Over the last generation of gaming, graphics have obviously improved in ways we could never have imagined. The polygon pushing power of this generation's consoles and PC video cards are certainly nothing to sneeze at. We're even getting into true 3D gaming with upcoming titles like Killzone 3, Crysis 2, and even Portal. With games approaching true-to-life photorealism and detail down to the zippers and knobs...We're in a generation in which anything that can be realized and seen in real life can be represented in a video game.
But that said...Why do people consider games like Mario Galaxy 2 and Okami to have "amazing graphics"?
I know that sounds like an asinine question..But when you compare a game like Super Mario Galaxy to Gran Tourismo 5...The graphical feat is pretty obvious. But the reason I ask that is because of this year's E3. I site I generally love visiting is over at Gametrailers.com, and their E3 awards are being distributed now. And guess which game won Best Graphics? Not Killzone or GT5...Or Crysis for that matter...But Kirby's Epic Yarn. A side-scrolling Kirby game made up of colourful yarn won the best graphics. But surely there were other games more deserving of the title, no?
They're not the only publication to think this either. I've seen it all over the web since the game was revealed. It really begs the question...What makes the graphics of a game good? Polygon pushing prowess...Or artistic design and execution?
When you put games like Gran Tourismo, Killzone, Uncharted, Gears of War...All those high-def 1080p graphic games together...You get a lot of the same thing...Realism. That's great. But Realism is all around us. When you look back to the old-days of gaming..Like the NES or earlier..They didn't have stuff like today...The limitation of the technology was so weak...Everything was made up of such large pixels, you needed your imagination. And when I think of how the industry has grown over the years and generations...I've seen imagination go the way-side and be replaced with realism.
Don't get me wrong...I *love* games that push the boundaries. But I miss the imaginative aspect of graphics design. The way I see it...Kirby was the most deserving of the Best Graphics award...Mearly because the game was unique. Good-Feel and HAL Labs have treaded ground not travelled much. Sure, not like the Wii is capable of 360 and PS3 graphics, let alone the PC...But the creativity and imagination behind the title...The use of yarn as the building block of the entire world is unlike anything seen before. It's almost like the first time cell-shading was used..Or "hand-drawn" graphics with games like Drawn To Life. Photo-realism games are all the same...Sure they look different with different effects, designs, environments...But they're the same. Kirby and games like it step away from the norm and deliver us a kind of world we want to visit, and we're unfamiliar with.
Graphics aren't just the look of a game. Is how the world is presented before us. It's everything we see on the screen...Everything. Just because one game "looks" better than another doesn't mean the latter looks worse. People need to learn to stop thinking everything needs to look as good as it possibly can. Brown and grey equate to perfection. Why can't games bring back the colours of a young imagination? And when games actually do introduce the uniqueness...Why must they be patronized and insulted? Just because *you* don't like it doesn't mean it isn't good...Or special. If the visuals are fully realized and complete, or they blend together and things don't stand out for the worse; If the game runs at a perfect framerate no matter how much or how little is going on on screen; and if it looks as good as it possibly can look...Who are we to judge? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...But everyone can look good. If Kirby can take away best graphics awards for a yard based side-scroller...There must be something about it.
The same was said for The Legend of Zelda: Windwaker. Before that title was announced, we were teased with an amazing pre-rendered cinematic of Link fighting Ganon with amazing graphics for the time. We were so excited to get a zelda came that looked like that. Then the screenshots appeared for Windwaker and the 3D visuals were replaced with..Cell-Shading? What is this cartoony crap? Even I was guilty of thinking the visual leap that Nintendo was taking with this new Zelda was a mistake. But there was something always shouted from the Nintendo rooftops..."Don't judge it until you played it". So I did. And you know what? To this day (even with Twilight Princess having come and gone) I think Windwaker is the best looking Zelda in the entire series.
It just goes to show that you don't need to look *good* to look good. The developers that put the creativity in their game world...In their environments and character models are the ones who should get praise. Polyphony Digital should be proud of the look of Gran Tourismo 5...I have never seen anything like it before. The detail is incredible. But so should Good-Feel with Kirby. Both games push the boundaries of what they are trying to represent. Both games look down right beautiful. But both are incredibly different.
We are in an industry of creativity. And it should be rewarded no matter how it looks. Besides...I didn't hear anyone saying Okami looked like crap. It doesn't look like GT5 to me...
PDog
