Skip to Content
 

Prototypes - Visual Enjoyment vs Mechanical Enjoyment

26 replies [Last post]
JDHultgren
JDHultgren's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/23/2015
character card (C).jpg
character card (BW).jpg
board parchment 2-sml.jpg
board layout.jpg

As an artist, I love a good looking game. How a game looks - pieces, board, cards, art and design, often has an impact on my enjoyment of that game, and I think that's true of a lot of people. It's not my sole enjoyment - I don't enjoy a bad game with good art, but it's definitely a contributing factor.

With testing prototypes of my own games, I've been very interested in the tightrope walk you have as a designer in determining where your enjoyment (or lack thereof) of a prototype stems from.

I find it interesting in trying to figure out 'Are we not enjoying this game as much as we thought we should because the mechanics are at fault? Or because we're pushing paperclips around on a black and white grid printed on paper?'

As a designer, I think you can at least have a good idea on whether the mechanics are at fault or not, but how much does that visual appearance of your prototype affect your decisions in trying to fix mechanics that might actually be just fine as they are? How does the appearance of your prototype affect the enjoyment of your playtesters playing the game? Is their negative feedback due to bad design, or are they simply bored of black text on paper cards?

For my own example, one of the games I'm developing that you might have seen me yapping about on the forum here is Shaolin Temple. It's a co-operative dice combat game played on a hexagonal board. Originally we were using paperclips to represent the pieces on a grid printed on A4 paper. We enjoyed the game, but I just kept feeling like something was off - it just wasn't as fun as I wanted it to be. Part of it was mechanics that we managed to correct, but I also found part of it was due to the nature of repeatedly moving paperclips around on that piece of paper. I set about designing a better looking prototype board and nicer character cards, and suddenly it felt like a whole new game. I've attached the before and afters to this post for reference.

I'm lucky enough that I have the tools and abilities to try and make interesting looking prototypes, but I know a lot of designers don't have that luxury, and nobody is going to shell out cash to get art made up for a prototype.

It's a topic I find fascinating, and I'm interested to see if other designers have come across this problem or not, and if so, how they went about fixing it?

-Eberhardt-
-Eberhardt-'s picture
Offline
Joined: 01/30/2015
My 2 cents

JDHultgren wrote:
I find it interesting in trying to figure out 'Are we not enjoying this game as much as we thought we should because the mechanics are at fault? Or because we're pushing paperclips around on a black and white grid printed on paper?'

As a designer, I think you can at least have a good idea on whether the mechanics are at fault or not, but how much does that visual appearance of your prototype affect your decisions in trying to fix mechanics that might actually be just fine as they are? How does the appearance of your prototype affect the enjoyment of your playtesters playing the game? Is their negative feedback due to bad design, or are they simply bored of black text on paper cards?

I understand your concern and can somewhat associate with it. Play-testers and stores with play-testers are currently tough to get, so I treat them like GOLD.

I will test the game myself many times without art to work out the mechanical flaws and then with about 10 people to see how they enjoy it (no - art or very limited art).

Once my concept is mostly ready I will contract some art OR take some general art from the internet to utilize for a more general play test as I believe the art does affect the play testers enjoyment of the game.

I do not believe you will find this to be the conscious, but it is my personal opinion. :)

Cheers
Jon

The Professor
The Professor's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/25/2014
Echoing thoughts and other ideas

JD,

First, let me echo Jon's comment and agree that commissioning "some" artwork goes a long way in helping to establish the feel for a game. To that end, I'll share a story with two different paths.

I'm currently serving as the Developer for another BGDF contributor, Kris, on his game Tradewars: Homeworld. While I'm not an avid card gamer, I was struck by the interesting game mechanic AND moreover, the exceptional artwork associated with the game. I would defy anyone to show me better artwork by a newcomer.

This leads me to the second half of the story...producing a prototype. I've been play-testing hex-and-counter war games for five years and developing games and expansions for the last few years and a well made prototype is worth the money. Kris had his produced at The Game Crafter, and they do a great job on the components, especially cards.

Finally, a word on play-testing. Definitely have it play-tested...a lot! A recent video by The Game Crafter actually quantifies the advice, stating a game should be play-tested 100 times by 100 people. While that may sound daunting, you will absolutely accomplish it in one extended stay at a gaming convention.

I wish you luck in your endeavors!

Cheers,
Joe

schattentanz
schattentanz's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/18/2014
BGG proves

You're an artist, you're lucky ..

Not everyone is gifted with that talent. Those folks are highly disadvantaged:
Contests at the boardgamegeek always prove that a crappy game with great artwork always gets more resonance than a great game with crapppy artwork.

You can translate this into all kinds of stuff in your daily life, though:
You can sell an Apple IPhone for a much higher price than a Samsung Galaxy.
Why?
Because of the looks. (And the marketing behind it)

You would rather pluck and eat a raw apple from a tree than a raw carrot from the earth.
Why?
Because of the looks and the smell and the taste.

The same is true for games:
You go for "shiny" because of the look, not necessarily for the content.
And if you don't like the look, you don't bother for the content.

That's just the way, we "eye controlled" humans work..

Jarec
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2013
I've always felt that if you

I've always felt that if you got nothing visual to show during play testing, you've got nothing. But that's just me, I've got much more experience in artsy stuff than design.

Also by having something that's kind of final on the table, you can "trick" people to play a board game instead of just play test something random. I know I would act differently to to a game that's just pushing a pile of handwritten paper around.

I've had just a handful of play test games for my zombie themed thing (shameless self promote: http://jarecsblog.blogspot.fi), but the first thing after I gathered the main concepts for the game, was to powerpaint like a 100 zombies.

Having something complete also gives more inspiration to carry on since that's one mark crossed over from the things-to-do list.

lewpuls
lewpuls's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/04/2009
If it's good without art, it's good

I am not an artist. If you can get people to playtest a game that is largely non-visual, then you'll get a much better idea of whether it's a good game. A publisher is going to change the art anyway (most likely). I usually use 3D pieces and a halfway-decent computer created board (if a board game) to help attract playtesters. Oh, and colorful card sleeves. The cards almost never have graphics on them, or very simple ones.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Art adds VALUE...

The way I see it is my initial prototypes are usually B&W. I playtest those myself and I get the opportunity to work on the game's mechanics. I should know whether the game's mechanics are working together well enough to let's say create a prototype for consumption by let's say a playtesting group.

My way of thinking is this: if you can show some artwork of what you would like your game to look like - and people like it - that kind of art adds value to the game.

But I believe it's a false impression that the game would be any less good if we used B&W cards. Sometime I think it's the opposite: a game looks really GOOD because it has impressive artwork - but the game isn't very interesting to gamers.

This is something akin to saying "All good Graphic Designers are good Game Designers." That's a completely false statement. In most instances it's more like "All good Game Designers are poor Graphic Designers. And good Graphic Designers would hope to be good Game Designers..." Or more the distinction that artwork and game design are two separate trades and they require a different set of skills.

Finding someone who is good at BOTH is hard/rare.

If you are finding that your plain B&W prototypes aren't quite what they are actually supposed to be - maybe you need to revise your game. Having fancy artwork doesn't make the game any better. Note I also have an artist for my current production - and I agree having great artwork improves in the overall professionalism and it does makes a difference. Here's a sample:

BUT my game's mechanics which are about HOW the game plays - is what playtesters are trying to figure out. Do they mesh well with the other mechanics in the game. Are there some things that need revision? Or because this aspect of the game is sort of weaker than other areas of the game, etc.

I am always aware of what aspects of my games are the "weaker" elements to my games. That's why I want to have the game playtested by more people to get even more feedback. The other thing is, if you playtest a B&W copy of the game, it's virtually the same like art you download from the Internet. The plus with REAL artwork is having people who playtested the B&W copies of the games - see what the final product will look like.

And that's what gets people excited about the game.

But that's not true about every publisher... Quite the contrary: they don't care about the final artwork. It's not a selling point. Most publishers that I have approached say the artwork is nice - but it's not a reason to give me a publishing deal. Or maybe I should say, it's not ENOUGH to give me a publishing deal.

Differentiation in the market is what some publishers are looking for: "So your game is about Zombies, what makes it different?" And fundamentally every game is different from the other games - I guess I'm not certain what people are looking for (in terms of designs).

People currently playtesting the game - actually like it. I have been given a median score of 7.0. That's pretty good grade from an independent blind playtesting group (12 members).

So I think the key is - people are always looking for the NEXT Dominion. But then again, most deck-builder are just "another deck-builder"?!

Snakes & Ladders, Candyland, Monopoly, Clue, Sorry! are ALL roll & move games. They fundamentally are the same style of game - and yet they are some of the MOST popular games ever sold... So you have got to stay positive and keep trying to find someone who will be interested in YOUR game... Being in the prototype stage is still early on in a game's cycle. Don't worry if the artwork is not complete... Maybe have 10 out of 100 cards to show off what the game will eventually look like.

BUT remember a publisher will most likely produce the game with their OWN artists... Not your artwork. And also most designers are happy with that because they don't have fancy artwork to sell along with their game...

JewellGames
JewellGames's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/03/2012
You want your prototypes to

You want your prototypes to have a little thematic flavor, but to me, what information and how that information is displayed on the card is what is most important during early playtesting and prototyping. The feedback I am looking for is how the information on the cards integrates into the game mechanics and rules. As playtesting progresses, I'll add more art and detail to the cards.

Could you still enjoy playtesting Hearthstone while it looked like the left one?

JDHultgren
JDHultgren's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/23/2015
All very interesting replies.

All very interesting replies.

I should quantify that it's not an issue I'm having myself at the moment (I like to create and design things, so I went ahead and made a nicer board and cards because that's something I wanted to do, not necessarily something I felt I HAD to do), but thanks for all the advice all the same! :-)

I suppose the type of game plays a big part as well. My other project, Hunters (www.huntersgame.com.au) is a card/RPG hybrid. We've been playing that one for months and months with just black and white text on paper cards, but still having an absolute blast with it. Shaolin is a very different beast, a more traditional board game where the focus is on a board on the table and the figures on it - it's an environment where how the game looks has a larger impact.

I just think it's an interesting topic of discussion in how a prototype is perceived, how playtesters perceive it, and how 'fun' you find the game. Thanks for all the input and discussion - I look forward to reading more if there's other opinions out there!

Jarec
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2013
JewellGames wrote:Could you

JewellGames wrote:
Could you still enjoy playtesting Hearthstone while it looked like the left one?

a bit off topic, but man Blizzards art is so generic, that I really would prefer black and white silhouettes.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Maybe

JewellGames wrote:
...Could you still enjoy playtesting Hearthstone while it looked like the left one?...

I was going to say that the prototype cards on the left is pretty much like any other prototype out there. Okay so maybe the Frog is a little bit better - but I'm sure you could find other clipart of frogs that would look similar.

And to be real honest, I think if the game was FUN I could easily play it as it is (in B&W). But I'm not 100% convinced about how fun the game really is... It seems like a simpler version of Magic: The Gathering... All the same concepts, nothing really *new* or innovating (from my perspective).

That's just my opinion. Also I am designing a "duel" game and we have really innovative ideas - but we are having a hard time matching the innovative aspect of the game to the "core" of how the duel will actually resolve. So our innovation is pretty unique (unique game concept) but the gameplay (game design) is still in progress...

NobleGhostWolf
NobleGhostWolf's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/08/2015
Tough Balance

As a Graphic Designer, I can vouch for this struggle. I am also somewhat of a perfectionist - though, I understand my own limitations and know that I am NOT an illustrator. I can solve mechanic issues, information issues, come up with card ideas etc - but I can't illustrate the cards. My biz partner and I are a great team for the creating of mechanics and such - but we are paying illustrators to draw the art.

For the prototyping, I have an inner desire to create "nice" prototypes. We're creating a bird themed deck builder, I have to create the cards as they will be laid out. Rough form, for sure, but still more than say, scissor cut cards with only text on them. However, I CAN play any game in no matter how rough a form as long as its all "there".

I think where things become different is in play testing and WHO is play testing. My family would play any game I wanted them too as long as it looked pretty close to done. They are not big gamers though - they enjoy gaming for the family time and fun it affords, not necessarily the mechanics. Which is why they love things like Pit and Game of Life etc.

My friends however, would be totally fine playing with cards of stick figures on notebook paper.

I think as far as the the design aspects of hindering/helping your mechanics I feel it depends on the creator. I say this because it becomes a what you see and focus on vs what others might see. If you need to fix a mechanic and all you can think about is how annoyingly bare the board is without art - you are almost guaranteed to miss fixing that mechanic or at least devoting the necessary attention to it. There are times when I can't focus on anything else until I fix the problem I see with the card layout, information on the card, etc.

I see full blow art as something that CAN become a hindrance though. It really locks you into what the game should be, what the flow is or data etc and can make people more reluctant to make broad chances to fix the game in a way to change the mechanic.

It's an interest topic of discussion.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
JewellGames wrote:...Could

JewellGames wrote:
...Could you still enjoy playtesting Hearthstone while it looked like the left one?...

I am trying out HearthStone because A> it's a Blizzard game and I loved StarCraft and Warcraft, B> because it's a card game, C> I have a similar video game I would like to design.

From my first game, I'm not too impressed. Sure the graphics are way over the top, something I cannot achieve using a board and cards - but the question about "Is this a good game?" still remains unresolved in my mind.

I will give the game some chance and play a few more games before deciding... But from a first view, I'm not seeing anything really new.

radioactivemouse
radioactivemouse's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2013
Art...

Art matters and it doesn't matter.

As a gamer, art essentially doesn't matter as much as gameplay. If the game is good, the art shouldn't theoretically matter.

But the art in a game has to communicate. "Pretty" art doesn't phase me, how it communicates does matter. For example. the game Glory to Rome is a construction game using cards. The art is kinda cartoony, but to me just didn't match the game's mechanics. When it was redone as the Black Box, I thought that was the pinnacle of what the game became. The art was simplified, the cards communicated effectively.

But the art shouldn't matter in the prototype. My card game has no art for my early prototypes. Heck, it didn't even have art for the back; it was blank. Yes, I was talking with artists and getting a style, but my art was only put in AFTER I got the game mechanics down. To me, the art is icing on the cake.

In creating my game, I used a very graphic design-y look much like the Black Box. I know that card games have nice digitally painted scenes, but I specifically went simple to make it stick out.

Doing art and doing a game should be two separate things, imo. Do the game, make the game good, don't worry about the art. When getting the art, find the artist, do lots of tests, adjust the art to the theme, then combine the art to the game.

And about the "generic" comment about Hearthstone, what were you expecting, fireworks and virtual reality? The art communicates the function, period. It shouldn't go beyond that.

Jarec
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2013
radioactivemouse wrote:And

radioactivemouse wrote:
And about the "generic" comment about Hearthstone, what were you expecting, fireworks and virtual reality?

Something different, something that has an edge.
But I do realize that when one has to cater for so many people they need to do things safely.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Simpler Magic

Jarec wrote:
radioactivemouse wrote:
And about the "generic" comment about Hearthstone, what were you expecting, fireworks and virtual reality?

Something different, something that has an edge.
But I do realize that when one has to cater for so many people they need to do things safely.

Where I think they went wrong is NOT the artwork. To me it looks pretty good. BUT in terms of gameplay, I've played it, won a few games against AI and played some duels against "Worthy Opponents". But overall I am disappointed that the game is a simpler version of Magic.

radioactivemouse
radioactivemouse's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2013
Blizzard is known for not

Blizzard is known for not really bringing in anything new; they excel in polishing existing genres, which is why their games are so well liked. I agree that Hearthstone is a simpler version of Magic; however I would argue that the game is more (for lack of a better term) the World of Warcraft Trading Card game cut in half...BUT the WoW TCG is a polished version of Magic.

Is that wrong? Well you decide. It may be wrong and disappointing for you, but it's raking in tons of cash, nominated (and won) a lot of awards. It targets a certain crowd and just because you don't belong in that crowd doesn't mean the game went "wrong".

AzemOcram
AzemOcram's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/04/2015
I never considered how

I never considered how playtesting and prototyping a game could be fun without decent graphics for others, mostly because I am pretty good at making art. I have been working on my game, which I currently call City Landlords, for almost 2 years now. My first board I printed out (at a cheap print shop) was very minimalist but looked like Monopoly with more utilities, 1 more property, and some squares in the middle for building (like Monopoly City). For the past year, I have been going to quality print shops to get my boards printed out as thin posters and I even (foolishly) hired a top-notch printing company (that usually does jobs for major corporations in the city) to print out 5 copies of my deck of my property cards (they printed out exactly double so there were 10 decks, because they wanted to make sure they got them right) and I paid about $100 for that, and I have rebalanced the prices and added 3 more districts since then.

Thank you all for the information. Now, I will just find somewhere (maybe even at home) to print out 2 copies of the property, chance, and charity (community chest) decks on card stock at a reduced size (with multiple cards per page), possibly without the backs. I will also just use interlocking centimeter blocks for the buildings (since they can each be 1-4 units per tile). I have been using the Monopoly money for playtesting. However, I will still go to a relatively nice print shop to get my board printed out (which will now be printed on 4 12x18" posters, with each put on chipboard, which will be made into a quad-fold 24x36" board).

MarkJindra
MarkJindra's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/24/2014
Prototyping

Personally I like to put together the game design in a simple bullet point format and then slap together some simple mockups to do the initial solo testing.

The first few multi-player tests I do with a design partner or my wife are usually with something slapped together with generic clipart.

After that I like to make a look-and-feel mockup with art representative of the theme I am going for before showing the game to close friends.

And finally before exposing anyone outside of my circle of friends to the game I like to have a prototype that is good enough for print-and-play or possibly even for sale via a site like The Gamecrafter.

I may be a bit crazy though as I am looking at using tinkercad to make a few 3d pieces and have them printed via a online 3d printer service just to have a decent prototype to shop around to publishers..

I love that you put together some art. I really do feel that all aspects of the game from mechanics to art to narrative all work together to create a single experience.

=M=

chris_mancini
chris_mancini's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/01/2015
My thoughts

As many have stated here, unless you're planning on producing your game yourself, hiring an artist will likely prove to be a waste of time and potentially a LOT money.

For those looking to license their design to a publisher, it can help to have an "inspiration board," kind of like a Pinterest page, of art you source online which represents the tone you see for your game. This way you can show gorgeous art which helps players visualize the "feel" of your game without going to the expense of creating it.

I often use art sourced online for my prototypes. Usually royalty-free art is best, but as long as you're not selling the game to consumers using art you do not own or have rights to, it's common practice in prototyping to use placeholder art found online with an "FPO" watermark placed over the top of it. In graphic design, this means "For Position Only," and simply means that it will not be used in production and is there solely as a placeholder to help bring visual direction and appeal to the overall graphic.

For those kind enough to download and test my game SushiBOOM! found in a previous thread here on BGDF, you'll see how I achieved this. No, Ryu from Street Fighter will not appear in the game...but as the game plays with Japanese pop culture archetypes, the use of his image helps immerse players in the tone I'm trying to create. Again, unless I'm SELLING the game using Capcom's art, it's permissible if used only temporarily and with proper assignment.

In any design of course, even FPO art should come last. For card games, I'll write on index cards for the first prototype, which I can then write on, alter, rip up, whatever is needed to get the game working properly. Ink isn't cheap, especially if you're going to a printer, so save the pretty colors and time spent cutting out pieces until you have something that works with bare-bones construction. As with any game, if it's fun, art will only enhance it...art won't save your game if it's broken or dull, however.

Initially, you should care the least about the looks of your game, as it's your vision (you know how you see it), and first and foremost is focusing on the theme, mechanics and how the game works to emphasize the two...it's when looking to bring it to others, to playtest in groups or to get the attention of a publisher, that a little imagery and color can go a long way.

JohnMichaelThomas
JohnMichaelThomas's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/30/2015
For most of us (designers included), some kind of art helps

I'm firmly in the camp that having some basic artwork to capture the feel of the game is crucial to understanding how much fun people will have playing the game. Of course the mechanics are king, but without some kind of visual theme to guide the play, the human brain just doesn't get as engaged. The game has to tell a story, and some kind of art to guide that helps immensely (and the science of how we learn and have fun bears this out - images help stimulate emotional response much better than words ever will).

I also find that having some kind of art for the prototype helps me personally - I actually enjoy designing the game more (and getting through some of the rough spots more). The difference I felt from throwing a Hubble photo of a galaxy as onto the background of my space game board instead of just having a white hex board was significant. I enjoy staring at it alot more when I have to, and it just makes it feel more real and motivating, regardless of the mechanics.

I'm not an artist (not a good one anyway), so I usually troll the Internet for public domain pictures I can use that are "good enough" to capture the feel of the component. Not only does this help bring out the theme for playtesting, but it also helps creates some basic guidelines for my ideas for an artist if I later hire one.

YMMV, but I think if you really want to get the best response from your play testers, spending a few hours downloading some passable artwork may be worth the time.

firstcultural
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2014
I'm probably a better artist

I'm probably a better artist than a designer, and my thoughts are that art is not that important for prototypes, but graphic design is.

Good graphics can help a lot with helping new players understand how the game works and what things they should pay attention to. Often it takes a few versions to get it right, so I like to develop it in parallel with the game rules. I'd say the two things you want to test out first are text sizes and card colors.

mcneipl
mcneipl's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/12/2015
aeshetics and user satisfaction

I am new to bgdf.com and I couldn't resist registering so I could comment on this thread. I am mid way on my very first game design and hope to discuss it here eventually.

In terms of the question about artwork I wanted to chime in. I come from the world of interface design and usability, often called User Experience Design. It is well researched that aesthetics impact how people perceive a system. in the world of gaming I am certain that the way it looks impacts the way people think about it.

It is shown that when people perceive something as attractive or beautiful they tend to find the good qualities in it. In contrast, if they perceive it as unattractive or as having poor aesthetics, they will seek out the flaws in it.

I think that for we must strike a balance between putting in "real" artwork and the need to move quickly. And obviously, if your testing a games mechanics the artwork is not important.

I believe that we can and should play test the artwork as thoroughly as we would any other component of the game.

debiant
debiant's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/03/2015
Something along this lines

Something along this lines just came up in another user's blog and I really believe that if a game is good, really good, it doesn't matter if your playing with sticks in the dirt you will enjoy it. If it takes pretty pictures to enjoy a game you're probably not having that much fun.

Can art and graphic design enhance a game, absolutely, but it can't make a game.

JohnMichaelThomas
JohnMichaelThomas's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/30/2015
Some comment gold here

mcneipl wrote:
It is well researched that aesthetics impact how people perceive a system.

It is shown that when people perceive something as attractive or beautiful they tend to find the good qualities in it. In contrast, if they perceive it as unattractive or as having poor aesthetics, they will seek out the flaws in it.

I think that for we must strike a balance between putting in "real" artwork and the need to move quickly.

These comments are all gold. And as mcneipl stated, it's not just an opinion - there's research to back this up (in both the UX field and neuroscience).

mcneipl wrote:
I believe that we can and should play test the artwork as thoroughly as we would any other component of the game.

Absolutely true. Though we might not test out the art during playtesting, at some point we need to test it out, and playtesting may be the best chance we have to at least test out the art concepts.

The point here isn't that great mechanics won't win over playtesters - they will. The point is that a lack of passable art may dampen the enthusiasm of playtesters, and it would be a shame to miss the chance to test out the art concepts during playtesting (because you're not going to do a whole nother round of playtesting just to get feedback on the artwork).

mcneipl
mcneipl's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/12/2015
more thoughts

Debiant, I would agree of course that good design and artwork can't make a game. Any more then a beautifully designed interface can make an application great. The underlying mechanics of the game must be solid and enjoyable.

I am just proposing that aesthetics do impact how people perceive something. When playtesting something with fellow gamers that can see past the primitive form artwork is less important. In contrast, when testing with "real" players I would argue that it is wise to get passable artwork (stolen from the web or otherwise). Only because it will impact how they feel about the game and respond to it. It's just a matter of knowing the audience and tailoring the prototype to the situation.

And aesthetics are only one element of this. The other is that artwork, or icons associated with elements of a game make it easier to understand, learn, remember and so on. In other words, artwork can lend positively to the experience of playing the game. For example, icons on cards allow us to rapidly interpret them and therefor focus on other aspects of the game. It reduces the cognitive load on the player and makes it more enjoyable.

I will say that given the choice I would focus on a great mechanic long before good artwork.

wombat929
wombat929's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/17/2015
Theme

This may be askew of the topic a bit.

I'd say games that make good use of theme probably depend more on good art as part of the 'beta' prototype testing phase. I'm down the middle here -- I think you need a solid, fun, playable game without art -- if it needs art to succeed in that basic round, that's probably a bad sign.

But a game that's been conceived without theme and then had the theme stuck on will show it. This is the feeling I get about many Knizia games. Lost cities, for example, is an interesting game, but its theme feels entirely tacked on. I'd think the playtesting angle for a game that has strong theme must include playtesting the art.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut