Sometimes I feel the need to explain myself.
I've occasionally been criticized for harping on about the whole Gameplay/Graphics dichotomy. You all know my stance, that the latter does not make or break the former in any sense of the term. This is partly why I chose Jetpack as my Alpha entry - the other part is because I couldn't think of another game that starts with J.
Pup mentioned in his comments "If old-school graphics don’t bother you, why even bring it up?" Indeed, this is a question I am often faced with. The answer is quite simple: Because there are some people who are bothered. Because there are some people to whom top-of-the-line graphics are a crucial prerequisite of a good game.
This is why my reviews constantly emphasize a game's content over its graphical niceties, why I constantly try to advocate the view that graphics should be one of the last priorities of a game developer. Because the industry is filled to the brim with game titles that have wonderful graphics, but nothing else.
While it's true that you can create a market for something by forcing it down your customers' throats long enough, it's far more common for a market to arise through demand of a thing. It is my belief that the glorified 3D picture books that pass as games these days have arisen because the consumer base wants them, on the misguided belief that graphics are all that's important. Thus, in order to scale this back, it is necessary to reduce demand.
This is why I bring it up, Pup, in Jetpack and all my other reviews. It is my hope that my reviews can help educate the unwashed masses and show them that it's possible to have an engaging, entertaining video game with craptastic graphics. This is why I write reviews.
That said, expect something similar from the review of SunAge, because it is very much MY kind of game. To both EmP and Lighthouse, I apologies for taking so bloody long. I've had an interesting week which included, among other things, driving my girlfriend to the ER. She's okay though, so don't worry too much.
honestgamer Staff Jan 2, 2008
It's not even a question of technology, either; a perfectly beautiful game can exist on the Wii (inferior specs and all) and a nasty looking mess can exist quite easily on the Xbox 360. Visuals are important. When you think about it, 'video games' are games that look good. That's essentially their definition.
The thing about reviews for tournaments is that they're held to rather different rules. A tournament review isn't necessarily a useful game review as much as it is an interesting one. Some of the very things critical to a professional review actually can work against you when people are judging your review based on how much they liked it. The real challenge, of course--and what makes a truly great review--is covering all of those areas necessary for a professional review, but doing it with so much style that the reader (and theoretically, contest judges) don't notice until they stop to think about what your review actually contained. You'll notice that the reviews capable of doing that also tend to score highest in competitions, as well.
Anyway, that's my perspective on it all. I think that the path to being a good reviewer is to first master organization and the art of supporting your points, THEN to start looking at the things that elevate reviews to the next level (word economy, trimming out cliches and so forth).
daff Jan 2, 2008
pup Jan 2, 2008
Also, if you want people to believe in gameplay over graphics, you probably shouldn't say, "If this puts you off, stop reading this review right now." Get the graphic-whores interested and maybe, just maybe, you'll get a few willing to set their standards aside to experience a great game.
WilltheGreat Blogger Jan 3, 2008