In the interactive and visual medium of games, where do good graphics rank in the scheme of things? This debate recently came to the forefront again with the release of Pokemon Legends: Arceus. When Nintendo announced the title, it generated a lot of buzz for seemingly becoming the first open-world Pokemon game ever. Later on, the news came that it would be more similar to the Monster Hunter franchise, with open-world hub areas connected to one another. Still, the game offered a level of living in a Pokemon world that was unprecedented for the long-running series. But one thing looked concerning, and that was the look of the game itself.
As trailers kept arriving, the graphics seemed like they were from an early build, looking akin to those found on a GameCube title. Perhaps GameFreak wanted to fix them later? Nope. This was what the game would look like. For many people, this was the breaking point. If the game wasn’t truly open-world, it should at least look decent. But for many others, they could look past the shortcomings for an experience packed with fun gameplay, an intriguing premise, and interactions with their favorite Pokemon. Still, the debate arose around the desire for good graphics. Not just for this game, but for every game. It’s a debate that’s gone on for many years.
A Long, Long, Time Ago…
Let’s take this debate all the way back to Ancient Greece, when people would go to large amphitheaters to see myths and legends (sans Arceus) performed live on stage. These performances could be aesthetically appealing, with actors playing gods descending from pulley systems – the origin of the phrase deus ex machina, “the god from the machine.” But how important was this visual display to the work as a whole?
Aristotle, one of the great Western philosophers, decided to get to the bottom of this. He created his concept of the “Six Elements of Drama.” The theory is that every work is actually a composite of multiple parts, consisting of plot, character, thought (themes or ideas), diction (language), melody (music or how well the work flows), and spectacle (how good it looks). With this system, which still influences the criticism of art and entertainment today, people could judge works through their components and arrive at an overall conclusion.
It’s easy to adjust this system for games. You can remove plot and character for titles that don’t use them, and add gameplay as a core element for all, but the concept works well. However you decide to break it down, a game has various components. So, how important are looks?
Aristotle decided to not only create this breakdown system, but also provide his own ranking. To him, spectacle was least important. You could have a story without it looking good, but you couldn’t have one without plot. Now, games are different from myths or plays, so the importance of graphics comes down to two things: the player and the game.
Beauty is in the Eye of the Player
The great thing about breaking a game down into components; gameplay, replayability, graphics, story (if applicable), etc., is that everyone can pick what they want most in a game. Some people only play games with great stories, but not every game has one. Others may desire a game that they can replay over and over. And many may want to play a game for its graphics.
So from this perspective, the importance of graphics is up to the individual player. Let’s say that graphics are the most essential element to you. If a game has good graphics, you’ll play it, and if it doesn’t you’ll have little interest. In that case, Pokemon Legends: Arceus is not a game you’d want to play. If it had good graphics, then it would be.
But there is a large exception to this. Since each game has components you can rank, visuals may be very valuable to you alongside other elements as well. Let’s say the gameplay is most important to you, followed by graphics, followed by story, and then the other components. In this case, a game like Pokemon Legends: Arceus, praised for its gameplay but derided for its graphics and story, becomes frustratingly close to what you want but not quite there. You have to rank all the elements up and decide if a game is worth it.
Games Show Off What They Want
While the personal ranking of graphics depends on the player, a game’s development team also ranks graphics in their hierarchy of elements. Games take a lot of time and money to make. As such, very few games fire on all cylinders. Metal Gear Solid 5 and The Witcher 3 are both stellar open-world games that came out the same year. However, one could argue that the former ranked combat higher than story, while the latter did the opposite.
If you spoke to the developers, they would very likely have reasons for choosing to put effort into what they did. For a game involving a cycle of revenge, Metal Gear Solid 5 needs excellent combat. And for a game about the search for an adoptive daughter, The Witcher 3 needs a great story. Likewise, the priority of graphics in a game comes down to what the title aims to do. Journey would likely not succeed if it looked unappealing since it involves walking towards a beautiful mountain. And it doesn’t matter how Papers, Please looks because it revolves around processing checkpoint documents.
Looks Aren’t Everything
So it’s easy to see how this debate would arise again thanks to Pokemon Legends Arceus. Many people love the aesthetics of Pokemon and believe that a semi-open-world game should highlight how they look. And many other people love the catching and collecting mechanics and believe that the Pokemon series always succeeds thanks to its gameplay, not its visuals.
The importance of good graphics comes down to player preference as well as what the developer wishes to prioritize. For a VR game, in which players are looking through a headset, or a walking simulator, graphics may rank high. But for a simplistic puzzle game or an old-school adventure title, graphics may take a back seat to other components. Ultimately, a game is a sum of many elements, and it succeeds based on how many of them it delivers on and how well it does so.
