Rbz Posts

Ok. In this post, I'm going to continue to rant about something specific. Graphics.

It seems today, with each newer and newer generation of consoles, developers put far too much into making the game as graphically as impressive as possible. In turn, this makes gamers put more emphasis on it as well. This is perhaps the most disappointing thing about games and gamers today.

For example, GameSpot and IGN recently reviewed God of War III, giving it a 9.0 and 9.3 respectively. When I read the comments of gamers below, it was astonishing to see how many people said "WTF? This game should be 10/10!! Just look at the graphics!" Remember, GoW3 has yet to be actually released, so no one besides the reviewers have actually played the full game. It's amazing how people would give the game 10/10 based on only the graphics and a 15 minute demo. People should really remember, good graphics does not automatically make a good game.

Gamers, especially newer generations that started with the the PS2,XBox and Gamecube, put far too much emphasis on graphics. I wonder how many of them would play a game that is not a next generation game? How many of them would not play an 8-bit era game just because it doesn't look good? Would they even try playing the arcade Mario game? I also hate how gamers compare games based on graphics. I have seen far too many arguments like "Modern Warfare 2 looks way better than Battlefield: Bad Company 2, so that makes it a better game." Disappointing to say the least.

It's not just gamers too. Reviewers also concentrate far too much on graphics to my liking. Games should always be reviewed based on gameplay first and foremost. Graphics should only be the icing on top. Too many reviews these days complain about every small graphical blemish or flat textures. Graphics should NOT matter unless it interferes with gameplay. Is a game automatically worse if it has a little bit of screen-tearing or have a flat texture here and there? No, not unless it interferes with the game.

Developers have developed a terrible habit of putting graphics first. I've seen in far too many interviews, the first thing the developer would say is "Look how great the game looks." No. Just no. If you are showcasing a game, show how it will be fun, not how it's a feast to the eyes.

Also, too many old games have been rehashed by upping the graphics and then selling it again. I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but Pokemon is a big offender. Each Pokemon plays exactly like the one before it, going all the way back to Pokemon Blue and Red. Even the new Soul Silver and Heart Gold. What's wrong with just playing the original Silver and Gold? Why exactly does it need to be remade with new graphics and sold on the DS? Another recent one is TMNT: Turtles in Time. Why even bother updating the graphics? It could have been sold exactly the way it is. In fact, the old one is better than the new one. This is what I'm talking about. Gamers put so much on graphics that developers are afraid that if the game doesn't look good, it won't sell.

It seems today, that gameplay has taken a backseat to graphics. For example, look at Modern Warfare 2. The game plays exactly like Modern Warfare, but with just a new coat of paint slapped on (You can argue with me on this, but it's just my opinion). This focus on graphics is extremely detrimental to story and other areas of games that could improved on (Like say, fixing bugs?). Developers no longer seem to want to try something new with games. All they do is copy other games and then making it look better by improving the graphics. There is no doubt that graphics do add to the enjoyment of a game, but it should always be in the backseat.