Well, we do have a thread on a very similar subject on the front page, but whatever.
Video games are developed in response to the needs of the consumer base. As such, people like graphics so the developers focus on graphics. It's not a critique on people, just people like pretty things, and most people find a pretty game more enjoyable to play then take say a game from the previous generation. Of course there are exceptions to this, especially among us video game enthusiasts, but as a general trend I'd expect this to be fairly accurate.
Think of a beautiful woman, think of how many beautiful women have severe personality flaws, yet people don't mind because they're beautiful. People naturally enjoy things they find aesthetically pleasing. Hell, even Yahtzee commented on this in his "Crysis" review when he touched on how the level was so beautiful that he forgot it was repetitive or some such complaint.
Not to mention graphics are quantifiable. A video game developer can't really prove their game-play is deeper or better then a competitor's, or at least, they can't do it as easily as they could prove their game makes use of more sophisticated and more intense graphics. As such it makes sense why developers would focus on this, as it's generally more marketable and more likely to garner success.
Like I said, it all comes down to the demands of the consumer, and overwhelmingly the consumer wants to play prettier games, which I'll admit, I want to see more. Personally, I'd rather have a more fulfilling game-play experience, but graphics can do a lot towards making a game more enjoyable. Take Killzone 2 for example, at it's core it's a FPS, and despite it's new features like taking cover and such, at it's core it's more or less the same as any other current gen FPS, barring minor details. However, it's graphics add a whole new level of immersion and depth to it. How is shooting a guy in KZ2 any different from shooting a guy in Doom? You aim at him, shoot, and he dies. Fundamentally it's the same, but Killzone 2's deaths feature ragdoll physics, unique blood splattering, animated death spasms, etc.., opposed to Doom's sprite changing from standing to laying down. Now, fundamentally it's the same as Doom's killing, but all the extra graphical trimmings make the deaths, for me, personally far more satisfying in Killzone 2. As such, I enjoy the fighting in Killzone 2 more than I do in Doom.
So where am I? I don't even know. Yes game-play is important, but I don't find graphics and game-play to be mutually exclusive. They build off each other and a good game uses them both in harmony, though tech-demo games can be enjoyable simply because of their 'wow' factor.
Video games are developed in response to the needs of the consumer base. As such, people like graphics so the developers focus on graphics. It's not a critique on people, just people like pretty things, and most people find a pretty game more enjoyable to play then take say a game from the previous generation. Of course there are exceptions to this, especially among us video game enthusiasts, but as a general trend I'd expect this to be fairly accurate.
Think of a beautiful woman, think of how many beautiful women have severe personality flaws, yet people don't mind because they're beautiful. People naturally enjoy things they find aesthetically pleasing. Hell, even Yahtzee commented on this in his "Crysis" review when he touched on how the level was so beautiful that he forgot it was repetitive or some such complaint.
Not to mention graphics are quantifiable. A video game developer can't really prove their game-play is deeper or better then a competitor's, or at least, they can't do it as easily as they could prove their game makes use of more sophisticated and more intense graphics. As such it makes sense why developers would focus on this, as it's generally more marketable and more likely to garner success.
Like I said, it all comes down to the demands of the consumer, and overwhelmingly the consumer wants to play prettier games, which I'll admit, I want to see more. Personally, I'd rather have a more fulfilling game-play experience, but graphics can do a lot towards making a game more enjoyable. Take Killzone 2 for example, at it's core it's a FPS, and despite it's new features like taking cover and such, at it's core it's more or less the same as any other current gen FPS, barring minor details. However, it's graphics add a whole new level of immersion and depth to it. How is shooting a guy in KZ2 any different from shooting a guy in Doom? You aim at him, shoot, and he dies. Fundamentally it's the same, but Killzone 2's deaths feature ragdoll physics, unique blood splattering, animated death spasms, etc.., opposed to Doom's sprite changing from standing to laying down. Now, fundamentally it's the same as Doom's killing, but all the extra graphical trimmings make the deaths, for me, personally far more satisfying in Killzone 2. As such, I enjoy the fighting in Killzone 2 more than I do in Doom.
So where am I? I don't even know. Yes game-play is important, but I don't find graphics and game-play to be mutually exclusive. They build off each other and a good game uses them both in harmony, though tech-demo games can be enjoyable simply because of their 'wow' factor.
