🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
pathetic question
Author
Hi, can someone tell me names of games that were graphically ''old'' for the time in which they were published but were published and people liked them and sold a lot, for example Grand Theft Auto 1 which had just 2D graphics while all the games had a lot of 3D things but a lot of people liked it and sold millons of copies. In case you are wondering I ask this so I can say "yes, the graphics of my game suck, but GTA didn''t have any 3D thing and it sold millons, so even if my game is not perfect it may sell a lot too". I know it''s pathetic but so am I so what the hell, just tell me some names please
Hey its not a pathetic question but a very valid point. Technology is WAYYYYY over-rated. so here goes:
Deer Hunter (sold zillions, had 1970s graphics...)
Rollercoaster Tycoon (sold gazillions, ahd old style isometric sprites)
SimCity 3000 (another big selling yet isometric title)
Counterstrike (based on a very old 2D engine, most popular game on the net)
Dont let anyone tell you games need hi tech visuals to be popular, but In my experience, dont expect any publishers to be swayed by such ''facts'' when their marketing idiots tell them otherwise.
I wrote a game with old style visuals (StarLines INC), and although its selling very well, I had a hell of a job finding a publisher prepared to look at it. Stupid really, as they are only losing money by doing so.
Good Luck
http://www.positech.co.uk
Deer Hunter (sold zillions, had 1970s graphics...)
Rollercoaster Tycoon (sold gazillions, ahd old style isometric sprites)
SimCity 3000 (another big selling yet isometric title)
Counterstrike (based on a very old 2D engine, most popular game on the net)
Dont let anyone tell you games need hi tech visuals to be popular, but In my experience, dont expect any publishers to be swayed by such ''facts'' when their marketing idiots tell them otherwise.
I wrote a game with old style visuals (StarLines INC), and although its selling very well, I had a hell of a job finding a publisher prepared to look at it. Stupid really, as they are only losing money by doing so.
Good Luck
http://www.positech.co.uk
I agree, although because of not only publishers, but the game buying public, the 2D game does have to be something special to sell well. If you can come up with a 2D game that has 3-4 very good selling points, it would be better than 70% of 3D games, but the buyers would probably still go for the visuals.
Mind you, there is always the GBC/GBA to look at, especially the GBA, since it''s capabilities are as good as the PSX (2D wise), but it doesn''t have to compare because people will be expecting 2D games :-)
If you are happy with your game and you are confident that it will be good, you can but try :-)
Marc.
oh, unfortunately the next GTA will be 3D, I say ''unfortunately'' because I''m wondering if it will be a come-down for the series......(Like many other 2d-3d conversions)
Mind you, there is always the GBC/GBA to look at, especially the GBA, since it''s capabilities are as good as the PSX (2D wise), but it doesn''t have to compare because people will be expecting 2D games :-)
If you are happy with your game and you are confident that it will be good, you can but try :-)
Marc.
oh, unfortunately the next GTA will be 3D, I say ''unfortunately'' because I''m wondering if it will be a come-down for the series......(Like many other 2d-3d conversions)
I think that it isn''t the technology that make the game great it''s the kind of experience you are left with after playing it that makes it a game to come back to again and again. I still watch funny old movies in black and white and like them just as much or even more than movies made today. Just thought I would get that off my chest. Happy coding!8)
P.S. Look at King''s Quest by Sierra, had good stories and mystical place to explore and sold well I think. Anyone remember Eric the unready (I think), that was the funniest game I played.
P.S. Look at King''s Quest by Sierra, had good stories and mystical place to explore and sold well I think. Anyone remember Eric the unready (I think), that was the funniest game I played.
quote: Original post by Hyatus
Actually, from what I can remember, GTA 1 did have 3d graphics.
-Hyatus(random UBI-guy)
yeah, but I think it was like doom''s 3D...not "real" 3D
----------------------------
"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
Click here to see my current project.
First I want to answer your question -- Diablo II has really old graphics, it uses 640x480 resolution in 8-bit color!! Did that stop Blizzard from selling a few million units?
Ok, IMHO, gameplay is 9999% more important than the graphics. I don''t want to start any flame wars here, but I just want to say that I hate FPS games, and most other 3D games because they have no gameplay. My favorite 3D game is Soul Reaver, because it makes excellent use of the 3D technology in my opinion.
I very much disagree with that. If you are referring to militant 12-15 year old teen males who play Quake III all day, then yes, your statement is true. However, there are more than enough people out there who fall into completely other categories. I myself really like strategy games, whether it''s real time or turn based. I''m sure I''m not alone. I could really care less about the graphics. This goes within reason of course for the new games. I don''t want 320x200 mode X graphics in the games that come out now, but I don''t need cutting edge Quake III engine graphics either if the game doesn''t need them to provide good gameplay. That said, I will still play games like Warlords II (released in 1990, turn based strategy) and X-COM II (released in ~1994, turn based tactical) even though they have old graphics by today''s standards. The gameplay is so addictive that graphics don''t matter. I don''t play those games anymore right now because I installed NT 5 and it doesn''t really emulate DOS well, but that''s another story.
Anyway, back to what I was saying. Yes, graphics do matter, but they only need to be as good as they should be. There''s no point in using a cannon to kill a mosquito. There''s also no point in using a Quake III engine for a Pong game. The point is that graphics only need to be as good as the game requires.
The game I''m working on right now for instance, is a 2D topdown view strategic shooter. I put a LOT of time into designing the gameplay. I will be using Direct3D of DirectX 8 for the graphics, but I will be simulating 2D because I''m only drawing textures to the screen, there are no 3D primitives. Why did I decide to use D3D then? Because I get free hardware accelerated texture rotation -- this means not having to draw 60 frames of each object that has to rotate 360 degrees. I''m also using D3D because of Alpha Blending, which is nearly impossible to do in DirectDraw.
Bottom line? I''m not using a Quake III engine for my game, but I am using some 3D features. Just because my game will not be "3D" doesn''t mean it won''t look good. However, the main selling point of a game shouldn''t be how good it looks. I feel that the gameplay my game will have will be a much better selling point than the graphics. That doesn''t mean though that I don''t want my game to look good, within reason. You need to find the right balance. You don''t want your graphics to look TOO crappy, but at the same time you don''t want to spend more time than necessary adding more and more flash to your game.
Yes, it''s true that publishers and reviewers (well, magazines mostly. sites like gamespot.com seem to actually play the game for more than 3 minutes) are pretty stupid when it comes down to rating games. I believe StarCraft got a review of "average" from most magazines and then went on to become the #1 game of the year. I rest my case.
It might be harder for you to find a publisher for a game that doesn''t have too much initial WOW! to it, but it will sell much better than a game that does. If not initially, then in the long run. Games with a lot of initial WOW! to them sell very well when they''re first released, but since their replayability is very terrible they get forgotten quickly. Games with good gameplay are immortalized. People still play WARCRAFT II on Battle.net for crying out loud! Does that game have awesome graphics?
Ok, IMHO, gameplay is 9999% more important than the graphics. I don''t want to start any flame wars here, but I just want to say that I hate FPS games, and most other 3D games because they have no gameplay. My favorite 3D game is Soul Reaver, because it makes excellent use of the 3D technology in my opinion.
quote:
mlambert: If you can come up with a 2D game that has 3-4 very good selling points, it would be better than 70% of 3D games, but the buyers would probably still go for the visuals.
I very much disagree with that. If you are referring to militant 12-15 year old teen males who play Quake III all day, then yes, your statement is true. However, there are more than enough people out there who fall into completely other categories. I myself really like strategy games, whether it''s real time or turn based. I''m sure I''m not alone. I could really care less about the graphics. This goes within reason of course for the new games. I don''t want 320x200 mode X graphics in the games that come out now, but I don''t need cutting edge Quake III engine graphics either if the game doesn''t need them to provide good gameplay. That said, I will still play games like Warlords II (released in 1990, turn based strategy) and X-COM II (released in ~1994, turn based tactical) even though they have old graphics by today''s standards. The gameplay is so addictive that graphics don''t matter. I don''t play those games anymore right now because I installed NT 5 and it doesn''t really emulate DOS well, but that''s another story.
Anyway, back to what I was saying. Yes, graphics do matter, but they only need to be as good as they should be. There''s no point in using a cannon to kill a mosquito. There''s also no point in using a Quake III engine for a Pong game. The point is that graphics only need to be as good as the game requires.
The game I''m working on right now for instance, is a 2D topdown view strategic shooter. I put a LOT of time into designing the gameplay. I will be using Direct3D of DirectX 8 for the graphics, but I will be simulating 2D because I''m only drawing textures to the screen, there are no 3D primitives. Why did I decide to use D3D then? Because I get free hardware accelerated texture rotation -- this means not having to draw 60 frames of each object that has to rotate 360 degrees. I''m also using D3D because of Alpha Blending, which is nearly impossible to do in DirectDraw.
Bottom line? I''m not using a Quake III engine for my game, but I am using some 3D features. Just because my game will not be "3D" doesn''t mean it won''t look good. However, the main selling point of a game shouldn''t be how good it looks. I feel that the gameplay my game will have will be a much better selling point than the graphics. That doesn''t mean though that I don''t want my game to look good, within reason. You need to find the right balance. You don''t want your graphics to look TOO crappy, but at the same time you don''t want to spend more time than necessary adding more and more flash to your game.
Yes, it''s true that publishers and reviewers (well, magazines mostly. sites like gamespot.com seem to actually play the game for more than 3 minutes) are pretty stupid when it comes down to rating games. I believe StarCraft got a review of "average" from most magazines and then went on to become the #1 game of the year. I rest my case.
It might be harder for you to find a publisher for a game that doesn''t have too much initial WOW! to it, but it will sell much better than a game that does. If not initially, then in the long run. Games with a lot of initial WOW! to them sell very well when they''re first released, but since their replayability is very terrible they get forgotten quickly. Games with good gameplay are immortalized. People still play WARCRAFT II on Battle.net for crying out loud! Does that game have awesome graphics?
GTA did have 3D graphics, not 2D or 2.5D
I say this because you could go all around, over, and under blocks. You could have a block on the ground, go over it and under the block which was above that, and you could also get onto that and under another one that was even higher up.
The view was simple kept as a top-down view.
I say this because you could go all around, over, and under blocks. You could have a block on the ground, go over it and under the block which was above that, and you could also get onto that and under another one that was even higher up.
The view was simple kept as a top-down view.
How about the current top 10 best selling games:
(Taken from: http://www.zdnet.com/gamespot/stories/news/0,10870,2669538,00.html)
Note the lack of any 3d games from this list.
Is that the sort of thing you want?
Trying is the first step towards failure.
quote:
Top-Selling PC Games December 10-16, 2001
Rank / Title / Publisher / Approximate Retail Price
1 / Roller Coaster Tycoon / Hasbro Interactive / $25
2 / The Sims / Electronic Arts / $42
3 / Who Wants To Be A Millionaire 2nd Edition / Disney / $16
4 / The Sims: Livin'' Large / Electronic Arts / $27
5 / Frogger 2 / Hasbro Interactive $26
6 / Roller Coaster Tycoon: Loopy Landscapes / Hasbro Interactive / $28
7 / Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 / Electronic Arts / $40
8 / Barbie Pet Rescue / Mattel Interactive / $27
9 / Hoyle Casino 2001 / Havas Interactive / $24
10 / Sim Theme Park / Electronic Arts / $20
(Taken from: http://www.zdnet.com/gamespot/stories/news/0,10870,2669538,00.html)
Note the lack of any 3d games from this list.
Is that the sort of thing you want?
Trying is the first step towards failure.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
