Actually, Sharm, your original statement was to find a game in which graphics did not exist or were not existent in which the game had good characters/story/etcetera. You only later changed your argument to "aesthetics" instead of "graphics" after I told you that the vast majority of games were all "custom graphics" and that it would be fairly difficult to find a game in which graphics did not exist. It's your change in wording that makes it confusing... But, if you want a game with "bad aesthetics". Gears of War, Gears of War 2, Gears of War 3, Mass Effect 2, Red Faction Armageddon, Perfect Dark Zero, Pokémon Ruby/Sapphire/Emerald, Towns, Final Fantasy 13, Harvest Moon A Wonderful Life, Dead Space 3...
I used the examples of Limbo and Thomas Was Alone as their graphics are simplistic to the point of being little more than shapes on the screen. So, they're not really "graphics" (though, technically anything you display on a screen that is a picture is "graphics", so this argument is really weird. I'm not sure how you challenge someone to find a game in which there's absolutely nothing on the screen... including text, which are also graphics to an extent, and then play it. That's kind of like asking someone to play Monopoly without the board. It could probably be done, but it's going to be an absolute mess) per sé. However, they are really great aesthetics and mood builders. Those games aren't really about what it looks like. The graphics are just helping to enforce the mood of the story. Which, is kind of the point of graphics to begin with.
Graphics are a tool. Doesn't matter what graphics you have, they're always a tool. They're not a feature. They exist to help you sell your world and what's going on in it to your player. Because of this, it doesn't really matter if you "use custom graphics" at all. You can do some fairly amazing things without custom graphics.
The problem with the argument of "I was assuming all games would be free for this argument" is that it is an inherently biased argument to begin with. I mean, if someone offers you a free Volvo or a free Ferrari, which is the better deal? Honestly? However, if the Volvo was free, but the Ferrari was going for $120,000... Well, if you weren't lugging that kind of money around, you might take the Volvo until you had more money to purchase something much better. That's kind of the take away. See, I almost made that argument myself. The one about "If both games were free". I realized about a sentence in to making that argument how flawed of a comparison it would be as something for free of higher quality would always be taken over something for free of lower quality. That's just human nature. Do I prefer a free cookie or a free cake? The cake, definitely, it's got more perceived value despite being the same price as a single cookie (in this case, you're getting more for the same price).
Custom items of any kind would be easy to obtain (which is the response I gave to your previous argument of "As long as a player does something, even if it's minor, to personalize the graphics, I'll give it a try"). But, I would agree that turning your entire game into custom graphics would be an absolute nightmare both in terms of time and finances. At that point, you're honestly just better off hiring an artist to work on the project instead of requesting resources. I was probably unclear about what I meant by "Custom Graphics", but it was kind of the basis of the entire topic, so I figured it was just a given that people would know what I meant. I even figured you might understand what I was referring to as it was kind of a reference to what you were talking about when you mentioned "it needs to be personalized somehow, even if it's just lighting".
Oh, my point about proving how easy it is to obtain custom content my prove your point... But it also proves a point you really haven't spent much time refuting... Because it's so easy, it doesn't mean custom content is "better" in any way, or even "adds to the value" of your game. It just means you have custom content. It's highly dependent on how you use that custom content on whether or not it becomes some kind of selling point for the game. The world is full of AAA games that blew their collective budgets on graphics alone and then their games were complete crap. Even if you have the "graphics to distinguish your game from the rest", it's not any sort of guarantee or even selling point to players like me who know that graphics do not make a game. It just means you had some money to blow and packaging seemed like a great idea. Personally, I believe a dev should start with content. Characters, story, systems, features, minigames, mechanics, etcetera. Graphics should then be the absolute last thing put into the game so that they can be tweaked and perfected to properly show off a game you actually put work into. Graphics should not be something you think about first because you're worried about marketing your game to people. See, the most powerful form of marketing in the universe is "word of mouth". Beautiful looking game or not, custom graphics or not, lots of work put into visual details or not... If people come along and tell their friends, "no, don't buy it, it's pretty freakin' boring and stupid. I couldn't even get into the game because the characters are so unlikable and the plot is so cliché and predictable". Well, all that money and time and effort spent on your graphics for "marketing" just got thrown down the garbage disposal.
Let me use myself as an example here. I'm currently using RTP and nothing but. That doesn't really make the argument personal to me (though it might seem so) because I intend to actually "upgrade" my graphics at some point. I intend to perhaps even get my own custom monsters and characters put in (I hate the chibi style when you've got doors that are two tiles high... I wouldn't mind using the default characters if they weren't chibi... So, I plan to at some point hire someone to make them not chibi... which means they'd be custom ordered). The RTP just doesn't have all the things I want or need for the final build of the game. However, I will feel comfortable releasing a game with the "default RTP" as a demo, or in "episodic format" and upgrading as I finish core features and elements of the game.
Honestly, I think only truly lazy people looking to make a quick buck ever set out to use
only the RTP. Anyone with any actual designs on game design instead of dollar signs wants what they're making to be the vision they see in their head. Or, as close to that as possible.
I just think people get too hung up on "custom graphics" and quit worrying about the more important stuff. Like... is the game actually worth playing to begin with. Graphics are a tool. They can be used well or used poorly, but they are always a tool. They should be the final coat of paint you put on your product before you sell it. Until you decide when/where you replace things in your game, the RTP makes a fantastic placeholder.
I also believe it's possible to "show how hard you worked" and "how much effort you put in" as well as "how much you care about the product" without the graphics. If you put a lot of care into everything else in your game, it will show. People will notice. People will pass it along to friends and family if they really enjoy the experience. I hate to be "that guy", but I do have to ask: Does it show more hard work and care to have all the custom graphics in the world... Or to take the handicap of the "out of the box" graphics, run with them, and make a fun experience despite them? No wrong answer here, I'm just curious. I'm a firm believer in "excellent despite handicaps" methods for showing hard work... But, I can also see the value in "I put a lot of my time and effort into getting all these custom graphics made and I'm using them". It really boils down to a difference of opinion, I think, and not whether or not there's a "right answer" on the subject.
I will agree on having to "sell your game", whether it's free or not. However, the point I was trying to make was that the thresh hold for selling a free game is substantially lower than say one for $60. It's a fact of life. It's why "price wars" happen. Good quality at cheap prices means you make more sales. It's hard to beat "free" unless you can get something better for free... or for a bit more than free. Value is relative, after all. I'm just going to make the argument that while yes, you do need to "sell your game", even if it's free... Well, there are other ways to do that. Especially if you need to differentiate yourself from the crowd to sell your game. Even if you've got the best graphics and aesthetics in the world... If you're just one of thousands of games that are "gather heroes, destroy the big bad, save the princess", you still don't have anything to differentiate your game from the multitude of others. Players will look at it and go, "so... It's the same game as all these others... But it looks prettier? Eh, pass.". Graphics can help you be noticed, but they cannot make a sale on their own (unless the buyer is a blithering idiot... But we're going to assume for the sake of argument the buyer is a normal human being).
With all of that being said... I think I'm done. I've honestly said all I needed to say, and it looks like while you don't agree with what I'm saying, you at least understand my points. So, that's kind of the end of it for me.
Oh, and Sharm... I think we end up arguing with each other so often because you secretly like arguing with me.
^_^ Ha ha ha. Not that I mind. Arguing with you is at least more interesting than arguments I usually get into (whereas they typically devolve into name-calling fairly quickly and nobody tries to refute my points). It's nice to have a little intellectual debate and stimulation once in a while. I look forward to our next tiff!
