I'd had a discussion with my friend the other day, one of many that revolved around graphics and their relevance. The friend in question is a self proclaimed "graphics whore", however, I don't really have a adjective of my own, other than to say that I usually tend to appreciate a game on every level that makes it what it is, and not simply on the quality of it's textures alone. This however, is not speaking of a game's entire worth, but it's more of a measure of a game's visual fidelity. Other aspects of a game's design, playability, art direction, length, remain untouched in our sporadic debates. They're a given, and no harsh debate ensues. Either a game is good, or it's bad, natch.

However, I've wondered slightly if my views are too forgiving.

I pondered the possibility, after all, it isn't like games initially came out of the gate looking like Gears of War. But I realize that as a gamer, I've usually been more concerned with the point a game was trying to get across with it's visuals, rather than focus on a single pop out and "wow" moment.

I've played some ugly games in my time.

Case in point, Shadow of the Colossus.



From a technical perspective, it's impressive, the way it has the entire world laid out for you at your disposal, with nary a loading screen past the initial one. The way the engine handles the wide variety of environments and conditions within (caves, deserts, sandstorms, rainstorms, forests, etc) is nothing short of astounding, considering that many other games take several shortcuts to achieve the desired effect. The particle system is above par, and the world is also bathed in a subtly warm, almost dream like glow, the result of a full bloom lighting engine, the likes of which has never been seen on the system itself since it's release in 2000. Its skeletal and animation system is superb as well, with every movement, every interaction exuding an eerily realistic portrait on screen, no matter what you're doing.

Have I lost you yet? Allow me to ease up on the jargon a bit, and move on.

From a graphical perspective however, it looks terrible. Textures are flat and lack depth. The ground is literally one massive green blah, brown blah, grey or tan blah, depending on where you are in the world. The game is terribly aliased as well, with stair stepping and terrible ridges occurring on everything on screen. The framerate, which isn't terribly stable to begin with because of what the game is pushing, drops frequently, especially during boss battles. The best looking thing are the colossi themselves, and it seems like everything else took a hit because of their implementation. I mean, didn't-two dimensional plants and bushes die out in the PS1 era?..

This is more than enough for my friend to condemn this game, no matter how much he actually likes it as a whole.

Then why is it, that I think it's one of the best looking games I've ever played?

It's a mixture of things. The animation I mentioned before is unparallelled. It's seamless, and transitions from one movement to another with nary a hitch. It's so detailed and fluid, it's almost evocative in it's beauty. Think I'm sounding pretentious? I can't think of any game released today that has me completely involved to the level where I've felt a tangible sense of fright when my character falters. When I make an error and Wander (the main character of SotC) is falling a great distance, I feel a tangible sense of fright not because it may mean game over, but because simply the way he moves, the deliberate, tangible steps he takes makes me worry about him as I would myself in a similar situation. The sigh of relief and slight pain I experience when I realize that he isn't dead, but hurt from the fall in question speaks worlds of what this game accomplishes. He doesn't have perfect form. He doesn't land perfectly from a leap, and cannot stop on a dime. He stumbles while running, and even moreso if the ground is unstable. Experiencing a Colossus in the game is just that, an experience, and left to it's own devices, you can observe one as it lumbers around, each of them have their own nuances, one in particular having a slow, lumbering gait that's at once a testament to it's timelessness and a tribute to it's size. Visually, though it isn't sporting a relative ton of polygons, it looks believeably made of earth, stone, and fur. Agro, as a sidekick and secondary character, manages to carry just as much of an emotional investment as the main character himself. From the way he runs around of his own accord to an intelligence that allows you to simply let go of the controller and have him guide you, even games based around Equestrian events don't have this much detail applied. It's something that goes way beyond his rendering.

It has something do do with the way the light bathes the landscape. It has much to do with the way the game looks almost ephemeral, like a painting come to life. It's so many parts adding up to a cohesive whole, that dare I say, when I come across a physics or graphical gaff in Bioshock, it stands out so much more because now that I think of it, SotC has none of those problems. It gets it's point across so well visually that it doesn't need a bumpmapped texture. Or it's edges smoothed. It would certainly look nice if they were, but would it enhance the experience in the same way that Bioshock's visuals enhance it?

I don't think so.




I think there is a time and place for games of a Gears or PGR like nature, because they are gorgeous. And we certainly at this point, have machines capable of pushing them. In fact, there is no reason our machines shouldn't be pushing them at a constant. But I'd implore anyone. Mind you, I'm not asking you to think like me, but I implore anyone to simply look at everything a game is trying accomplish with it's look before judging it visually, and ask yourself if it's being pulled off. Sometimes, the beauty is in the details.

Because I've seem some beautiful games technically with subtle flaws that can ruin it simply because it takes just that little bit to destroy a game's motif.

Like how I believe Halo 3's water is better looking than Bioshock's simply because, as stunning, as amazing, as beautiful as the water looks in Bioshock, you can't interact with it. Running through it or firing at it only produces a 'ripple' or 'splash' texture over the water. Run through Halo 3's water. It bends. It curves. It splashes, and it never stops moving after something has broken it's surface. Go on. Stand in it and look down. Take a vehicle into it and slide around. Then let it sit there. Go underneath it and listen to the way the audio changes.

Sometimes, the beauty is in the details.