So, I was engaged in my least favourite hobby, thinking, and I remembered something that Ar said and how it's a very bad generalisation.
Ar wrote:I'm not talking about framerate drops. I'm talking about there being a better way to spend time making a game.
Yeah, that's the one. See, there was recently
an article in the Escapist on visuals in some weird ass-Russian game. Called
Outcry. It's important you know that for this next quote:
Lewis Denby wrote:At least year's Develop Conference in Brighton, England, one debate reared its head again and again: where should the focus lie on a scale between graphics and gameplay? I didn't understand the question. To argue for one or the other seems to demonstrate a deep misunderstanding of how game design works, and how those final products are experienced by the end user. I came away troubled by developers who claimed enjoyment was solely in the mechanics, and even more baffled by those who argued in favor of putting artistry first. Both viewpoints seemed conceptually flawed.
Then I played Outcry, and I understood a bit. Sometimes, a game works despite neglecting a fundamental aspect of its design. And Outcry does work, in its own, unfathomable way. I played through in a single sitting, eyes glued to the screen, hand affixed to the mouse. I don't do that when I'm not absolutely caught up in a thing of sheer brilliance. I was frustrated. I snarled at the monitor. Outcry is a terrible game.
Focusing on visuals can be as powerful as having a balanced game. Now, I never said it would be as fun, but powerful...or compelling (a word I am reluctant to use). Visuals can draw the gamer into the world and get them emotionally involved despite bad or simple gameplay. An example of the latter (simple gameplay) still being effective is (as some of you may have read earlier) one of my favourite games for the PS3,
Flower.
Flower's gameplay is exquisitely simple; it's a racing game with no time limit. Hell, all of the buttons do exactly the same thing; accelerate, while you steer with the Six-Axis. The premise of the game is the gamer plays as the wind in 6 (I think) flowers' dreams and the dream of a picture of a flower (credit level). The goal is to touch all the flowers (well, I say all, it's really just specific ones, but it's most of them) and have them bloom, each one giving off a petal which will join the trail of petals being carried in the wind. The more petals you have, the faster you can go. As you progress through each level, you end up brightening and colouring a previously dull world. So, given the game's simple gameplay, it's carried through by it's brilliant soundtrack (which I
really wish I could get my hands on) and it's detailed, vibrant visuals. The grass looks and behaves realistically (until it changes colours and stuff...that's not so realistic). The aesthetic gives off such an atmosphere that you become emotionally involved without realising it. At first you just think "oh, making flowers bloom and hey that music's really cool" but you feel sadness (or at least disappointment and definitely shock) and happiness (or at least accomplishment). Some games strive to tell a story, whereas
Flower strives to tell a poem (thatgamecompany actually said that in an interview) which is done brilliantly with there use of imagery (best literary device ever) and acoustics (quick, I'm running out of words! Send me a thesaurus).
Yududududa. Hey, graphics can even come in handy when you have an award winning franchise based around clever puzzle solving and unnecessary evisceration. That's right, I'm talking
God of War III. Now, admittedly I have not played
GoW3...or any God of War (well, I played the 2 levels of 1, but I'm pretty sure the second level was just banging those chicks), but I have played the demo and seen at least one review. Fortunately, both of these showcase
GoW3's graphics, so I should be good as long as I don't make too many bold claims. Speaking of bold claims: THE HERCULEAN (literally) SCALE OF
GOD OF WAR III ONLY WORKS BECAUSE THE PLAYSTATION 3 HAS THE CAPACITY TO RENDER SUCH HUGE SCENES WITH SUCH DETAIL! See, I wouldn't make that claim. (Yes I would (No I wouldn't)). I mean for one,
Shadow of the Colossus exists and I...don't know anything about that game either. Anyway, even though I wouldn't make the above claim (yes I would (not really)), I would say that the story and the...experience is really strengthened by the sheer size and detail the game uses in its graphics. It draws you into the story and the environment with just how detailed everything is and overwhelms you with the size of everything (how many times have I said 'size' and 'detail'?). You can really relate to how a Greek hero...or anti-hero or...villain(? Seriously, what the hell is Krato) would think of Mount Olympus.
I mean if graphics weren't important, why would James Cameron be able to construct a new Titanic out of rhubarb? Seriously, I ain't seeing no one slitting their wrists over
Dancing with Wolves.
Yeah, but enough on that. The point I'm getting at here is that the Wii version of these games would suck.
Disclaimer: I'm not actually debating whether or not the PS3 has better graphics, so don't think the fact that I am only mentioning 2 PS3 games means that. I mean, the PS3 does have better graphics and that really shouldn't be up to debate, but even if it was, I wouldn't care...because I would be right.