Graphics vs Gameplay - JayWood2010
The video game industry has aimed for realistic graphics for decades now and as we draw closer and closer to photo realism some people will argue that graphics does not matter. Others on the other hand strive for better graphics and buy a computer rig for 1000’s of dollars just to reach this goal.
The question is, how much does graphics really matter. Why is it that people seem to love Mario so much? Why is it that a game like Angry Birds can outsell Crysis, or a game like Call of Duty outsells Battlefield? Why is it that Skyrim is able to sell 10’s of millions? Maybe it is because the broader audience wants good gameplay over the realism that you can find in high budget AAA games.
In games like Crysis and Metro 2033 the first thing anybody talks about it is how good they look. On the other hand few of those many people talk about how good the games actually is. Is it because the gameplay is hidden behind pretty textures and paints? What if I said these games would not even be noticed today if it wasn’t for them being pretty?
In the meantime Halo outsold both Crysis 3 and Metro: Last Light (Though Last Light is an amazing game) combined. This could be credited to graphics not hiding the gameplay. It can also be argued that Artstyle may trump photo realism. When we look at Halo, Far Cry 3, Mario, Zelda, Minecraft, or even FEZ they all have one thing in common. They all may play completely different but they also all have a unique arstyle. They are immediately recognizable and draws the consumers from the unique artstyles they bring to the table. Sure you can buy a generic looking game or you can opt out in buying something that does not follow the trend. They set the trend.
On the other hand though, we cannot discredit photo realistic games as they do have an audience. Crysis sells still today off of its graphics alone. We also have other great games like Killzone, Tomb Raider, The Last of Us, Gran Theft Auto, and Battlefield which all has sold very well. They are all beautiful and play exceptionally well. I would say that many of these games have both great gameplay and graphics making the perfect mixture. As the years go by I expect us to have more of these type of games. They are pretty, the gameplay is fun, and most importantly they are successful. They may not lead the industry (except GTA) but nobody can argue their success.
But what about artsyles like JRPG games that don’t sell well? We could point out that these game primarily depend on the gameplay to sell them as mainly the only ones that do sell well is the ones that showcase great gameplay and story. But can we also say people are buying JRPG games purely off the artsyle? Anime has become widely popular with some people and it could be argued that this artsyle sells games to these specific people. What if we took a game and used generic soldiers with shaved heads and put them in a Final Fantasy game. Now the characters are no longer unique. Would the game still sell though? Would it sell the gameplay with generic American looking characters? Or maybe part of the reason it sells is because the anime style that these people love.
Even though I have named off blockbuster hits such as Halo and Mario, the more artistic games has plenty of failures of their own. Look around the industry and you will see that B Rated games that usually use artsyle over photo realism has been disappearing due to the lack of success. Whether it be the recent Dark Siders or the decline in Sly Cooper these games are going under. Though once again it can be argued that this is because of the poor gameplay that they showcased.
So this brings up the question. What is more important? Graphics or gameplay? Or is it artstyle mixed with gameplay? Maybe Photo Realism and gameplay? What is important? Is it all of the above or is there a formula that is simply better than the other? Maybe there is no real answer and we just like what we like.
