I am tired of seeing graphics being used as a benchmark for how great games are. It's really irksome and often a completely pointless exercise of finding the minute difference between two near-exactly identical games. The question needs to be asked, " what role does graphics serve in this game?" Then from there we can properly evaluate how well the graphics of the game are filling that role. Graphics can play several roles at once in a game. They can be critical in suspending your belief or necessary for being able to distinguish between wall and player. Graphics serve an end of some sort and when its reached, anything extra could very well be considered a point of diminishing returns. Sure, it's nice that you're able to read the identification number on that building, but the amount of immersion that's lost from not having it is probably minimal. That's not to give a free pass to developers to start making games that are graphically horrendous. I'm merely suggesting that graphics aren't a good thing to distinguish games by. Did the graphics of Wind Waker make it inferior to Twilight princess? No, and anyone who uses that as a main reason to reject one in favor for the other would be viewed as clueless. Graphics with today's technology is a given. Great graphics should make little noise, while horrible graphics should be ostracized. It would be fair to compare graphics to an offensive line.
There are some games where the graphics comparison is reasonable. Simulation games such as Madden or 2k rely heavily on trying to bring as much reality as possible. The grittier the game gets, the better it is. So when comparing Madden 2012 to 2013 and hearing that it's "more crisp", I understand why that kind of commentary might be valued by the player. However, a comparison between Halo 4 and Black ops 2, in regards to graphics, tells us little about the overall playing experience (unless one of them have serious graphics issues). The point is that graphics need to give us insight on whether the game is better, not merely be a bragging right that a game (and in part idiot fans of the game) gets to flaunt. I'm not asking that graphics stop being analyzed, just stop using them as arguments when their effects are minimal at best.
One final distinction I want to make is the difference between graphics and art design. Graphics can play a role in art design, but rarely is it the main star. Instead what is often sorely forgotten is the way games construct environments that are unique, yet familiar. Art designers need to decide how entire civilizations and landscapes look. The decision to make a level on an uphill incline, that has protruding thorns in a way to imply a scorched earth feel, is only partially fulfilled by graphics. This level design can be created in all range of graphics, but these decisions have a transferable in game experience.
So my suggestion to most websites and gamers out there is to stop putting so much stock in graphics. Call out aesthetically poor games, but don't adopt this pixel driven mindset. Instead analyze art design and incorporate graphics there. Or only discuss graphics when it's pertinent. This will give reviewers and gamers more time to talk about the things that matter, like the fact that the zombies mode in Black Ops was seriously altered.
There are some games where the graphics comparison is reasonable. Simulation games such as Madden or 2k rely heavily on trying to bring as much reality as possible. The grittier the game gets, the better it is. So when comparing Madden 2012 to 2013 and hearing that it's "more crisp", I understand why that kind of commentary might be valued by the player. However, a comparison between Halo 4 and Black ops 2, in regards to graphics, tells us little about the overall playing experience (unless one of them have serious graphics issues). The point is that graphics need to give us insight on whether the game is better, not merely be a bragging right that a game (and in part idiot fans of the game) gets to flaunt. I'm not asking that graphics stop being analyzed, just stop using them as arguments when their effects are minimal at best.
One final distinction I want to make is the difference between graphics and art design. Graphics can play a role in art design, but rarely is it the main star. Instead what is often sorely forgotten is the way games construct environments that are unique, yet familiar. Art designers need to decide how entire civilizations and landscapes look. The decision to make a level on an uphill incline, that has protruding thorns in a way to imply a scorched earth feel, is only partially fulfilled by graphics. This level design can be created in all range of graphics, but these decisions have a transferable in game experience.
So my suggestion to most websites and gamers out there is to stop putting so much stock in graphics. Call out aesthetically poor games, but don't adopt this pixel driven mindset. Instead analyze art design and incorporate graphics there. Or only discuss graphics when it's pertinent. This will give reviewers and gamers more time to talk about the things that matter, like the fact that the zombies mode in Black Ops was seriously altered.
No comments:
Post a Comment