The Game Plan 12.07.07: Gears Killed the Video Game Star

Posted by James McGee on 12.07.2007

This week, I lament the attitude of "graphics first, everything else second."

I hate Jurassic Park. Oh, don't get me wrong, I think it's a great flick. I saw it multiple-times at the theater. I own it. I think its Spielberg doing what he does best. But after that first shot of the computer-generated Brachiosaurus grazing in the tree-tops, movies were never the same. CGI became the standard, and movie-goers have had to suffer through one over-wrought digital disaster after another ever since. Forget whether or not CGI is appropriate for a film, just make bloody sure there's something there that wasn't created on set. For every director that understands where and how to use computer graphics—your Spielbergs and Peter Jacksons—there's a hack that thinks the way to make a movie good is to fill it with a bunch of photo-shop monstrosities. And it all goes back to those beautiful, breathtaking, flippin' dinosaurs. Lord I hate that movie.

But movies aren't the only victim of this technological plague. Video games have suffered too. I know how silly that must sound—games suffering from advances in technology. Sure, better technology leads to better games, but that's only if the designers understand how to use it. The current generation of systems has the most advanced, mind-boggling capabilities yet, which only makes the problem worse. You know the old saying: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But if Jurassic Park planted the seed of corruption in movies, who's responsible for the gaming equivalent? That's easy: reigning graphic-whore champion, Gears of War. Like Jurassic Park, it came along innocently enough, just trying to be a bit of popcorn entertainment. But its success runs the risk of tainting all that is good about gaming. I'm James McGee, and here's The Game Plan.


Ooooh, pretty…

Before I'm labeled a Gears-hater, let me remind everyone that I praised it waaaaay back in my very first column. I used it to illustrate my Purpose Driven Philosophy—that is, that you have to judge things by what they're trying to be instead of what you think they should be. I defended Gears against all the people who criticize it for being derivative and having a lousy story, reasoning that all it was ever meant to be was a blockbuster testosterone-trip of a shooter. It would have received all the accolades and demonstrated such staying power if there wasn't a solid game at the center of it all. But let's be honest: when the first footage showed up, none of us said "Wow, look at that solid gameplay!" We all drooled over the graphics. "Holy crap," we said. "Is that really what the next generation has in store? Sign me up!" Don't lie—you're just as guilty as me.

No matter how good the gameplay, I seriously doubt Gears of War would have received half of the attention it has if it wasn't (arguably) the most visually impressive game released to date. There are far better games out there…just not many that look better. My biggest fear is that, like so often happens in Hollywood, other creators will see what made Gears so popular—or at least what they think made it so popular (i.e. the amazing graphics)—and shift their focus to a game's visual design first and foremost, neglecting all the meat of the gaming experience—things like gameplay, story, etc. It isn't like style over substance isn't already a problem in all forms of art, but by setting the bar so incredibly high, Gears runs the risk of aggravating the problem to epidemic levels.


Beautiful, but shallow…How typical.

A recent example that comes to mind is Heavenly Sword. Don't let the high scores fool you. Dig deeper into actual reviews, and you keep running up against the same things: derivative overall, sometimes frustrating gameplay, criminally short, but the graphics are to die for. 411's own Nathan Grayson summed it up beautifully in his review: "Heavenly Sword was supposed to help save the PS3 this fall, but instead it just feels like wasted potential." (Read the full review for his detailed breakdown of the wonderous graphics and disappointing final product.) How sad is it that Sony squandered the PS3's much-lauded power by valuing the shock-and-awe of pretty pictures over the basic building blocks of a great game? The advances made by Heavenly Sword could prove to be amazing tools in the hands of the right designers. But that's all graphics are: one tool among the many used to build a great game. Buying a fifty-dollar Craftsman torque wrench from Sears doesn't make me a great mechanic, and being able to slap some shiny graphics on a game doesn't make for a great developer.


That was for the "Halo 2.5" comment.

I'm laying all this at the feet of Gears of War, but while it may have inspired the problem, it obviously isn't causing the problem. It's all the people who look at it and get all the wrong ideas about what a game should be, from company execs, to designers, to gamers themselves. Remember when the multiplayer beta for Halo 3 hit? How many times did we hear "Halo 2.5" because the graphics weren't up to par with Gears in some eyes? For every rational voice that offered suggestions to tweak the gameplay, or wondered aloud if the single-player campaign would offer a satisfying conclusion to the story, there were fifteen morons shouting "Halo is fugly, Gears FTW!" If Bungie had trotted out some pixilated mess that looked like they'd cooked it up in the early ‘90s, yeah, there's a problem with the graphics. But they gave us a product that delivered where it counts, and looked amazing despite not being the photo-realistic masterpiece that Gears represents. I'm not saying games shouldn't keep up with the current graphical standards. I'm saying graphics shouldn't be the first and last word, as far too many people seem to think they are.