Graphics...

Much like the 'bit-wars' that occured during the ninties, where consoles competed and marketted heavily on the basis their console had so many bits in comparison to others (Early Sega Mega Drive/Genesis adverts claiming their console was better simply because it was 16 bit compared to the NES's pitiful 8), games these days have a major emphasis on graphics.

I don't mean just how the game looks model and texture wise, but the lighting, the physics, destructable terrain etc. being touted proudly on the back of the box. Even Valve fall into the trap with their Source physics/graphics engine being one of the game's most well known features to even the most casual of gamers.

My problem is this: A game should be all about the gameplay. Why does it matter in this day and age, to the point where it can decide if a game sells well or not, if the graphics are top of the line?

Graphics are purely a way for the player to see the game fold out in front of them, to allow them to interact better. True, bad graphics make for confusing games, a problem with the NES and the way some games handled backgrounds. But in modern day standards, graphics from the PS1/N64 era onwards are generally easy to distinguish between the player, the enemies, the items and the levels, all aspects more important than the graphics themselves.

And then there are games which proudly spout out that they're great, when they aren't all that good. Halo 3, for example, had vastly inferior graphics when compared with other 360 games even a year or two before hand, and suffered some massive slowdown in some parts when more than a handful of explosions were shown at once. It had a constant, overactive use of the bloom effect which hurt my eyes for a lot of the time I played it, yet it manages to sell itself as having 'outstanding graphics'

A more recent game, The Conduit for the Wii, talks about having new technology to make the graphics look as good as the 360 and PS3, when they barely stand up to last generation's consoles. This however brings me to the point of how older games, especially ones in the consoles' later years, had graphics comparable to modern day. While Timesplitters 3 had rather poor player/enemy models, the environments were wonderfully well designed, looking as good as at least the early 360 games.

This emphasis on the graphics capabilities of both a system and a game are tiring me and many other gamers who enjoy the game based on the gameplay. Some reliance on graphics is certainly required, if only to improve gameplay or immersion by making the environments look brilliant or to help players distinguish between player characters and enemies.

I can't wait until we develop virtual reality systems capable of being more detailed, i.e. further than atoms, than real life... I will be waiting for the people complaining that "RL's graphics need updating."