I’m here because I am once again confused about all the shouting. The fight over graphics versus gameplay, or whatever you want to call it, has somehow intensified, and a number of people have already written about it. I’ll admit to being on the side of gameplay, and I have some concerns about the direction the debate is taking.

High-definition graphics look great. There’s no denying that. What I can disagree with is the concept that they are necessary when standard definition graphics often suffice. The example that everyone brings up is of course Okami, as well as a few others I haven’t played but look fine to me. While it’s always nice to have more detail, often it isn’t a realistic assumption. As is often the case, economics has a role.



The cost of HD graphics to the developers is actually higher than we would expect. We as players don’t see the strain developers have to go through in order to perfect graphics. The first thing to be finished is usually the mechanical systems, making the game at least playable at conventions. Story, advanced mechanical changes, and graphics are polished up later. Notice that a game appears to be completely playable at twenty percent completion and yet looks like a twenty-minute sketch. We all expect it to improve radically by the release date.

My point is that if all this time and energy needs to be spent on graphics, it’s no wonder that developers sometimes skip the HD idea altogether. You’re perfectly welcome to call this cheap, but often it’s the only smart financial choice. When these kinds of amenities are demanded by the players, the developer usually ends up delaying the game, which is expensive (software programmers cost an incredible amount of money) and infuriating to the fan base. As long as it looks finished, I’ll take what they’re able to give.

Even more frightening then the idea of a delay, however, is the possibility that the developer WILL be cheap and sacrifice other portions of the game to focus on graphics. I’m certain we all immediately think of story and gameplay in this case. I’m not going to name names, but we all know of games that failed despite their cinematic-quality appearance, because they were a bore to play. Likewise, the opposite is also true.



That's what simultaneously frightens and confuses me. I don’t get why gamers as a whole haven't made this connection before, because if they did, I’m fairly certain they’d rally around gameplay as the critical factor. If all we wanted was pretty colors, we’d all switch to film for entertainment, and the PS3 would be nothing more than a glorified Blu-ray player.

I’m not going to sacrifice the experience for a little extra detail on a uniform or a few individual hairs on a monster’s fur. This isn't a universal value judgment. It's a logical conclusion. There needs to be some sort of balance that is profitable for the developers and enjoyable for the players, whatever that would be.

If we take the extremes, it will be the high-end wares that need a shovel.