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.
Good Gameplay > Eye Bleeding Graphics
I concur.(See: Cysis)
This from someone who recommended the first Killzone for a Bargain Bin Laden. lol. I didn't agree with you then.
Considering that most media that game developers share with the public is of the visual affair, perhaps it's a trend that extends itself far beyond Killzone 2. How many clips do we have of Trailers and nary a hint of gameplay?
Quite a few.
I agree gameplay should rule above all else, but isn't that what everybody highlights or touts first?
Yes, gameplay > graphics, any time, but there's not reason a game can't both look great and play great. My favorite game ever made is System Shock 2, and that was built on the Dark Engine (Thief 1), and at the time the Dark Engine was old! SS2 may not look that great, but it's got the best gameplay I've ever experienced in my 24 years of gaming.
The first Killzone is worth five bucks. Doesn't mean I think it's amazing. Just average.
Anyway, I'm sure this game will be solid. The PS3 can do shooters just as good as the 360(unlike the PS2 imo). I don't see why this game won't be that great. I'd like to compare Killzone 1 with Fable 1. The first ones were over-hyped and were average in reality. The sequels look like what the original should have been.
ass, you, me."
You must be replying to the wrong article, because I cannot for the life of me see where I said Killzone 2 will suck. I do remember saying that talking about graphics over gameplay gives off the impression of a shallow game, but I am trying so hard to see where I said Killzone 2 will suck. I must have a blind spot for it or something.
YES.
June 12 cannot come soon enough.
I liked Crysis as a game. It was fun. I liked having the nano-suit and being bad-ass. I liked how the scenery actually blurred and whoosh!'d by when I used Maximum Speed. I liked how the building I just threw that enemy into actually broke apart in a realistic way. I liked how the grass and trees looked real. I liked the weapon customization. I thought it was a good experience.
If the technology was worse? If there was no cool blur effect when I ran? If the building just shattered ala half-life crate when I knocked a baddie into it? Doesn't make me feel as powerful or awesome as it did with the eye candy. The experience is lessened.
But it works both ways. If the combat was boring, no amount of motion blur or bloom is going to make it fun. If the levels were boring, no amount of ambient foliage was going to make it more interesting. If the environment didn't react realistically, no amount of enemy flinging or vehicular madness is going to make it feel alive.
It's a balance. Just because a game had great graphics doesn't mean it's got shitty gameplay.
People judge pretty games harder than they judge average looking games, or games with novel art styles because "it's a graphics-whore's game" is an easy stance to take, and one that people jump on board quickly.
"Oh man, or analog stick sensitivity is off the fucking chain in this game, man is it accurate."
How to you put into an ad that you've spent a lot of time working on your games controls? How do you show someone who isn't playing the game that your controls feel great?
I explained in the article. Like I said, plenty of developers do it, but Guerrilla is one of the most up-front and obvious, and the recent Killzone 2 spurred the article. All people talk about with that game is the graphics, and it's made all the more apparent that this game barely talks about gameplay when you remember why -- the first Killzone was all looks as well.
That's not the point.
Look, you tell me that Echochrome didn't have trailers that showed off great gameplay in lieu of amazing graphics. I rest my case.
Probably would have, but I'm not a PC gamer.
The difference is that Crysis was a new IP, and it did showcase the variety of ways you can tackle missions and alter your suit... whereas we've been down this road with the Killzone franchise before. They tried wowing people with eye-candy and superlative descriptors of their game. And it turned out ass. Cold Winter is the best FPS on PS2, by the way.
Thank you Jimbo for this article... over the past two or three years I've been nauseated with how shallow 70% of gamers have become. You'd think they'd never owned a console before 2006....
Anyway, fuck Killzone, Halo, Gears of War, God of War, etc. The best game ever created is already out: Earth Defense Force 2017!
But I think it's okay to get a little excited over pretty visuals in the early stages and then form a more intelligent opinion about the game once more info is revealed.
I would never support someone that loved a game for just being pretty, but I also wouldn't lambaste someone for just getting excited over a cool-looking trailer.
I think Killzone 2 is a strange exception since the developers feel like they have something to prove after all the controversy from a couple of years ago.
Great article, though. Like always, you are amazing. :)
A nice balance of the two is required. No one wants to play some PS2 port to the Wii with PS1 era graphics. But, nobody really wanted to play Lair either.
Also, the in-game footage does not only serve to boast the graphics, it also displays immersive player animation, the duck&cover while staying in first person perspective, the player and NPC interaction, the incredible physics effect, all which help an immersive gameplay experience. And of course, after their first big mistake, they have to remind that these are actually in-game, for a change. This also reduces further confusion and speculation. (Yes it doesn't look good as the first CGI, but is this also a CGI to lure more people to their game?)
Quote of the year. This is why I don't give two shits about most previews and trailers. It's all hype and bullshit.
Has anyone played Little Big Planet? (for example) Maybe the whole game is done through the use of Sixaxis, now wouldn't that suck balls? Don't get excited though....
You can have a fucking hot chick who sucks at sex (as if there is bad sex) or you can have a fat ugly chick who can turn your crank in 30 seconds....hrmmmm
That comparison was pretty useless but I chuckled a little bit in my head when I thought about so I decided to share it.
The hell? Gameplay shouldn't be the most important thing in a video game?
i agree with the article, but using killzone as an example of marketing hype, bad gameplay etc, etc. is getting tired. nobody took a big dump on halo 3 when it came out and i'm sorry, but that won the all-time marketing hype award and for what? if we are going to crap on killzone, halo 3 did nothing substantial to change gameplay from version 1 and 2. having such a long time and massive amounts of $$$ and all we got was re-hashed gameplay. bungie threw in a bubble shield and every 14 year old creamed their pants to get hold of it. face it many videogame developers are guilty of many sins, some in graphics department, some in the gameplay department.
Other areas of gaming haven't come forward so noticeably, like the AI that seems to always get promised, but not delivered on, and a lot of stale plot devices like 'moral decisions' and 'non-linear, do whatever you want' gameplay.
Of course, physics engines seem to have come a long way, but I don't think advertising a game on its use of physics engines is likely to attract buyers who weren't already thinking about it.
Personally give me a game that plays well, and doesn't look horrible, rather than a game that looks gorgeous, but is made from the same cookie cutter as everything else on the market.
TRY AND PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR REAR JIM. Just because you are not a real gaming journalist who makes stupid claims like this. Killzone2 will be good. revolutionary? i doubt it. but good.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/872/872009p1.html
At least those guys are for real. I wish you could of posted this again with out killzone 2 being in the middle of it. Then it would make more sense.
Killzone 2 will look amazing, but play kind of like cod4 knock off. If that is the case, sign me up.
That is the perfect example to this rant of yours. Not Killzone 2.
Also, I don't want to play a prettier "cod4 knock off", and if you do you need your head checked. Not to mention that COD4 is good-looking enough as is, developers should be striving to make something better than what's already there, not just copy/paste gameplay with a graphics upgrade. I hope Killzone 2 is amazing, so I can finally buy a PS3 for something other than MGS and FF.
And Dan CiTi... Crysis... I don't give a damn about Halo, but better than CoD4 and Mass Effect...
You silly, silly man.