| WereKitten said: I wonder why people who downplay graphics and sneers at the "graphic whores" don't look in the mirror more: there's such thing as an "input method whore", you know? Input devices, graphics, CPU power, they are all _tools and means_ that devs can use to express their art or simply their craft. Take away means, and you're taking away possibilities. Sometimes you play along the limitations and you come up with great results (great movies were filmed without sound, or in black and white), but sometimes some works of art and craft can't be done without the right means (Fantasia without sound? Zhang Yimou's Hero without colors?). I don't care about having 1080p or 2160p, but give me any day enough graphics and CPU to have the wonderful facial expressions of HL2, that convey feelings as no game before (and I can't wait for Heavy Rain). Give me enough CPU to have good AI with natural responses, to generate huge worlds, to simulate weather or interaction between magic spells or the accelerated growing of alien plants. And ask yourself what would have been of Zelda: OOT or the Metroid and Mario franchises if Nintendo never had the graphics or technology to bring them to vibrant 3D worlds. |
I don't speak for Rol, obviously, but I have to say that you're falling squarely into the mindset he's outlined. You're looking for developers "to express their art." Who do you think they're trying to impress with that? We the people? Or fellow developers (and the wannabe developers, the "game journalists").
The reason I don't see why there's a "input method whore" is that the "input method" is usually the means, not the ends. The purpose behind the touch screen and the motion controls was to remove barriers between the gamer and the game, i.e. to make it simpler/easier/more intuitive to play the game. Input methods are usually focused on making things easier for the player.
By contrast, great graphics have an entirely different aim: the most customer-focused aspect of them is to "increase immersion." Usually, though, I suspect the true point is to "impress the viewer," which again goes with Rol's point. Focusing on graphics lets the developer sit back at the end of the day, read some forums/websites after releasing screenshots, and congratulate himself on a job well done.
Tell me, though: how many developers can you name that have improved the input method on their game, sat back, and received similar accolades from the forums and websites? How many Game of the Year Awards do you remember Wii Sports getting? Nintendogs? Wii Fit? Focusing on input methods caused millions of people to join gaming, and increased the entertainment they got from our hobby. But do you really reckon those games would have been possible if the developer wanted to "create art," i.e. if they wanted to develop for each other rather than for the masses?
I think your last two paragraphs in particular show that you're kind of missing Rol's point here. He is not a luddite. He does not advocate an end to improved graphics. He doesn't even say that graphics don't matter. He is simply pointing out what I, too, think is an obvious truth: if you develop for the people, i.e. if you make your game fun first and foremost, you will not only be doing a better job at retail, you'll be creating something that will actually be remembered years from now.
The franchises you yourself cited are prime examples of this; we don't remember Ocarina of Time or Mario 64 because they're beautiful, or because they're 3D. We remember them because they're fantastic games. True, the new technology is part of what made the game great, but the new technology was harnessed to improve the gameplay. It was not the point behind the games at all. Look at it this way: neither of the games I've mentioned are the first to do 3D. They're certainly not very pretty by today's standards. So why do we remember them? Because they took the third-dimension and made it fun. They used the tech to make gameplay that hadn't been done before.
And that, in far more words, is basically what Rol points out.
A final note: you may disagree. You may be the type that thinks that games should be art (it appears so from your post, anyways). That's fine, of course. (Who am I to tell you how to feel?) But many, I would daresay most, of us do not feel that way. We want gameplay first, graphics/sounds/"art" afterwards.
We like our gravy, sure, but we prefer that it go with some great mashed potatoes.
Pixel Art can be fun.
