Beauty is skin deep: Calling out the graphics pimps

[Spindel]

Beauty is skin deep: Calling out the graphics pimps. Destructoid offers reviews, previews, trailers, cheats, and more.

There is a term among the gamer community the describes a certain subsect of gamers interested only in how impressive a game looks -- "graphics whores." These are people who get excited over how a game looks more than how it plays, and will easily dismiss any title that isn't up their visual standards.
Just like there can be no smoke without fire, so too can there be no whores without pimps. These are the people that justify the shallow judgment of a title based purely on aesthetics, mainly because that is how they are selling their games. Prompted by the recent resurgence of Killzone 2 talk, I decided to voice my feelings about the "graphics pimps," and why I am sick and tired of hearing about how great a game looks.
Hit the jump as I call out the graphics pimps and all their beautiful chicanery.



First off, let it not be said that graphics aren't important, because they most assuredly are. Just like nobody wants to read a book printed in a bad font or watch a badly shot film, nobody wants to play a game that looks like complete and utter garbage. Beautiful visuals have their place, and can make a good game even better by virtue of slick animation and gorgeous scenery. However, graphics alone do not a game make, and with the ever-increasing thirst for high-definition eye candy, the focus on gameplay sometimes seems worryingly absent.
Killzone 2 is certainly not exclusive in this, but it has certainly been one of the most obvious. Developer Guerrilla and publisher Sony have almost obsessively sold Killzone 2 on its visual quality alone. First they tried to fool us with the notorious "in-game" footage that turned out to be little more than a fabrication, and ever since then the developers have been desperately trying to make the game look as good as they claimed it would, and convince us that it will look amazing.
Nary a word, however, is said about how the thing will actually play.
This is becoming increasingly frustrating, because I honestly don't care how good a game looks if it all falls apart when I finally get a controller in my hand. There have been many games that are graphically impressive but lack anything of value beyond the visual aspect -- Black was a perfect example of this, a game that proved you actually can polish a turd. However, many gamers seem to buy the story over and over, letting developers pull the wool over their eyes and dazzle them with pretty pictures. Distracted by such photorealistic treats, gamers don't stop to think whether or not it will actually be a good game, or just a good-looking game.
I'm a gamer, not an art critic, and if all I cared about was how something looked, I would spend my time reviewing paintings. I have become sick of the term "in-game footage," and am of the opinion that any developer who uses that term is a developer not confident about its title's gameplay. If all you can talk about is what's on the surface, I am led to believe that there's very little depth under the hood. It's all well and good to wow us with gorgeous images, but sooner or later, you are going to have to deliver something of substance, or get the fuck off my radar. I have no time for vapid and shallow non-entities with nothing but looks on offer -- the game equivalent of Paris Hilton.
The way Killzone 2 has been marketed offends me. I find it pretty vulgar to see a game sell itself purely on something so utterly cursory, especially from a series that lacks pedigree. Many of us seem to have forgotten that the original Killzone was an average and generic FPS across the board -- repetitive and unable to stand out on anything but -- unsurprisingly -- how good it looked for a PS2 game.
The market has pretty much proven that it cares more about games than graphics. One need only look at the last generation -- and the massive success of the PlayStation 2 -- to see that. Despite its hardware being inferior to that of the GameCube and the Xbox, the PS2 is still the most successful home console to date with worldwide sales of over 127 million units -- a number that increases even in this current generation. It beat its graphically superior competition because it had the best library of games, not because it had the best water effects.
Going back a generation before then, one need only look at how the Dreamcast failed to gain enough momentum to replace the original PlayStation before the PS2's arrival. Handhelds, too, have gone to show how looks aren't everything -- the Nintendo DS is a wild success story, despite not being as powerful as the PSP, which is only now starting to gain big momentum in Japan.
Need I even mention the Wii?
The fact is, Killzone 2 may very well be an excellent game -- but I don't know its gameplay potential, and I don't have the first clue because all I keep hearing about is how good it looks. I haven't been given anything to convince me it will be a good game, only a good piece of eye candy. It's not like we ever truly know how enjoyable a title is until we get our own hands on it, but we usually have a clue as to whether the game will impress us, and I must confess that outside of some lovely animations, I have not the slightest inkling whether this is a game I want to play, or merely look at and say "that's pretty, now give me my Metal Gear Solid."
By all means, if a game looks gorgeous, then show it off. However, if that's all you can talk about, then don't expect everyone to be filled with confidence, because beauty is only skin deep. Stop saying things like "this is in-game footage" in a desperate ploy to impress us, because it betrays your own one-dimensional approach to game design. If that's all you care about, then I don't expect anything more than generic gameplay from vapid designers. You could well be creating an intense and jaw dropping playing experience, but that's not the impression you give me when all you're talking about are the aesthetics.
I love a beautiful game, but I love beautiful gameplay better. That's all I'm trying to say.

More or less exactly what I think.

[iconoclast]

You know what I'm sick of? Ninthings throwing around the term "graphics whore" when anyone knocks the Wii for subpar graphics. I've said it before and I'll likely say it again: nowhere in the bible of game developing does it say you cannot have both great graphics and great gameplay. My feeling is that in 2008 for a game to be truly great, it must have both. Problem for games on the Wii is that it's nearly impossible to have both because the graphics capability is relatively limited. Sure, they'll have some decent looking games, but even SMG is full of jaggies when I see it at Gamestop. I don't really hear anyone saying gameplay isn't important...it's most important, actually. But graphics are important, too.

EDIT: BTW, "great gameplay" is not a synonym for "waggle".

[cyclone87]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

I've said it before and I'll likely say it again: nowhere in the bible of game developing does it say you cannot have both great graphics and great gameplay.

Well said, that is the absolute truth.

Graphics should compliment the game play based on the context of the game. Obviously the likes of shooters and horror games need top notch game play but having realistic visuals really adds to that immersing effect as well.

Edit: Also because the recent re-emergence of Killzone 2 seems to be the inspiration for this piece, I hope the person who wrote it does realize that Killzone 2 was there to be PLAYABLE by the media as the trailer displayed during the keynote was incredibly short and not the main focus of it being there. We all know the game looks great but they would only let you play it if game play and not graphics were the focus.

[Spindel]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

You know what I'm sick of? Ninthings throwing around the term "graphics whore" when anyone knocks the Wii for subpar graphics. I've said it before and I'll likely say it again: nowhere in the bible of game developing does it say you cannot have both great graphics and great gameplay. My feeling is that in 2008 for a game to be truly great, it must have both. Problem for games on the Wii is that it's nearly impossible to have both because the graphics capability is relatively limited. Sure, they'll have some decent looking games, but even SMG is full of jaggies when I see it at Gamestop. I don't really hear anyone saying gameplay isn't important...it's most important, actually. But graphics are important, too.

EDIT: BTW, "great gameplay" is not a synonym for "waggle".

Did you read the article at all?

The author clearly states and I quote:

"The fact is, Killzone 2 may very well be an excellent game -- but I don't know its gameplay potential, and I don't have the first clue because all I keep hearing about is how good it looks."

[codenamelenny]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

You know what I'm sick of? Ninthings throwing around the term "graphics whore" when anyone knocks the Wii for subpar graphics. I've said it before and I'll likely say it again: nowhere in the bible of game developing does it say you cannot have both great graphics and great gameplay. My feeling is that in 2008 for a game to be truly great, it must have both. Problem for games on the Wii is that it's nearly impossible to have both because the graphics capability is relatively limited. Sure, they'll have some decent looking games, but even SMG is full of jaggies when I see it at Gamestop. I don't really hear anyone saying gameplay isn't important...it's most important, actually. But graphics are important, too.

EDIT: BTW, "great gameplay" is not a synonym for "waggle".

Realistic graphics aren't the only looking games. There are great looking games on the wii: super paper mario, no more heroes, Super mario Galaxy, and metroid prime 3. Gamestop are idiots and don't use component cables.
The article is just saying you can't have a good game without good gameplay.

[Chibi Kitsune]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

You know what I'm sick of? Ninthings throwing around the term "graphics whore" when anyone knocks the Wii for subpar graphics. I've said it before and I'll likely say it again: nowhere in the bible of game developing does it say you cannot have both great graphics and great gameplay. My feeling is that in 2008 for a game to be truly great, it must have both. Problem for games on the Wii is that it's nearly impossible to have both because the graphics capability is relatively limited. Sure, they'll have some decent looking games, but even SMG is full of jaggies when I see it at Gamestop. I don't really hear anyone saying gameplay isn't important...it's most important, actually. But graphics are important, too.

EDIT: BTW, "great gameplay" is not a synonym for "waggle".

this article screams at you doesn't it

"what someone's talkin bout graphics, those darn Ninthings"

read it again, if you actually read it to begin with

that being said jaggies don't take away from a game at all unless it's to the point where you can't recognize whatever the hell the object is supposed to be

hell the fact that you even notice jaggies in SMG means you are a graphics whore, unless you saw them from screen shots

why most people don't see them

they're to bust enjoying the game, while people like you look for every little graphical flaw

[iconoclast]

Originally Posted by Chibi Kitsune

that being said jaggies don't take away from a game at all unless it's to the point where you can't recognize whatever the hell the object is supposed to be

hell the fact that you even notice jaggies in SMG means you are a graphics whore, unless you saw them from screen shots

why most people don't see them

they're to bust enjoying the game, while people like you look for every little graphical flaw

A) Jaggies are annoying. This is not a "little graphical flaw"...it's in every frame. A "little graphical flaw" would be something like slightly short draw distance.

B) I also don't like the lack of camera control in SMG...pretty annoying. This is certainly a gameplay issue.


EDIT: BTW, I find that article slightly retarded because the game isn't even out at this point; the dude is basically whining about marketing. It's flippin' marketing, man, get over it. If the gameplay sucks, it won't sell well. Period. Stop trying to make up controversies to write about.

[Chibi Kitsune]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

A) Jaggies are annoying. This is not a "little graphical flaw"...it's in every frame. A "little graphical flaw" would be something like slightly short draw distance.

B) I also don't like the lack of camera control in SMG...pretty annoying. This is certainly a gameplay issue.

A) you must have really hated the N64 era

it's very minor, it doesn't take away from the gameplay unless it's painfully obvious and none in that game were. they really weren't even noticeable unless you actually looked for them, and usually if you have time to do that you aren't enjoying the game
and if you aren't enjoying the game why play it?

B, yeah that's a game play thing but what does that have to do with this debate?

[iconoclast]

Originally Posted by Chibi Kitsune

A) you must have really hated the N64 era

it's very minor, it doesn't take away from the gameplay unless it's painfully obvious and none in that game were. they really weren't even noticeable unless you actually looked for them, and usually if you have time to do that you aren't enjoying the game
and if you aren't enjoying the game why play it?

B, yeah that's a game play thing but what does that have to do with this debate?

It may just be a Gamestop issue, but it's immediately clear that there are jaggies all over the place in SMG...but, again, this might be due to the poor setup at Gamestop.

[Chibi Kitsune]

Chibi doesn't use any extra cables so maybe