|
Graphics are probably the easiest measure of gaming evolution. Despite years of advances in game play and storytelling each generation of games is measured not by leaps in mechanics but by leaps in outward appearance. By today’s standards, and even by standards set later in the console’s life cycle, the first generation of PS2 games looked absolutely awful. But rewind your memory back to your first experience with a PS2 and your nostalgia will remind you of how awestruck you were when inserting Sky Odyssey into the console for the first time.
This generation especially has been one with a particularly large emphasis on graphics. The major differences between the three consoles’ architecture has lead to intense scrutiny over every effect rendered on screen. Graphics have become so important in fact, that many gamers base their decisions largely on how a game looks instead of how it plays. Take for example the situation with the multiplatform game Bayonetta. Peruse a forum about the game and you’ll likely find PS3 owners, upset about the disparity between their version and the 360 version of the game, who vow not to buy it because of downgraded visuals.
On the surface, this seems a little ridiculous. The core of any good game is based on gameplay not graphics. Games like the original Metal Gear Solid still hold up well today because of creative game play mechanics and solid storytelling. The fact that Snake’s face is little more than a jumble of polygons with barely definable facial features is of little matter. If the need for cutting edge graphical quality were an absolute for every released game re-released titles wouldn’t be as popular as they are today. But go a bit deeper and I think we can all see why graphics are so important and are not just a reflection of our shallow need to be wowed by impressive technology.
This would perhaps be best explained through an extended metaphor about human physical attraction. In nature, humans are physiologically evolved to be attracted to opposite sex individuals with symmetrical physical features. When we consider whom we want to mate with we, subconsciously, think about whether or not their shoulders are level or their arms and legs are of equal length. These thoughts are not some kind of genetic sexiness indicator but rather a mechanism of defense for our genetic heritage. In nature asymmetry is generally a sign of disease or unhealthiness, and our aversion to it is an adaptation designed to prevent us from producing physically or mentally deficient offspring.
For video games I believe gamers have developed a similar response, but instead of symmetry we look for graphics. Graphics are an indicator of quality. Very few graphically stunning games turn out to be bad games. Uncharted, Gears of War, Metal Gear Solid 4, Killzone 2, BioShock, Crysis, Forza 3 all graphical powerhouses, all possessing high reviews across the board from most critical sources. Now think about the worst looking games this generation, Terminator Salvation, Damnation, G.I. Joe, all were very poorly reviewed. And to be clear there are a number of reasons, not just graphics, why the games on the former list are better than the latter, but the relationship is undeniably there.
Graphics Junkies is adaptation gamers have developed in order to protect themselves from bad games. Sure, it’s not always right. Wii games like Mario Galaxy and Zelda are all the proof one needs to show that you don’t need phenomenal graphics to make a good game. Conversely, there are games that can look great and still play very badly. But evolution is not about absolutes, it’s about what works most of the time for most of the people in most situations. And most of the time good games have good graphics.
Need more convincing? Take the Wii as an example. Among hardcore gamers the console is infamous for an embarrassingly high ratio of shovel ware to quality games. As hardcore gamers, we know to avoid the vast majority of Wii games and read reviews for the games before we buy them. But the average Wii owner is not a hardcore gamer, they have no conditioned responses when it comes to graphics, or quality in general, and will just as soon reach for a good looking game as an ugly one, more often than not picking the worse game.
On one level it certainly is vain for us to care so much about the way a game looks, but it’s a vanity you can justify. Being a graphics junkie is akin to being a conservative gamer. You’re less willing to take risks with your purchases and are only likely to spend money on what’s almost sure to be a quality experience. That said, being a graphics junkie will also limit the kind of games you take in. Indie and original games don’t often come with the polish of bigger budget mainstream releases, but many times offer more unique, personal experiences than the latest brown and grey shooter. Ultimately it comes down to how much you want to gamble. Go with the statistically safe choice, graphics, or take a risk on quality in the hopes of finding a diamond in the rough.
|
