On the Subject of Something

Amazing looking graphics and sub-par Gameplay or okay/awful graphics but with great gameplay. This debate seems to go on all the time, from message boards to speeches given by the leaders in the industry. One side--usually the so called retro gamers--argues that games with amazing graphics usually end up with sub-par Gameplay or games that have great effects but the eye-candy wears off after awhile and there is no substance behind it.


Crysis, not an example of a bad game
-a potentially really good game-
since it hasn't been released yet.

The other side--what the retro gamers usually call jaded gamers--argues that graphics are everything and that a game with bad graphics but good gameplay is just a myth, that a game with bad graphics is inherently bad. The more moderates of this group, by far a larger majority, say that games with good graphics don't necessarily have bad gameplay and that this is in of itself a myth perpetrated by the retro gamers because they are obsessed with the low-resolution graphics of the NES and SNES days. A look will be taken through the eyes of both sides of the issue and games that fit each sides example will be provided. An attempt will then be made to see if either side has a more convincing argument and whether the games stand by these arguments.


Super Metroid

The retro gamers' side of the argument will be discussed and analyzed first. To sum up the retro gamers' argument it is basically this: they hold that most games made today are not built upon the basis of good Gameplay that can entertain the player for along time but rather they are built upon making a game that looks good and is fun for a short amount of time. To give a more specific genre of game at receives a lot of flak for this, look no further than the First Person Shooter(FPS). There is what is known in the industry as a 10 hour campaign, this is to say that the main single-player campaign last 10 or so hours. This has gone from something that was jokingly referred to; to something that has almost become a standard along with the shotgun or rocket launcher in a FPS. To get a more clear idea of what this side of the retro gamers' argument is, a game will be provided that fits this description.


Quake 4

Quake 4 is a great example that fits all these problems that retro gamers have with many modern games. First, this game is eye-candy at its highest: nice effects, big explosions and as required, a shotgun and a rocket launcher. This game had nice, high-resolution graphics when it came out but on the other had the game as a whole was bland and uninteresting. The game consisted of your standard FPS fair of shooting whatever walks and moves with objectives tacked on to vary the method of killing up a bit. The game gets boring after awhile and even the multiplayer gets old; other games released before it are more fun, such as Unreal Tournament 2004. This game ended up with an aggregated review score among major publications of 76%(Source: GameRankings.com), its okay but its not at all good. This is a great argument for the retro gamers, though it is now time to look at the other side of their argument, that games with bad graphics can and are better than games with good graphics.


Shadowrun

Retro gamers say that a game with bad graphics is fun. From a casual standpoint this doesn't make much sense, it's like saying that a movie with bad production values or a movie that was recored with a bad camera is fun to watch. But their argument is this, that the point of a game is to have fun and to be able to interact with a world and change what happens in that world. They then sometimes argue that the graphics in a game are only a representation of the ideas in which the game means to portray. This is rather confusing and a litle mumble-jumboish, so it is better to look at an actual example rather than talk about it in abstraction.


Hearts of Iron 2

Hearts of Iron 2 and Europa Universalis II are two very good examples of games with graphics that just make the cut. These games are both strategy games in which the point is to balance nearly every aspect of a country. In the case of Europa Universalis II it is during the period 1419-1820 and in the case of Hearts of Iron 2, between 1936-1947. These games both have you goes into many aspects and details of a country, these are games in which waging war is many times the last option; for it messes up the economy and government you've been spending most of the game building that in the end it is sometimes better to negotiate than fight. Europa Universalis II earned a 85.6%(Source: GameRankings.com) average review among major publications and Hearts of Iron 2 earned a 82.5%(Source: GameRankings.com), though both these scores would be higher if not for the sub-par graphics mentioned earlier. As can be seen, these games are very deep and have a lot to do, but their graphics are sub-par and at times very spartan. These games then, are a prime example for the retro gamers, for they show that a game can have horrible graphics but still have deep gameplay and be loads of fun.


Europa Universalis II

Now for the so called jaded gamers side; the side that supports the idea that games with good graphics are not inherently bad and that a good majority of games with sub-par graphics are actually also bad themselves. The main argument that is used by this group is that, many of the games that the retro gamers defend as being good games with sub-par graphics, actually don't have bad graphics; either because at the time they were released the graphics were considered good but now they are only okay or that the games have an artistic style that some may say look like bad graphics. An example will be provided for both sides of the jaded gamers' argument.


Gears of War

First, for the games with good graphics can also have good gameplay, we can look no further than Epic's Gears of War. This game is one of the best looking out right now: the levels have a lot going on and are destructible; characters are highly detailed and have fluid animations; and lastly the overall game has a high level of polish, think Return of the King(the movie) level of production values. Now according to the retro gamers argument, this game would have a good chance of being all flash with so substance; from the jaded gamers point of view this game has a good chance of being all flash and all substance. Truth be told the jaded gamers are actually right, this game has earned an average review score among major publications of 93.8%(Source: GameRankings.com). That, by most any standard, is a good indication that Gears of War is a good game, validating at least one part of the jaded gamers argument.


Red Steel

Next would be to find a game that has bad graphics and is a bad game, and to be brutally honest, this club has the most members, after all it is the lowest common denominator. One game in specific that will be looked at is "Red Steel" for the Wii. Why? For no other reason that to show that: hype + new console + 'revolutionary control + respected developer ≠ good game with good graphics. This game was hyped to no end as a poster child for the Wii's new revolutionary control method and what that would bring to gaming. Instead it earned an average of 64.5%(Source: GameRankings.com) among major gaming publications. That's failing and that's exactly what this game does. The graphics are washed out, they are good but by standards of 4 years ago, not today. The game is glitchy and has many noticeable bugs, not only that but it is not that great of a game to play. The details would bore, but sufficient to say, this game is not a poster boy for revolution(pun intended) but a poster child for how to fail miserably, though it is a great example for the jaded gamers.

In the end, it is hard to see who can possibly win this argument; for it is like an debate between two art collectors that argue on what constitutes art. One collector might argue that a certain group or genre of art is not art but rather just expression and that its not worth a penny, but that same collector would also argue for a group of artwork that the other collector doesn't consider real art. In the end, no matter how much the jaded or retro gamers argue, there will always be good games with bad and good graphics; there will always be bad games with bad and good graphics.