DevilRising said:
Graphics are nothing but eye candy. They are the last thing on a scale of importance to me. Gorgeous graphics can be nice, but then again, what is the barometer for "gorgeous"? To me, a lot of NES games and other 8bit games are still to this day great looking. Whereas many modern HD games, while technically advanced, kind of look like shit to me. For a lot of people, "realism" (with a heavy accent on the quotes), seems to be the water mark of graphics being "good" or not. Not to me. "Realistic" graphics CAN be great. But to be honest, a lot of different games made by many different developers these days, all still wind up having a very similar and to be frank, generic look to them, as far as I'm concerned. The trope about "grays and browns" is a bit tired, sure, but it's also rather true.
I appreciate developers who actually bother to create their own unique art style. Who put some COLOR into a game, not necessarily "Cartoony" (Though that can be wonderful if done right), but just....I don't know....actually TRY to give a game it's own visual identity. Like the 2008 Prince of Persia game. It had it's own unique look, not quite "cel-shaded", almost more of a 3D comic book type visual. But I liked it.
But beyond graphics, the most important things to me in a game, are Gameplay, is it FUN to play, does it CONTROL well, etc., and Content. A great story or setting in a game can be awesome, but I don't need some wannabe Hollywood (or rather, direct to video) cinematic experience. A game's soundtrack is important, but history proves that game music can be amazing WITHOUT having to always be expensively done orchestrated movie score type material. The core gameplay and the amount and type of content a game has, are the most important, fundamental elements of whether a game is "good" or not, as far as I'm concerned. A game can have very simple, basic, even "bland" graphics, but can be incredibly fun to play, and thus it's a great game. Whereas (and this is proven a LOT these days) a game can have the most gorgeous graphics you've ever seen, but NOT actually be all that fun to play, and certainly not have any real replay value once you "beat it to see the story".
And to me, that's the problem with where the video game industry is going these days. Don't get me wrong, I'm a writer myself, and as already stated, a game having a GOOD story is a bonus. But that also seems to be the focus these days, being "cinematic" and having some (often feeble) attempt at a deep, elaborate story. A game can be pretty and even have an interesting plot, but if it plays like shit, it's still a shitty game. And that IS often the case, more often than it should be by far. To me, you shouldn't be playing a game solely for it's story, OR it's graphics, and "beating the game to see the ending" shouldn't be the whole focus of why you're playing. Video games used to be about the EXPERIENCE you're having while you're playing. Getting to the end and seeing whatever ending might be there (or not), was secondary, a nice cherry on top. But it was JUST the cherry on top. Now, it's the whole fucking cake, at least as far as I see in a lot of modern games. And that should never be the case.
You should play the game for the gameplay, to get lost in a virtual world and have FUN in it. Not to get from Point A, to Point B, to Point C, to Point D, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum in a straight-line sequence of Quick Time Events and Cut-scenes. THAT, to me, is not a video game, and not what video games should be. That isn't to say there isn't ROOM for that type of game to exist. BUT, it personally makes me very sad, and even a little sick, that that is what a majority of especially these "AAA" blockbuster titles, in an industry driven solely BY those titles, has become. Which is why I appreciate companies like Nintendo, to some extent Sega, and a handful of others who still have a sense for what USED to make games good. And while they don't totally embody that "old school" approach, I will give Bethesda some credit in that category as well, because for ALL the stupid (and unnecessary) bugs and glitches and problems their games have, things like The Elder Scrolls do, while having a "AAA" package, still seem to at heart put the gameplay first.
It's not a matter of nostalgia (the poor-man's straw argument to whip out anytime someone brings up how great things used to be versus today). It's a matter of gaming principles, and priorities. A handful of companies still have those priorities straight. But many, I think, do not. Developers need to cut the mega-budgets, and focus on making games that are actually FUN to be physically playing through. Gameplay should not be a secondary background thing you have to do to get through a story. It should be THE focus, with everything ELSE, graphics, music, story, etc., as GARNISH, supporting and enhancing, ADDING TO the gameplay experience.
|
