The Other Side is a series of editorials written by yours truly. They are meant to take popular arguments and give the side that no one defends or easily dismisses, although this isn't guaranteed. The reasons for doing these editorials is that some discussions just deserve justice rather than two arrogant, conflicting opinions. Thus, I seek to accomplish this. Remember these are opinions and not fact but I will argue it as fact because that is what an editorial is. Don't take it personally just be open minded.
Visuals in Gaming
Easily one of the most disputed arguments in gaming has been visual output. The argument has been going on since the SNES era when discussing the power and capabilities of the SNES and Genesis. However, more recently these arguments have been fueled by consoles and PC's busting out gorgeous visuals. It usually leads to discussing that get so disturbing that people think differently of people they never knew in the first place. I seek to answer a few questions. That being why do people care so much, what are good visuals, and their importance to a game.
Obviously from the discussions we see numerous comparisons of games to discuss what graphics are better. In the console, PS3 fans will throw out pictures of games such as Heavy Rain, Uncharted, or Killzone 2 while 360 fans will strike back with games like Gears of War 2, Alan Wake, and Bioshock. Hell, even Wii fans will throw out their beautiful games such as Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, and The Conduit. So many fiery discussions that plague our forums and yet I've been unable to understand why people take it so personally.
To find out the answer to this I chose a certain amount of people from VGC to answer 3 questions for me about visuals in gaming. One of the questions was as follows:
Do better visuals mean a better game?
Of the various responses I got the one I saw as the most interesting was this one from Soriku:
It depends if the game itself is good. Great graphics might help a game get better status, but if the gameplay and the rest of the game isn't any good then graphics mean absolutely nothing or little at all.
This is an interesting concept. So much arguing over the visuals of a game yet it doesn't matter unless we know the core gameplay is good. Soriku is not only right he hit the head on the nail. Visuals help a good game and that's it. To give credit where it's due, of all the people I asked that responded(Soriku, sc94597, Squillam, ZenfolderVGI, selnor, deathdevidem01, and makingmusic476) every last one agreed in some way or another with what Soriku said.
So this goes back to the question, if most people agree with this, then why so much arguing over something that matters second, not first. It could be my poll is unrepresentative of the general consensus, but that's doubtful. Thus, to answer the question I think it is simply a matter of human nature. They need controversy or something to argue over. They understand that the visual differences of some games are minimal to none and that if the gameplay is bad they wouldn't care about it in the first place. But they need something to grab a hold onto. Something to feed the fuel that is yearning to be burned. Without this controversy then things would be pretty boring. So what does that mean? It means the visual discussions mean nothing and never will mean a damn thing. People care about games that play well and then they notice the visuals. Discussing it is an afterthought or a good comment at best but not a centerpiece to the warranted gaming discussions.
So with the question of care being pointed out let's focus on what makes good visuals. I'd like to present this with some visuals themselves. Here is a picture of Crysis followed by a picture of Okami:
Both are beautiful and outstanding visual accomplishments. The reviews would suggest so as well. IGN PS2 gave Okami a visual score of 9.5 and IGN PC gave Crysis a visual score of 10. Various other reviewers gave the games both amazing props to the visual aspect of both games. However, when in discussion of great visuals games like Okami never pop up in the discussion. Instead great visual discussions usually have the games like Crysis pop up. The reviewers seem to think that good visuals is more than just how realistic a game looks yet even those reviewers themselves probably never argue Okami in a great visuals discussion.
So why such an injustice? I once again tried to figure this out with my surveyors. The second question of the mix was:
Are visuals inherently better when more realistic or when they represent the game it's used for?
Obviously the question is asked to get a similar answer but I found this answer the most intriguing. This was stated by darthdevidem01:
Can we say the vsuals of Patapon or Locoroco are bad compared to GEOW. Well we can't as they are two different kinds of games with a different visual style altogether. I would HATE a locoroco that was realistic or Patapon.
Gold haha. We can't say Papaton is worse than that of Gears of War 2 simply because they take on a different art style. He later goes on to say about how ugly that realistic Mario was and I totally agree with him. Some games just can't be realistic. However, I do disagree in one aspect that they can't be compared. They should be compared and the basis shouldn't be on reality. Too many people compare visuals based on realism when that shouldn't be the case. Change your mindset that good visuals aren't about realism but about how it represents the atmosphere the game is potraying. For the most part, the others agreed in a similar way to this.
So to go back to the question, why so much focus on realism? WE LIVE IN A REALISTIC WORLD. It's so much easier for the masses to relate to a game that is realistic and because we live in this world most of our games are going to take the realistic side. Thus recreating it is like a self conscious notion of hubris(pride) for man that they can accomplish on computers what took the universe or god ages to accomplish. As nice as this all is, it's unfair to say that every game needs to be realistic and inherently they shouldn't. There is a hell of a lot of genres out there so why not a hell of a lot of visual styles to go along with them. They should be jsut as acceptable and critically acclaimed as the ones that try to capture reality. A little bit of bias for me is that anyone can simply copy and paste the world into a game but it takes a true genius to take it, throw in the garbage, and come up with something completely original. In spite of that, Crysis and Okami are the works of geniuses and should BOTH be respected that way. That's justice.
So what makes good visuals? It has been answered and that is how it represents the atmosphere it tries to create. Just to throw it in there, for the development side it also means polish. However, one could argue that a game that has framerate drops and distortions everywhere from bad programming wouldn't represent the atmosphere in the first place so it kinda goes along with this. This is what good visuals is about... taking you into the world the game is trying to tell you. How do you decide which is better. You decide upon how well it captures this and how well it is programmed and polished. This is why games like Crysis and Okami can both be some of the greatest visuals to ever grace the gaming industry despite them being two different directions in art.
Onwards to the final question. What is the importance of visuals in gaming. Obviously we understand that they are to capture the atmosphere of the game but are they there to do more than this? To figure this out I asked a third and final vague question to my surveyors. I did this such that they wouldn't exactly know what I was getting at so they would answer a certain way. Here was the question:
How important is originality to the visual aspect of a game?
Now obviously this could mean a lot of things and you'd expect the general answer to relate back to art style. However the only thing I was looking for was necessity of originality rather than the originality itself. I got a very interesting answer out of this from selnor:
Most games out there generally have their own unique look. Originality is important in gaming. But so is familiarity.
It's quite a concept if you think about it. Originality is important in gaming but moving so radically in another direction isn't always the best. The famous quote always goes "why change something just for the sake of change". But his point was mainly some games need visual change or need to have an original look while others don't. Some need to take on an Okami like approach but some just need to stick with standard art styles such as cel-shaded and realistic.
So if good visuals are based off the atmosphere the game describes then why do so many games have similar visual styles? It's easy to say that simply game ideas are dwindling and becoming more stereotypical but I think it has to do exactly with what selnor stated. Some games need to follow the mold and need to stick with something already build upon. Not all games need to boast extreme originality in their visuals simply because it's not warranted. It would be changing something just for the sake of changing something. Yet many people criticize games for having "boring" or monotonous graphics and with no justification. Just because an apocalyptic shooter like Gears of War looks like every last one before it doesn't mean the visuals are bad. As long as it enhances on what is there to apply it to it's on atmosphere then you will have good visuals.
So how does this relate to the importance of visuals in gaming. Well the point of the question was to make people think about the ideas of originality and change and really understand what is the importance of that change. It answers the question by saying that really the importance is about capturing that atmosphere and really nothing else. Let's face it visuals are very linear when it comes to gaming. However they are one of the most important aspects of it. Gaming is VISUAL. The main sense you use in a video game is sight... not hearing, touch, smell, or taste. Sight is the most important one thus the visuals have to be spot on. Thus it's important that while the gamer is playing that they actually believe what the game is displaying. Whether it be Wii Sports with a lay back visual style that's easy on the eyes to represent a friendly gaming environment or the nitty gritty look of Gears of War 2 to make the gamer feel trapped in a world of terror and destruction. The importance of visuals is to relate that idea and setting into the mind of the gamer. Thus it is no surprise why that should be what makes visuals good.
Visuals are not something to be taken lightly with in gaming. They are an important aspect in every game and without them gaming would be impossible. Thus, developers should not take them lightly. However, nor should we. Instead of arguing which is better we should argue with developers who take the easy way out of visuals. Instead of crashing down on Wii games all the time about being bad how about tackling those developers who half assed the visual which made the game worse.
But ultimately what we should understand is that visuals matter to gaming and they always will. We should understand that importance but recognize it's place because without the idea and gameplay behind it, visuals are worthless. With nor worthwhile atmosphere to represent why bother putting visuals in. Would better be served as a game you can't see if it's one that's a disaster to play. Visuals are there to bring you into the world that is already there. It brings an idea to life. So don't be so quick to deny their importance but be quick to recognize their place in the gaming spectrum. And once you are discussing the brilliance of both Okami and Crysis, then justice has been served.
Leatherhat on July 6th, 2012 3pm. Vita sales:"3 mil for COD 2 mil for AC. Maybe more. " thehusbo on July 6th, 2012 5pm. Vita sales:"5 mil for COD 2.2 mil for AC."
