Think of every game that is slated to be released in the near future; they are all related. How, you might ask? Elementary, my dear readers; graphics. Each game looks better than the next, and that's amazing. It wasn't long ago that imagination played a big part in experiencing games, but now we are being hand fed senses like crazy. Epic score and photo realistic graphics, to name the big ones. I think these graphics are awesome, but I don't believe they are our saviors from shitty games. If anything, games are now allowed to be shittier, due to the focus on photo realistic graphics. "Well, at least it looked good." Um, no. I'm a firm believer that graphics aren't everything, and I'm not afraid to tell you. In an interview with GamesIndustry, 2K Games boss Christoph Hartmann was quoted saying real-life graphics are necessary, and that "To dramatically change the industry to where we can insert a whole range of emotions, I feel it will only happen when we reach a point that games are photorealistic." The interview, which can be found here, delves into many other topics, but this one line caught my interest.
"You get 'em, kid."
I'll just state right now that I believe you can only find emotions in video games if they are there to begin with. Emotional stories are a very delicate product, that are hard to make, and even harder to make right. Many games made connections just fine, without these photorealistic graphics. Bastion, Braid, Journey, Final Fantasy VI, and VII, and Limbo, just to name a few that I have had experience with, and I can say that all of them have given me more story and emotions than many new AAA titles can't hold a candle to. That being said, there are also some great AAA games that deliver very awesome emotional moments. Red Dead Redemption, anyone? Bioshock, HL2: Episode 2, Metal Gear Solid 3 and 4's endings, Shadow of the Colossus, The Darkness, Prey; you get the point.
Native Americans have feelings too, you know.
That's not even to mention how generations of people thrived on things we now disregard as old and stupid. Stuff like table top games and text adventures, in the vein of Dungeons and Dragons and the like, where all you have are some figurines and your imagination. I can't say much about it myself (I've only played a couple hours of a DnD game), but they've obviously lasted this long for a reason. People invest everything into the characters, stories, and worlds that they have been a part of for who knows how long. They have a reason to care about the characters they play, and the people around them. If that doesn't take an emotional toll on you at some point, I don't know what will. The same goes for text adventures, in a time before graphics were actually possible. Many people hold these games in high regards by sending them through stories that required logic and imagination to travel a world created only by text; not too much unlike a book (you may have read one of those before, right?)
Ok, you need to try it before judging it.
Now, from the standpoint of the business of games, I understand where he is coming from. We've gotten to a point where we are striving to make games that replicate Hollywood blockbusters, and as unfortunate as that really is, we can't stop it. It's all about flashy visuals, realistic characters, blah-blah-blah. I'm not going to say he is wrong, because he isn't. It's his business to make games that depend on things such as photorealism. At the same time, though, he is wrong. You can't expect your emotional story limitations to be broken through just because we have better graphics. With that kind of thinking, I don't feel like we are advancing our craft as storytellers. Games have this awesome potential to be more than any book or movie could ever dream to be, but we are holding ourselves back by trying to be something else entirely, something that has already been done before.
I guess what I really wanted to get across in this post is that graphics aren't everything, so don't be fooled. Graphics aren't the enemy, though, but a product of our continuing search to be have greater...well anything, really. We just put graphics on this mantle and act like nothing matters, but they are only part of what makes a game. To understand that, is to understand another portion of what I believe makes a true gamer.
Leave your comments, concerns, and suggestions for future topics in the comment section below, and as always, thanks for reading, stay tuned, and stay sweet! :)
graphics are one thing but a game mostly relies on it's gameplay mechanics which is why Mario never dies to this day. same gameplay, graphics whether great or not great, new enemies and plots. Some of Nintendo greatest franchises are known to do this. But still don't rely on graphics to save your game when you probably know its sucks. Just keep it as backup in case you feel your game does not have enough to say on it's own. Remember games speak for themselves. Anyway check out New Super Mario Bros 2 for the 3DS and you will get what I'm saying.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that gameplay is a major part of whether a game is good or not. Obviously, if you can't play the game, there is something wrong. Nintendo is often criticized for not having many new or original titles, but from the get-go Miyamoto has stood by his belief that gameplay matters the most, not the characters. I respect him for that.
DeleteI do hope to see that more people take into account the story telling aspect of games though, because I feel like games have the chance to do things books and movies could never dream of. Take Braid, for example; the main gameplay mechanic is platforming with the ability to manipulate time. As the game continues, the abilities you are given in regards to manipulating time are affected by the story, allowing you to experience the story in a new way.