Console, Game Design, Metal Gear Solid, Nintendo DS, iPhone
The Graphics/Gameplay Debate Update: Graphics Over ALL
Sorry all you gameplay advocates out there: You happen to be dead wrong about the beast of a debate that is gameplay versus graphics.
I am here to save they day and set all wrongdoers on the path of righteousness a.k.a. graphics.
Granted, I may be on the small side of this argument, but that does not mean support is meager. In fact, there is overwhelming evidence for graphics, considering the fact they are constantly addressed in reviews and previews. Plus, graphical analysis articles of PS3 and Xbox 360 versions of a given game remain popular.
Graphics can make or break a new game on the market. Let us begin this argument of epic proportion.
To begin, there are general standards for how a game should look with regard to the platform it appears on. Depending on whether the game looks above or below average, it can generate positive or negative stigmas towards at first glance.
Assassin’s Creed was a game that was hyped up due to its gorgeous open world and Prince of Persia style gameplay. But when the game released, many found the gameplay lost its luster after about an hour after repeating the same tasks over and over.
Wrap that gameplay in some stunning medieval times style graphics and BAM! You have the fastest selling new IP since 2002, moving over 6 million copies worldwide and spawning versions for the DS, iPhone, and PSP with a highly anticipated sequel on the way.
In fact, Metal Gear Solid 4 moved over 4.75 million copies and helped to push PS3 sales even though it was largely an interactive movie, what with its hours of cutscenes that steer your jaw to toward the ground. Sure, sure, MGS has always had a massive following (myself included), but one must admit that the number of PS3’s out there at the time wasn’t exactly large in comparison to other systems.
I still drool a little bit every time think of the hyperrealistic eggs that Sunny cooks at the start of the game’s chapters.
Not that these two games are terrible in terms of gameplay. I loved MGS4 and the assassinations in Creed were solid, but games with above average graphics get away with more. Not to mention the many non-hardcore gamers factor graphics into purchasing games heavily.
We’ve all heard kids picking out games at the local shop clammering, “Get this game, its graphics are saucesome!” Or “This game’s graphics equal fail, buy this instead.”
Games with stunning graphics generally get more looks from the public than those that tout gameplay first. Just look at almost every movie game out there. Sure the movie may help push sales, but it seems as if these games are generally built upon graphics alone, only to tack on a gameplay element reused from elsewhere afterwards.
Meanwhile Okami, Valkyria Chronicles, and Beyond Good and Evil gathered dust on store shelves days after released.
Understandably, a game with beautiful graphics and terrible gameplay still makes a shitty game, but let me pose a question. When sitting on your couch in front of your HDTV and given the choice to fire up a new release on 360/PS3 or a new release for your DS/PSP which do you choose?
However, the age-old, legendary games for past systems will remain on their pedestals, but presumably only a select few people still play them.
Unless of course they are being re-released in the nostalgia-induced HD remixing on PSN or Xbox Live Marketplace, or made into portable versions via handhelds.
From the business perspective, graphics first, gameplay second, ’nuff said.
Tags: Assassin's Creed, Crysis, Gameplay, Graphics, Okami
Is that why Medal of Honor, and Call of Duty: United Offensive servers are on the rise again? Because graphics make an awesome game? I think maybe, to the types of people who love American Idol, or other such drivel…that yes, graphics are what define good games. But to actual gamers…it’s actually about the gameplay. Oh yes, and you can also toss World of Warcraft in there too, 17 million people still playing on what is, by today’s standards, a very basic and sub-par graphics engine…guess they’re just all in it for the graphics huh?
Morne
Whatever influx within CoD: UO and MoH must not be too news worthy since the only information I could scrap up on those titles is a single forum post posing the question “Is MoH seeing a resurgence?” As far as you go referencing those who pick graphics over gameplay and their correlation to a single terrible TV show, I don’t quite understand the linkage.
What is your definition of “actual gamer?” Let’s not forget how much growth the industry has seen and thus presumably lowering the percentage of hardcore gamers. Gaming is very mainstream and will only continue to be more so the normal thing to have a console in every household.
As far as WoW, that is a whole other beast. Its addictive nature of raiding for better lootz, rinsing, and repeating made popular with Diablo (II) seems as if it will never stop growing in its reach unless Blizz kills it with a new MMO. Add in the amount of socialization and the insanity is at a whole other level. A large outlier to my argument, of course. However last I checked there were 11.5 million active users (still a shit ton).
I do value gameplay over graphics myself, any hardcore gamer would agree. But eye candy sells to all, the hardcore and non-hardcore gamer alike.
Graphics sell.
Thanks for your comment,
-andymac
Graphics may sell slightly, but in the end they don’t last, and are always replaced by bigger and better. However, great gameplay is something that is eternal, and insure steady sales. Counter Strike needs mention here as it breaks every one of your theories as well. All they did was add a phenominal vector based hit system that made the game head and shoulders more realistic than other games, and threw graphics to the curb. And what is still the #1 most iconic game? Counter Strike, even grandmothers know the name. So no… It is 100% about playability.. If it was about graphics then the CryTek games would make a killing, which they haven’t, and in most peoples eyes, they flopped all together.
I still play UO because it has the best Skill system ever devised. Everyone ditched SWG because they killed the skill system. Everyone still plays WoW due to remarkable playability and fun. Portal is the only single player game I would ever call iconic and was given 100% in several places due to a gameplay innovation, they have never given 100% for a graphical innovation. I am sorry to say that you are “dead wrong” when you say that grapics are why people buy games.
… how i miss UO, now that was a great gameplay example\experience.
Graphics Over ALL. Not over all. But over much.
If graphics are that important, then why are computers not the focus as they are the only machines that can handle high level graphics. Second, why does the Wii outsell EVERYTHING even though it does not have HD? Third, why does XBox sell more than PS3? Finally your examples are very flawwed, Assassins creed was not cutting edge graphics, and in fact they were very simple. The game had a great playability, and also a GREAT story. Metal Gear sold copies for a great story. That is the #1, Story, plot, twists… all else aside a story is the first key. Second is playability, and third is good graphics, and without all three a game will not make it. Graphics are last on the list though. The reason that everyone talks about the graphics is because that is the only thing that changes. Good stories are expected, and good gameplay is also. Good graphics is a bonus and bonus’s are always the selling point.
I’m not surprised Andrew, do you really think that Activision/IW/Treyarch/Grey Matter want to advertise that games from 2000-2001 are seeing a resurgence in activity, when compared to their ‘graphical beauties’ such as CoD4 et al? I mean, the ‘common’ gamer, wouldn’t really know that CoD4 took great leaps BACKWARDS in playability, from a game released in 2001. Of course, the PC Community that made CoD/MoH the franchises that they are today, would know. But console gamers? Of course not. The first taste they got was CoD3, which was utter garbage (Seriosuly, it was a TERRIBLE game). Which then resulted in a huge backlash from the PC community, as the developers of CoD, pretty much gave them the finger and worked on their ‘masterpiece’ CoD4 (while abandoning any and all support for CoD2 - See: Community Call to Action, the CoD communities 24 hour boycott of all CoD Servers…75% shutdown of all servers globally….not too shabby).
Why do I compare it with a single terrible TV show? I call it the ’sheep’ mentality. The sheep, the ones who’ll eat up everything that comes there way, regardless of it’s actual quality. The sheep don’t look into this stuff. The sheep just nod their heads and well, for lack of a better word, are ‘yes’ men. These aren’t gamers. Your ‘casual’ entertainment enthusiasts, aren’t gamers either. Gamers literally live and breathe for games. They buy games and play them constantly. See Nintendo’s issues with 3rd party sales for further information/proof on that fact. They aren’t gamers, they’re just in it for a gimmick, and when it becomes increasingly apparent that the gimmick is very played. They stop buying games and the Wii ends up gaining dust.
Whether or not people agree is irrelevant, these are my feelings and I do realize they aren’t matched by all. However, I feel this graphics/visual quality issue is really hurting the industry. It rewards people for great looking games that play like crap. While ignoring the halfway decent looking games, that play extraordinarily well. Gaming has lost it’s way, in my opinion.
As for Warcraft…it still shoots a hole through your argument Andy, there’ve been multiple MMO’s released, since Warcraft was originally launched. As I’m currently a GM in a guild, I can tell you that while the graphics engine HAS improved ’slightly’ over BC and WOTLK, it’s not even remotely the improvement most people would expect from a game that launched originally in 2004. We’re talking a 5 year old engine. There’s only so much improvement they can make upon an actively used engine. Therefore, people really are willing to overlook graphics for superb gameplay (All the things you mentioned, I consider falling under gameplay…cause they’re not graphics related).
To be honest, I think that the ‘non’ gamer crowd, will take graphics over gameplay. While the true hardcore afficianado will appreciate good gameplay over graphics.
Morne
You should make this an article in response..