So why do we enjoy games to begin with? I started writing another article the other day that I intended to post today, but I kept getting lost in it. I was talking over and over about developers using tricks to help immerse us (the players) in their games. Immersion, I assumed, led to more enjoyment of the game. But does it? It seems like it would, but it’s not logically a given. So really, what leads us to enjoy our games?
It would be convenient to just say, “the whole package.” Obviously, a game with great graphics, memorable music, good gameplay, and an effective story is going to be a quality title. But I think the real reasons we enjoy games, and the things that allow us to differentiate between fun games and poor games are a little more subtle and nuanced than that. Lets try and break it down, starting with graphics.
Graphics have always been a big selling point in video games, and it’s pretty obvious why. The graphical presentation of a game is the most immediately apparent way to judge a game’s quality. Graphics are right there in our face when we turn the game on. Hell, even when you see a video or a picture of a game, flashy and polished graphics can be really impressive, and maybe even convince you to purchase it. Even graphics that don’t exactly push the limits, but are instead highly stylized or unique can be a big draw.
But graphics aren’t just a flashy attention-getting tool. They are the primary way that games communicate with us. We use the visuals presented to us to figure out where to go, what to do, and sometimes even how to do it. The graphics allow us to center ourselves in the world. They can let us know in an instant whether the area we have just entered is dangerous, mysterious, or safe, or even deliberately confuse our judgment of such a thing. Graphics can give us a particular feel for a game, and how we are allowed to play it. (More on this tomorrow)
On the other hand, extremely poor or glitchy graphics can put a real damper on the experience of a game. A character’s hand clipping through the wall during a cut scene here and there isn’t really a problem, and can sometimes be kind of charming, in a way. But when muddy graphics obscure our ability to figure out where to go or what to do, or if visual glitches become distracting, it can really ruin our experience with the game. If graphics frustrate or impede a players ability to function within a game world or become immersed in a game, then an otherwise promising title could be ruined. Gamers who are willing to struggle through these flaws might still find a good game underneath obvious defects, but it would be hard to label a game “great” if the most immediate way it communicates with us were flawed.
But while graphics are both an attention-getter and a tool for communicating with the player, they can’t really determine the over-all quality of a game or our enjoyment of it, can they? No one ever says, “The graphics were great, but the gameplay sucked,” and follows it with “so overall the game was amazing.” People might tolerate a crappy game with groundbreaking graphics early on in a systems lifespan so they can show friends and neighbors the power of their brand new console purchase, but these games probably aren’t going to be fondly remembered years from now.
It’s a tired argument, and I hate to use it, but the Wii is a perfect example. I know there are a bunch of “casual” gamers who don’t care jack from squat about graphics, and are content to buy a Wii just for Wii Sports, which allows developers to get lazy about graphical presentation in a lot of titles. But titles like Twilight Princess or Mario Galaxy don’t have the leg room to compete graphically with PS3 and 360 titles, and they are still very good games. Good enough to be a vastly better and more enjoyable than some games with far superior graphics on those consoles (*cough*AssasinsCreed*cough*). There are older titles too that are still great fun to play even though their graphics are hopelessly dated. Super Mario 64’s graphics are certainly laughable by today’s standards, but nothing about their quality limits the experience of the actual gameplay. If a game can work well within its graphical style, if it can effectively use its graphics to help immerse the player, it’s all set graphically in my book.
There seems to be a common theme running through all of this, though. Precisely where graphics can hurt or help a game has to do with how they aid or hinder a player’s experience of a game. Graphics are aesthetically important to a game, and, if used correctly, can help a player’s immersion in a video game world. So they do help us enjoy a game, but they aren’t even close to being the reason for it. In fact, the reason graphics are important at all are that they allow us to enter into a game and communicate the game to us. In other words, they contribute to (and importantly not hinder) our immersion in the game. So perhaps game immersion is the factor that determines our enjoyment of games, with graphical quality being a factor that contributes toward that?
We’ve barely scratched the surface of the many different aspects of games though. Of all the many parts that constitute a full game, gameplay is the most central, dominant and (probably) important. Perhaps gameplay alone determines whether we enjoy a game or not? We’ll talk about that very soon.
But for the meantime, I cant quite get graphics off the brain. I mentioned earlier that graphics tell us about a game, and subtly convey ideas to us about how the game can and should be played. I didn’t back that up with any examples, and probably didn’t define my thought very well. Tomorrow, I have a pretty good example, I think, to clarify what I mean. So strap on your greaves, we’re headed to Oblivion and beyond.
No comments:
Post a Comment