Graphics: Do They Matter and Where Are They Going?

This editorial was written by: Redskull1331

Graphics in video games continue to grow and improve, becoming more and more realistic. They are in essence, the entire visual presentation of a game. The question is do they matter? Of course they matter, if they were not there then you would have nothing to look at. Now I know your wondering where this is going, and trust me I'll get there soon enough.

Now how can I answer part of the question in the editorial's title in my first paragraph and still have something else to say? Simple really, I'm going to take a much needed look back through the progression of graphics and shed light on where I think the evolving technology will eventually lead us in terms of a game's visual presentation. First off, graphics are not the core to any game, gameplay is. The gameplay is above all else the most important part of any game. It is the heart and soul of a game, if the gameplay is no good, then no amount a visual eye candy can save it from being a complete disaster. On a scale I would place the importance of graphics somewhere in between controls and sound. Personally I don't feel that graphics in any way can make or break a game. Wow, how can I say that? Years and years of evidence that backs that very statement.

Way back in the days of 4-bit graphics (think Atari 2600) there was barely more than a few hundred pixels on a screen at a time. Not much detail could be made from that, but games like Pac-Man, Pitfall, Space Invaders, ect. All had people pouring there change into Arcade machines just to get that high score. These games are still fun and addictive today. However, when they get remade with updated graphics while keeping the same basic elements of their core gameplay, they don't seem to be selling too well. So with that in your head you can start to see where this is going. If graphics were so important that they could make or break a game, then why do these re-makes not capture the audiance of there originals? Some would say its a new age, new gamers that are looking for more complex and innovative games like the ones we have for the latest consoles. To that I say, No. Thats part of the equation sure. But not the whole picture, nor the answer. I'm still here playing games, and still playing the oldschool stuff as well. But I would much rather play Rygar on my NES than the new one on my PS2. I would rather play Space Invaders in its original form than the upgraded graphics version. I'm not alone here either, based on the sales of remakes, or enhaced versions of classic games like these, many would rather play the original. Maybe something was lost in the transition somewhere down the line, but regardless graphics aren't selling people on these.

Maybe that first part wasn't the best direction, or the best example to use in getting my point across. I'm sure that first part could be rivaled in many ways, it could be debated for hours and never recieve a winning argument. Hey I could debate both sides of the upgraded graphics of classic games issue, so if that didn't sell you, I will continue.

My next piece of evidence to show that graphics don't make or break a game is none other than Sony's first Playstation. Lets look at the facts here, the Playstation was not as clear, sharp, or capable of the level of detail that the N64 was. However, it was able to evntually make a huge leap forward from its competition. Now many will say it had a much better selection of games, and those people would be right. It had more games, and more genres. But still compared to the N64 the graphics were not as pretty and not as clean. Proving that so many people chose gameplay over graphics time after time during that console war. New innovative games and genres, despite less graphic capabilities won over more gamers than the eye candy the N64 was capable of. Hell, even Sega Saturn was capable of more than the Playstation and we say how it fell right off the ladder. This undeniably proves graphics can't make or break a game. But maybe your still not convenced...
Now its easy to say graphics make a difference this generation, but thats not true, all the graphics this gen have been all very close to each other. Every game is clean and visually great to look at for the most part. But before this gen that was not the case. Look at the Dreamcast, the system was the first to lead into this gen, yet so many still held onto their Playstation which visually blew compared to Dreamcast. Dreamcast's graphics alone could not sell it. Of course many were holding out for PS2 possibly, but regardless, Dreamcast had an early enough start to grab an audiance if graphics alone could in fact make something great. Graphics didn't make the Dreamcast great, so how can graphics make or break a game or console for that matter? They can't, simple enough to see now when years of evidence are put infront of you. Graphics are all visual presentaion, they ae important in a sense that the gamer needs them as an interface for visual represntaion of what the core gameplay is and so that the gamer can utilize the gameplay in a visual sense to infact play the game. Now ofcourse pretty explosions add to the factor, but if the game is fun enough on its own, you would still play it even if the explosion was made up 16-bit pixels while the rest was up to par. If the game is fun you will play it, despite what it looks like.

Do graphics alone sell a game? No, Ico had incredible visuals, but lackluster sales. Do graphics break a game? No, Virtua Fighter 2 looked blocky compared to Tekken 2, but sold more. Do graphics plus great gameplay sell a game? No, again Ico. Do bad graphics and bad gameplay break a game? Well to this I say yes. Drake, Aquaman, Superman, ect. So what exactley sells a game? Appeal sells a game now. If the game can capture an audiance before its release then it will sell. Everything plays some role in grabbing an gamers attention and since every gamer is different no one thing can be named as more important for grabbing this attention. Sequals will always grab the audiance who enjoyed the original so they have a foundation to sell on. Now this may seem like a bad thing, but it really doesn't change how we pick top selling games and games that bomb. If the game grabs an audiance it will sell, but if its no good, chances are the sequal won't see the same success. If a game is good and it sells well, then the sequal is pressured to be better. If that sequal is not better, chances are the next one won't sell well. So although the formula of choosing wich games make it and which games don't has changed over the years, the same outcome is still there and it still works.

Confused yet? Don't worry I promisd this was going to dig deeper than just the importance of graphics. I'm done with that part, my conclusion is that they matter to a certain extent, but not enough to hold penalty on what makes a game great or not. So now lets dig into where the industry will take the advancing technology they now have in their hands.
With graphics peeking on realistic visuals and with that set to come next gen. What does that leave for the future? Simply put the graphic boundries haven't been touched yet, nor are developers close to it. Graphics can get as life like as you want them to, but that isn't where it ends. So many differen't styles have yet to be shown, yet to be created. Cell shading is one style that has played a huge role in showing where graphics can really go. Think about it, there are so many possibilities yet to be realized. As technology grows so to will the way in which CG can be created, and in how many different forms it can use. Developers have yet to offer up a 2D fighter that is large, and completely Anime in style and experience. 2D alone has so much room to grow, and its bairly getting touched. You think the future is going to be all 3D? I say your wrong, 2D will come back with a huge impact, but one that will open new doors for both 2D and 3D. Hell 3D can't exist without 2D so you can't kill off 2D anyway. Photo realistic graphics will be nice, but even they don't end there. This will sound impossible and completely strange, but after photo realistic is accomplished, the next step is to make things look better than reality. How is that possible? Wait and see is all I can really tell you. I could spout off tech stuff that will only hurt your head, of make you think harder than you really need to. So instead I will just say visualize it yourself, and if you do that you should eventually see what I'm saying, or atleast get an idea of what I mean.

Now with those thoughts in place its clear that both 2D and 3D still have a long way to go and directions to take that don't yet exist, so graphics will evolve as well as gameplay and every other element of games. Next gen alone is going to be a jaw dropper, if progression is allowed beyond what we saw this gen. I'm pretty sure the "clone wars" are now over, so next gen should be the one that will finally blow your eys right out of their sockets. But, just remember even if next gen blows your eyes out, there is still more eye popping to come in the future and with it some more drool on your chin, But this will not come from graphics alone, but from innovation and progression of each and every aspect that makes up a game. And don't be shocked if some new elements become part of the formula for building a game as well.

This has been one man's outlook and vision on the subjects mentioned, you can agree of disagree, but thanks for taking the time to read.

-Redskull1331