tell others to look past the graphics or say that the graphics aren't that great because I'm sure that when the majority of people say that, they don't mean, "The graphics don't suit the atmosphere of the game/don't show effort/aren't consistent/etc". I'm sure they mean, "The graphics aren't amazing works of art", and they aren't. The game is based on earlier games, and thus aren't as "good" as the graphics of a nowadays game's capabilities.
I'm not the kind of person that typically likes modern graphics (in fact, I'm usually the complete opposite) but I know what people generally mean when they down talk the graphics of games like this. "Good" means different things to different people.
I don't think it's just a case of the game doing a good job of emulating the old fashioned graphical style. You could hire the greatest artists on earth to redo the graphics for that game, but if they had any sense it wouldn't end up looking dramatically different, because that clean, no-nonsense artistic style is a large part of what makes PB distinctive and unique.
While the guy who made it probably isn't any kind of artistic genius, I think he deserves better then the mildly dismissive "he did the best he could, given how much he had on his plate" kind of remarks. I honestly don't see the graphics in that game as any kind of failure or underachievement. That's why it rubs me the wrong way a little when people say you should try to "look past" the graphics, when instead they should really be encouraging you to try to adjust to the unusual style.
I'm not *condemning* people who think the graphics are simplistic or amaturish, I just think they should try to look at them a little differently.
Hehe, just popping by to clear a few things up. The reason why the graphics are rather simple is not because I wanted to copy Manhunter's style exactly or anything like that. I didn't want to spend too much time on the backgrounds because I think I would've gotten tired of the game if the progress had been too slow. There isn't really anything I spent alot more time on than the other during the development of P:DA, allthough I wish I had spent some more time on the dialog as somebody mentioned, there are probably several things I would have done different if I made the game today.
Anyhow, spending little time on the backgrounds really did speed up development, because with Revenants I spend much more time on each background, and it takes up so much time that I eventally get fed up with the game and take a few weeks off. A good idea might have been to make shit graphics to start with and then finish the real graphics when the game's structure was complete. Right now the game is on hold unfortunatley, I'll have to think about another way to do it without loosing too much of the detail I want. Since my 3D skills are improving I might just make it in 3D at some point.
Hi guys, I have something to add....
Back when P:DA first came out, I contacted Chrille offering to add/enhance graphics for it (which I did; they are in the game now). One thing I did was add light shading to alot of the backgrounds. I guess it improved them a little. not a big difference though. And I still love the gruesome death scenes/ splash screens I did, although they are lacking a little bit of the precision that Chrille's screens had. Anyway, what I'm getting at is, working on those P:DA screens really influenced my view on art. Looking back on it, it was really my introduction to pixel art, which I've become more and more a fan of since then.
Today, almost all the work I do is pixel art or retouching backgrounds with pixel detail in mind. I now find P:DA's art nicer than I thought it was 3 years ago. And in my opinion, it looks good.
Quote from: Kinoko on Mon 30/08/2004 15:44:30
You can't just get angry at people who tell others to look past the graphics or say that the graphics aren't that great because I'm sure that when the majority of people say that, they don't mean, "The graphics don't suit the atmosphere of the game/don't show effort/aren't consistent/etc". I'm sure they mean, "The graphics aren't amazing works of art", and they aren't. The game is based on earlier games, and thus aren't as "good" as the graphics of a nowadays game's capabilities.
Yep, there's a difference between functional and artistic.
I have a feeling this thread was inspired by my recent comment about Larry Vales - did I break the last straw Eric?
I agree with Eric Colossal in the fact that PDA's graphics are just great. Definitely the level of detail in every single object in the room has to be recognized (*netmonkey immediately checks his backgrounds for architectural sense, in order to please Eric). I believe that it's deliberately meant to have a retro look to them, too, which is something I really liked about the game.
Larry Vales' graphics are not so bad... I think there was a joke about them at some point (In the game itself? On Phil's website..? I can't remember) but I didn't really mind the style for larry vales at all.
Both games were great, and I didn't have to "compesate" from the graphics to enjoy them. I understood the graphical style, accepted it, liked it, and embraced it (what the hell am I talking about? I'm too lazy to delete that :D)
Another game is the Rob Blanc Trilogy. A lot of people don't get the idea behind the backgrounds. It's old-school, dude!
Maybe everyone just wants CMI-looking backgrounds with curly clouds and all. Is that a good graphical style? Hmm?
I don't actually care too much about graphics (heck, I even play text adventures). I haven't played Pleughburgh yet but it's on my to-do list, but I found LV absolutely hilarious and had a lot of fun playing it. ('bushes courtesy of super mario surplus'...)
Nobody ever whined about horrible fonts during the old text parser days.
All you sacks of poobungie who want games with AWESOME programming, dialogue, AND graphics better not give crap to people trying to start group projects any day soon.Ã, I'll be all over you like a tuna net on a dolphin.
And eric, I'm sorry you're sick and tired of what I say.Ã, Or were you completely certain of that?
Damn... Now I feel Guilty for making comments like that. btu I was eencouraging Newbie's at the same time I feel, so I'm morally clean-ish. (In this respect only)
He quoted the last straw in his first post.
As Andail said... we must define what are good graphics! I think that Garfield or Calvin and Hobbes have more atention in detail than Dilbert, or Cutlas (A spanish comic). But that does not mean they're less effective. The subjective thing is: Whereas a kq1 vga remake has 2 milion colours per background Chrille uses 50. Now... the subjective thing is to determinate which are better...
I think both are effective if they accomplish their task. I loved Chrille's game, even the graphics... If you say that they're crappy then you're saying that south park has crappy graphics, because there are some cartoons which have more attention on then, or like saying that Picasso's are crap because they're not so realistic as Velázquez...
And... I must play LV...
""The graphics aren't amazing works of art", and they aren't."
"But then, with Pleurburgh you get very functional graphics. They are not pretty though"
I couldn't disagree more. I think a lot of the backgrounds in PB are simply amazing.
I don't like the word functional but I suppose it's fine when not used in a dissing kinda way. Saying that they are functional to the game is fine with me in the same way that Apprentice's art is functional to it's game. They create a mood and explain what the room/objects/characters are supposed to look like.
"I think he deserves better then the mildly dismissive "he did the best he could, given how much he had on his plate" kind of remarks. I honestly don't see the graphics in that game as any kind of failure or underachievement. That's why it rubs me the wrong way a little when people say you should try to "look past" the graphics"
This is pretty much my whole rant on PB's graphics summed up, thank you very much. Of all the places where people shouldn't be critical of "retro" art you'd think the AGS forums would be the place. How many absolutely beautiful hand painted high resolution games do we have that Pleurburgh seems to be singled out as the one where we should look past the graphics? How many games do we have that aren't in any kind of "retro" look? Not many at all.
I'm just annoyed because it seems that the old technique [popularized by the Bush administration] of saying something over and over again makes it true.
Shbaz you weren't the straw, I was talking to some people about this at Mittens and decided to actually post it after being reminded by your comment. So you didn't break the camel's back, you just kicked it in the teeth after it's back had already been broken. Jerk...
"The relationship between graphics and playability is more intimate than most people think. You can't always pick them apart and say "yeah the gameplay was good, but the grahpics SUCKED!" Graphics can be a show horse, but it's more often a working horse."
Again, huge agreement there from me to Andail. And nice quotable quote there at the end.
I think that's everything,
eric
Wow. I only just discovered that Kingsized is Evenwolf.
I had thought that my lovely Wolfy had fled into the jungle, but I was wrong.
Anyways,
I think there's only one real way to define if the graphics in Pleurhufiefenhdhdhd are good or not.
Did they achieve what Chrille had in mind? Was he satisfied with them, or did he simply do whatever he could within his abilities? I don't really think it's our place to judge that.
Now, wether or not we as individuals liked them is another thing. I personally like Chrilles style, because, well, he's just chock full of it. You can tell a Gaspop game by it's style, and I think that's awsome.
It's funny because I've been struggling with something like this recently (Eric knows all about it). I have this game I want to do, but I am incapable of recreating the character style I want for it. I was going to just settle for whatever I could get done, but I've come to the conclusion that it wouldn't do the game justice, and I'd just end up unsatisfied with it.
Quote from: MrColossal on Wed 01/09/2004 01:02:42
I don't like the word functional but I suppose it's fine when not used in a dissing kinda way. Saying that they are functional to the game is fine with me in the same way that Apprentice's art is functional to it's game. They create a mood and explain what the room/objects/characters are supposed to look like.
That is *exactly* what I mean by functional. There is no negatiove subtext there!
P:DA's graphics are functional and therefore "good". It's not that they are "not pretty" and therefore "bad".
Don't get so excited about these things.
Um James, I think you're reading me wrong.
I'm not "excited" about anything. Read everything I write deadpan unless it has an exclamation point then read it like I'm kinda raising my voice a little.
I'm not like freaking out and kicking my feet or crying or yelling at anyone.
Quote from: MrColossal on Wed 01/09/2004 02:38:26
Um James, I think you're reading me wrong.
I'm not "excited" about anything. Read everything I write deadpan unless it has an exclamation point then read it like I'm kinda raising my voice a little.
I'm not like freaking out and kicking my feet or crying or yelling at anyone.
It's hard to put the right emotion into the text, so everyone makes up their own and they get the message completely wrong! That's what I don't like about teh intarweb. In my mind, everyone sounds either pissed off or not interested at all.
Quote from: netmonkey on Wed 01/09/2004 05:53:30
It's hard to put the right emotion into the text, so everyone makes up their own and they get the message completely wrong! That's what I don't like about teh intarweb. In my mind, everyone sounds either pissed off or not interested at all.
That's why we have SMILIESÃ, :D
There is no smiley that communicates just how gosh darned pissed I am at smilies.
( (http://screen7.adventuredevelopers.com/images/smile9.gif) )