Opinion: Are Graphics Too Important Nowadays?

Inevitably, one of the main advantages of this gen over last is the graphical potential of the respective consoles; with enhanced technology and more advanced tools, developers are now able to utilize stunning character models, environments and Hollywood-like special effects on both the Xbox 360 and PS3. While these graphical capabilities arguably help to immerse us gamers into the experience more than ever before, a certain question remains: are graphics too important in this generation of consoles? It could be argued that many games are criticised harshly by gamers because of their graphics, ignoring what is seemingly more important: the gameplay. I don't feel as though this is necessarily the case amongst professional critics, as it's essentially their job to judge games in all aspects; not just in the graphics department. But from my experiences on various gaming forums, there's reason to suggest that too great an emphasis may be placed on graphics.

Graphics can both enhance and undermine a game's reputation. In terms of the latter, I think that Halo 3: ODST serves as a recent - and prime - example of a game being criticised on the basis of its visuals. In many ways, I agree that these criticisms are warranted; people naturally expect a progression in all aspects, and although ODST is essentially an expansion - although the rumoured price would suggest otherwise - it could be argued that it looks too similar to Halo 3. On the other side of the pond, it looks to me as though the game plays pretty great. But is this really been pointed out by its critics? Not from what I can tell. It looks as though the main criticisms have stemmed from the game's visuals rather than its gameplay, but perhaps that's warranted in many ways. As for graphics enhancing a game's reputation, Killzone 2 instantly springs to mind. I'm in no way suggesting that Killzone 2's gameplay isn't up to scratch - it wouldn't be scoring a 91 on Metacritic if that was the case - but I think it's fair to say that an incredible amount of attention was paid to the game's stunning visuals, with its gameplay hardly in the spotlight. Fair enough I guess - when a game looks that good, it's hard to give much thought to anything else. But in the build-up to the game's release, I don't remember hearing too much about anything else besides the game's visuals. If you look at Metacritic and other review sites, the majority of the 'top' games - in terms of review scores, at least - boast great graphics. While there are exceptions on the list, it does seem as though graphics play quite a significant role in determining a game's quality. So, do graphics give too much of an edge to certain games? Are they used to separate the 'good' from the 'great' - and is that fair? Would Killzone 2 have been held in such high regard had its graphics been somewhat less spectacular? Sure, all purely hypothetical scenarios, but it's something worth considering.

But there's plenty to suggest that gameplay - quite rightly - still dictates quality. Coinciding with the previous argument about ODST, it would seem that Halo 3 has shown that graphics aren't the be all and end all in games this generation. Despite what, in my opinion, are far from outstanding visuals, Bungie's title remains the number one played game on Xbox Live, leaving the more graphically outstanding games such as Gears of War 2 lower down on the list. What's that down to? A fine online structure and fun, addictive gameplay. It's probably accurate to say that very few people have bought - and loved - Halo 3 for its visuals; instead, its gameplay and multiplayer have been responsible for the game's incredible success. Equally, Left 4 Dead - which remains one of my favourite games this generation - is hardly a graphical showcase; I think it's fair to say that the Source Engine is starting to shows its age a little bit. But that didn't stop the game earning a very respectable score of 89 on Metacritic. Once again, the graphics weren't really important; a fabulous co-op experience and fun gameplay were responsible for Left 4 Dead's success. So, two very successful games this generation - in terms of both sales and reviews - have shown that graphics are not always a determining factor of success.

I think that, looking at the evidence, arguing that graphics are too important is slightly wide of the mark. I still think gamers acknowledge that graphics are just one part of the jigsaw in solving the puzzle of making a great game; they don't make or break a game. I do, however, believe that graphics have become more of a key component in games when compared to last gen, with scrutiny from gamers now being shared almost equally between gameplay and graphics. I think it's a natural occurrence that has come as a result of advanced technology and, consequently, more possibilities. Tetris was never going to be criticised during its time for simple visuals; the N64, which provided enhanced graphics when compared to previous consoles such as the SNES, still placed a greater emphasis on fun gameplay; and the graphical capabilities of the PS2 and Xbox meant that gamers started paying a little more attention to the standard of a game's graphics. With increased opportunities comes increased expectations, which is something that I'm sure will once again be the case with the next generation of consoles. So overall, I don't think graphics can be considered too important an aspect, but it's become more increasingly important nonetheless. I mean, if your game looks anything like Killzone 2 or Gears of War 2, it can only help.

Do you think graphics are too important nowadays?