Before I go on, let's get a thing or two straight. First of all, I'm not against powerful video game graphics. I think the improvements that have been made in the gaming industry are heaven sent, and I appreciate them (in fact, I can't stand 2-D Zelda, so the advent of 3-D gaming means a lot to me). My point of view is that today's gamers put too much weight on graphical capacity. Here's why:
Compare a game that had "good" graphics twenty years ago to a game that has "good" graphics today. I predict that today's graphics, just as yesterday's graphics, will be laughable twenty years from now. It's like the world of fashion: we mock the fashions of twenty years ago. Just try to imagine the gamers of tomorrow, laughing at what we consider to be "good" graphics today. Let go of your narrow perspective and recognize the limitless potential of the future! It's not the most realistic or powerful graphics that will go down in history: it's the ones into which thought was put.
So let's talk about Nintendo. It's no secret that Nintendo's Wii console is less powerful than other systems of its generation. Here's a good question, though: why has the Wii dominated its competition in this generation of console wars? The answer lies within Nintendo's philosophy that the graphics don't make the game; the way the player interacts with the game is what's important. And isn't that what gives the medium its identity? Movies provide endless amounts of the realism that is so vainly sought after in video games. Nintendo is out to make sure that the video game industry never goes without a fresh way to interact with the action on the screen.
And what of Nintendo's graphics? I'm going to use The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword as my example. Even when the game's graphics are praised, a comment about the Wii console is made. "...despite the limitations of the Wii." So what? The graphics in Skyward Sword are excellent on any scale, compared to anything else, limitations or no limitations. They are creative, artistic, imaginative, and expressive, traits that are severely underrated in gaming culture today. Graphics play a part in shaping a game world, and the world of Skyward Sword is rich with detail, despite the limitations of the Wii. The world of Skyward Sword is vibrant and alive, despite the limitations of the Wii. The world of Skyward Sword is one I gladly return to again and again, despite the limitations of the Wii.
Nintendo's graphics may not be the most powerful or realistic out there, but I think that's because Nintendo has got the right idea about video games: that they are a medium defined by the user's ability to take control. I stick with Nintendo because the company has always striven for innovation, leaving menial pursuits like graphical capacity in the background (and thus saving me literally hundreds of dollars on top of that).
I do feel graphics are an important part to games, but they do need to be taken with a grain of salt too. As you mentioned, they seem to age worse than most other aspects of games. Even sound and audio doesn't age so ungracefully since we have had 'true' music for several consoles releases now. There are other aspects like game control/playability that are important as well (how did we ever get by without two analog sticks on some games?).
ReplyDeleteBut I think art direction is very important. Just because a game might not have as much processing power visually doesn't mean that it can't be very pretty to look at. It certainly helps the imagination and immersion when graphics are great, but I think Nintendo's titles in particular are just really well made - Skyward Sword was a great example.
Wind Waker is another one, for sure. And I've always been in love with the graphics in Kirby's Epic Yarn. Now THAT'S the way to deal with limitation! Even the water is yarn!
DeleteAnyway, I also think control is very important, and the funny thing is that the power of the console plays into that aspect of video games as well. The Super Mario series has seen a trend: Super Mario Bros. 3 controls better than Super Mario Bros., but Super Mario World feels better than both of them. And the difference in control and feel between Super Mario 64 and both Super Mario Galaxies is astounding.
Excellent point on the controls. And a lot of times, the takeaway with more processing power and experience for the developers can be more about the game and the options than the graphical enhancements. Great examples with Wind Waker as well as Kirby's Epic Yarn.
DeleteFor my generation, graphics are not important. We raised during the time when we shit our pants the first time we saw the NES or SNES. We appreciated other factors of gameplay when graphics weren't the focus of any game at the time. Now when new games come out with great graphics, we push it aside for later analysis and pay attention to stuff like story, character development, soundtracks, etc.
ReplyDeleteFor this generation, all they care about are graphics. If it looks pretty, then it will sell nowadays. Soul Caliber IV was a perfect example. It was the exact same game but it looked prettier. Kids these days just want what is flashy and anything that shimmers. Poor fools.
Yeah, it drives me bonkers that people write the Wii off because it isn't as powerful as its competition. They're missing out on some incredible experiences...including the chance to download all of Nintendo's greats from years past. I hope developers come to make games that are fun to play, without worrying about how realistic the graphics are.
DeleteI'm not sure I would agree that graphics are not important at all - though I do recall the ridiculous leap from Atari to NES and then to SNES. One of my complaints about the upcoming console generation is whether or not there is enough of a leap in technology to justify them coming out already, but that's a really long post I had on my blog a couple of weeks ago I don't need to get into here, lol.
DeleteI think there's more to it than just sharper graphics or more colors, though. It depends on what you are referring to as improved graphics I guess. For example, outstanding titles like Mario 64 wouldn't have happened on the NES or SNES - but the enhanced console power allowed them to try a 3D world and give us a completely new gaming experience.
A lot of the appeal to Call of Duty titles are the first person view that attempts to make you feel like 'you are there' and obviously the better the graphics in this instance (both from realism as well as the ability to handle a lot of activity smoothly - so processing power is a factor) go a long ways toward enhancing the experience.
I do agree though that there are more important factors in games. They have to handle well, the content has to be engaging, replay value (either new game+, or branching storylines or an online mode) helps to extend the experience and obviously bad voice acting or music can all be experience-killers as well in my opinion. :)
Great article - created some interesting talking points and opinions so far. :)
Thanks! I'm really enjoying the conversation myself!
DeleteI'm with ya on music and voice acting. I don't play a lot of games with voice acting, but I have seen both good and bad examples in my time. Kid Icarus: Uprising, for example, has amazing voice acting! I'm smiling just thinking about it! Another 3DS game, Tales of the Abyss, is quite opposite: it's got really poor voice acting. I'm grimacing just thinking about it!
True, the power of a console sure can make the gaming experience a lot more smooth. Like I've mentioned, I love the 3-D Zeldas a lot more than the 2-D ones, so I'm really grateful for that leap.
And good point about the next generation of consoles. I think it's logical for Nintendo, because there actually is a big step for the company to take moving forward. I'm looking forward to the improved graphics, as long as I'm not spending outrageous amounts of money for it. As for the touch screen controller: I'm excited to see how it can be used, but I do feel like Nintendo is just trying something new for the sake of trying something new, not because it's an industry-shaping idea.
@Holly - that's an excellent point on the touch screen with the the Wii-U. And I agree, there's more of a jump to be made here for Nintendo (just going to true HD will be a nice change for them, where as the 360 and ps3 are already there).
DeleteI have kind of gone around and around on this touchscreen of the Wii-U. Is it a gimic because Nintendo feels they have to do that since they were so successful treading new ground with the Wii motion controls and the DS touch screen? Or do they feel this i a natural evolution of their own implementation of the DS? Or are they trying to tap into some of that broad appeal found with tablet devices?
Hard to say until we see it in action and used in real games I suppose. This has the potential to feel like a gimmick, but I know on another blog we were talking about other ways having a 2nd screen could just be cool. I remember on my Sega Dreamcast how cool that little VM unit's touchscreen was for getting on the fly data on sports games I was playing, for example. Or maybe that can replae the HUD in some shooting games.
Then again, my other concern? What happens if your eyes are forced to be drawn down to that screen and you get shot because you looked away from your TV? Or will people wind up holding it up at an uncomfortable angle so their eyes have less distance to travel from TV to controller?
There's a ton of questions out there for that particular device and how it gets implemented I think, but I'm very curious to see how it goes.
I think as long as the graphics aren't as bad as a shoddy YouTube video, and the gameplay is decent, then it really doesn't matter. Still, Skyward Sword and Xenoblade Chronicles have pushed the boundaries, both for graphics and gameplay. I'm quite interested to see how the Wii U turns out!
ReplyDelete