super_chiken

0 comments by super_chiken on Jan 8th, 2008 digg this super bookmark

..or is it? /rant warning

Walk through any high school nowadays. I dare you. If you bring up the subject of video games, you will get "Have you played Halo 3/COD4/Generic Shooter TO THE MAXX? That game has such awesome graphics....blah blah blah." Have we lost touch with how video games started? How come everyone seems to think that gameplay is lower than graphics? And does it seem that Nintendo is being lost because they are making lower graphic games?

 Let's take into account a generic (slightly unstable) kid. Let's call him Fanboy. Fanboy owns a PS3 and an XBox 360. He thinks that the XBox is the best thing on God's green earth. He thinks Halo 3 is the best thing since sliced bread, and that Graphics > Gameplay. Trying to explain the simple charm of some "old-skool" games to him are like explaining why meat is delicious to a vegan. I talk to him, then I bring up the game Mythos, a free MMO by Flagship Studios. He is excited to play because it is a "Diablo clone" and draws very much on that particular game. And then he says "but the graphics aren't very good..." because they adopted a more "cartoony" style as opposed to the hyper-realistic graphics of today. Why? The game is damn fun to play. It's not even done yet and it's damn fun.

 Case B: I downloaded a prominent MMORPG called Rappelz. Many of you reading my blog will be familiar with this game because it is being advertised all over the place. I have to admit that the graphics drew me in at first. After 2 hours of playing, the novelty wore off and I got bored, and turned my attention elsewhere. If they come out with a commercial game that has awesome graphics but sucky gameplay, then a lot of people would buy it. That proves (somewhat) that companies these days use graphics as a lure to get people to buy their games. If people would read up about their games that they want to buy instead of buying it immediately because of shiny graphics, people wouldn't lose money, EA wouldn't be so huge (Madden series, I'm looking at you) and everyone would be happy overall.

There are games that I revisit even though their graphics aren't very good. Super Smash Brothers Melee is a very good example. Nintendo seems to have hit the nail on the head and realized that if they could come out with a system that is fun to play, graphics aren't needed. (Wii). Most of the games that I revisit are Nintendo games and are true classics, like the SNES game Link to the Past. Awesome game with crisp 16-bit graphics. You won't find any bump-mapped junk here. Even modern games though are leaning more toward the "gameplay > graphics" and I applaud them. The super-hit World of Warcraft, the Sims 2, and the yet-to-be released Spore and Super Smash Bros Brawl are examples. Then again the games Spore and Sims 2 are produced by EA (grr), but they are by the subsidiary Maxis (which is good).

 There are countless examples that the gaming community is slowly pulling away from the graphics > gameplay mould. World of Warcraft, with 8 million subscribers doesn't have the best graphics in the world. Although there are the true haters of all things cartoony. Like Fanboy, as stated above, says about WoW, and actual quote: " I think WoW is the better graphic verison of the oh so lame game runescape, and  I  dislike world of warcraft because its boring, absoultly no gore.  I mean where the awesome decaptitions." With spelling errors included.

Please! Gamers of the world! Don't diss games because they aren't as better looking as Halo. Look through the games! Don't skip over the obscure ones! Revisit your classics, return to your roots, and most of all, support the fledgeling game designers and support indie and open-source games.

Thank you.

super_chiken, head admin of Freeware Informer Games. Figames.discoveryhub.net