Do graphics add gameplay?

[mike_intellivision]

Anyone who says graphics does not matter is lying (at worst, or does not know anything at best). The argument is in how much graphics matter.

First, some historical context. Some of the first commercials comparing systems were about graphics. The graphically superior Intellivision allowed nine baseball players vs. five in the Atari 2600. The Intellivision allowed a football field that looked like a football field rather than a blinking square found on the Atari 2600.

However, while both of these would be considered crude by today's standards, the Intellivision's graphics are good enough to still be played while no one would want to play some of the original Atari 2600 sports titles.

The same thing happened with the transition to 3D close to a decade-and-a-half later. Some titles just have not stood the test of time. Poor graphics make them all but unplayable today.

So the first thing about graphics is that they have to be clear to stand the test of time, not cute to get the job done for today. (Cute refers to their construction methods more than their appearance).

However, graphics cannot over power game play. If people would rather look at something than interact with it, you have a movie rather than a game. Thus, graphics should serve as a means to an end rather than an end to themselves. For example, people can get caught up in being able to read roadsigns (that they don't follow) in the latest racing games. This makes you want to look but does not really enhance the experience of playing.

So the other thing about graphics is that they should complement the game play, not detract (or derail) it.

It is a fine line. But I would rather play something good than something that looks nice -- though having both would be best.

Mike from Morgantown

Who does not believe in eye candy for its own sake, at least with his games.