|
"Early era Playstation games aren't as readily playable as the end-of-era SNES games due to the 3d graphics not aging well." This was the generalized form of an offered statement that I disagreed with in an Editorials Night Session recently. More specifically, it was argued that Final Fantasy VII is a "less accessible" game today than Final Fantasy VI is; the argument behind this being that Final Fantasy VII's 3D graphics look so horrible that they make playing the game an unbearable experience compared to the experience of playing Final Fantasy VI. While pondering over this argument, I came to a realization about how I value RPGs over games of other genres, and just what it is about an RPG that makes a response to this argument unique.
Negligible graphical flaws should not prevent one from enjoying any game, and this especially applies to RPGs. RPGs pride themselves on how they tell a story and character development. These characteristics are what make RPGs unique; unlike action, fighting, racing, or other game genres where graphics have a more significant and direct impact on gameplay, the defining characteristics of RPGs do not require attractive graphics to function. RPGs are more apt to invoke the gamer's imagination in an attempt to draw the gamer into the story being told than other types of games; while it may be true that attractive graphics can certainly aid in the process of drawing a gamer into a story, good graphics do not constitute a necessary condition for a good RPG. The argument I indict contends that early 3D RPGs on the Playstation are less accessible than those made in the final months and years of 2D games on 16 bit systems due to the fact that early 3D graphics on the Playstation were unattractive; they consisted of haphazardly connected geometric shapes and little else. However, this argument assumes one of two things (or perhaps both): either that 3D games of the early Playstation games are unplayable because they look so terrible in comparison to 3D games today, or that 2D games, while graphically simplistic, are more accessible than early 3D games because they do not sport the aforementioned displeasingly shaped visuals. Both of these assumptions are flawed on two counts. First, comparing games with years separating their releases on such a technologically driven level of comparison as graphics is extremely unfair. Second, the graphical flaws of early 3D games aren't so outrageous that they detract greatly from the story; they're certainly not bad enough to deter a fan of RPGs (a gamer who necessarily finds enjoyment from a game with a well-developed story) from playing those older games with fantastic stories such as Final Fantasy 7.
Proof for my first point should be easily demonstrated. The overall quality of a game's graphics is limited by the technology available to the creators of that game at the time of a game's development. As technology gradually becomes more complex, more advanced, and more affordable, the potential overall quality of a game's graphics is increased. Therefore, it seems unfair to criticize, for example, Final Fantasy 7, for its (as considered today) displeasing 3D graphics. That criticism unfairly uses hindsight to evaluate a game that is otherwise a triumph. This use of hindsight is somewhat dubious; applied to 2D games, an example of its use would be criticizing a game that came in the final days of 16 bit 2D RPGs, such as Final Fantasy 6, for not actually reaching the limit that that technology had to offer (for example, by the lack of vocalized music in Final Fantasy 6 -- other games, such as the Super Famicom release of Tales of Phantasia, accomplished this).
As for my second point, the graphical flaws of early 3D games aren't so ridiculously poor or offensive that they should detract from the accessibility of those games. The use of "poor" to describe early 3D games' graphics refers to their graininess or excessive use of obtuse geometrical shapes. However, just how "poor" are these graphics? Take Final Fantasy VII's graphics for example. While they do seem a bit simplistic, do they detract greatly from gameplay or the fun of playing the game? If you've played this game recently, do the graphics make you pull out your hair in frustration, wondering how a game with such "poor graphics" could receive such critical acclaim? If they do, are you being unfair? Graphics are often touted as having great importance in RPGs, but as I'll now argue, they really don't. And that leads me to my next argument.
The main two points I've described thus far have only tangentially challenged the main part of the argument I rebut. It isn't just that Final Fantasy 7's graphics are poor, or that early 3D games are fundamentally annoying to play; the argument I indict contends that early 3D games are more annoying to play and therefore less accessible than the 2D games that came out in the final months of 16 bit systems. To respond to this, I'll advance a more positive argument: Graphics don't matter. Let me qualify that. When comparing the overall quality of two RPGs, the differences in the quality of the graphics of the two games should not be significant enough to have any substantial effect on the overall quality of those games. The overall quality of those games affects how accessible they are. Therefore, differences in the quality of graphics of two games should not have any effect on how accessible each of those games is.
For those readers that think that this argument is coming out of far left field, think of how graphical issues have affected RPGamers in the past. In the mid to late 90s, when emulation became all the rage, RPGs were downloaded in higher frequency than they were being sold at; the ratio of RPGs sold to games of all other genres sold was substantially smaller than the ratio of RPG ROMs downloaded to ROMs of other genres downloaded. Why? Certainly, this perceived increase in RPG popularity can be attributed to RPGs' comparatively easy control scheme when applied to a computer keyboard (playing Contra III on a keyboard, for instance, is significantly more difficult than playing any turn-based RPG with a keyboard and thus, RPGs make for more popular ROMs), but it is fair to say that part of this increase in popularity can be explained by gamers' interest in the stories provided by RPGs that they wouldn't otherwise be able to experience. Furthermore, for many gamers, ROMs of other genres simply just weren't as fun in comparison; graphics were too integral to games of the action, sports, fighting, racing, etc. genres, and the primitive, dated graphics made the entire experience sour. So why were RPGs popular ROM candidates? Why would people seek out early Dragon Warrior or Final Fantasy ROMs when their graphics were obviously so dated? Because people could become engrossed in the stories offered by these games, this trumped the graphical flaws of these early games, and it even made gamers forget or at least care less about the fact that the graphics of these earlier games were so bad compared to current games. The RPGamer is primarily interested in the story of the game he or she is playing and naturally values graphics less than the traditional gamer.
While attractive graphics can certainly help increase an RPG's accessibility, the extent of this increase pales in comparison to the amount of influence the quality of the RPG's story can have on accessibility. Poor graphics are the result of the lack of technical expertise, effort, or resources; a poor story represents something far more critical, and it represents something that can be fixed irrespective of any of these sorts of logistical concerns. I value the quality of an RPG's story higher than I do its graphics for exactly this reason; whereas any multi-million dollar production company can guarantee that an RPG has great graphics, it takes a rare talent and craftsmanship to produce a great story for an RPG. In this light, a solid RPG with a great story is not something that cannot just be created by any well-funded team, but rather, it is the product of a focused effort that emerges from a swell of innovation and creativity.
Think I'm wrong? Think graphics really have a more important role in determining the overall quality or accessibility of an RPG than the game's story does? Rebut my editorial, because I'd like to be convinced.
|
RSS feed
iTunes
