132 Views | 7 Comments

Quest Updated: Getting Over Graphics

Quest Updated: Getting Over Graphics

The island has vast tracts of forest, corners of desert, tiny islands, and a huge volcano. There are floating rocks, mushroom cities, buildings made of beetle carapaces. A cross-island journey is one across a vast collection of environments, sceneries and enemy types. 9 years later, you ride across tundra, snow, tundra, a forest and more tundra. With snow. Always snow.

A good friend of mine is a huge Morrowind fanboy, and raises the same complaint with both Oblivion and Skyrim. The two later games, especially (he says) Oblivion, just don’t match up to the variety of locations and scenery in Morrowind. I haven’t really played Morrowind (shock horror!), but from what I can see from screenshots, I have to agree. The cities are all vastly different from one another, and there definitely is a large amount of variety throughout the Morrowind province in terms of ecology.

But I think to limit a game to simply its landscape is to cut out the heart of some of the best games, and Skyrim is included here. In fact, it’ll be my example. Yes, it is predominantly snowy tundra. Have you seen Denmark? Any game set up north near the poles is going to be dominated by an overwhelming sense of white and icicles on your nose.

What makes this sin of similarity forgiveable is the aesthetic and atmosphere of Skyrim. The creators have been incredibly faithful to the idea that inspired the Nords — the Viking style. The names are best said a Swedish accent. Arcane monolyths and henges (as in stone-) dot the landscape. The country feels hostile, defiant and resistant to civilization. As are the people who live there. The place feels steeped in history, with ruins and worn-away roads. Even the taverns have odd stories for how they got their names — many involving Nord mead and hunting trips. And the mythic and folkloric feel to the storyline are fantastically in-tune with Norse myth — it practically feels like it comes out of one of the Eddas.

We gamers are a very visual group of people. Most reviews will spend a good paragraph or three on the graphics of a game. It’s one of the first things gamers will complain about. I know it’s what has prevented me from going back to some older games like Morrowind. And hell, that’s shallow of me. What we need is the gaming equivalent of the blind-date preparation line: “well, they have a great personality.”

I’d like to see gamers openly appreciate the deeper aestheticism of games. The immersive worlds that some can create are unparalleled. The open-world nature of games allows for a kind of depth that most books, TV shows and movies can never achieve, maybe with the exception of Middle Earth. You can take the time out to explore each ruin, from the collapsed Imperial watchtowers to the creepily deserted Dwemer ruins, to the infested mines. You can discover the back-story to taverns, and you can feel the impacts the climate and surroundings have on the fiercely independent people who live there.

Take in the atmosphere along with the scenery.

If You Liked This, You Should Try These!

Name: Brendan Ward
Location: Grahamstown
Position: Columnist

  • http://www.facebook.com/nanonyous Theo Lubbe

    Might be worth noting that you can get some packs that transform Morrowind into a very modern looking game, as well as expanding on its diversity and functionality of content to bring it more in line with what’s possible in more modern games of its type. In essence, you can make Morrowind a far more immersive experience (and visually impressive one) without detracting from what the game originally was. I’d highly recommend playing it some time if you have played Oblivion and Skyrim – you’ll probably quickly realise just how valid some of the complaints people have of both Oblivion and Skyrim are.

    As for the article regarding gamers’ expectations of games’ graphics – I don’t think the issue is so much that gamers expect too much of games as that developers over-hype the utter shit out of what their engines will be capable of and under-delivering by a large margin at the end of the day, or completely missing the mark on what would be a realistic system requirement to truly experience the benchmark of visuals they’re setting during demos of their games (or engines) at CES, E3 or the like.

    If developers or publishers had to make no mention of what will and won’t be possible in their games, if they didn’t show things that look awesome that they ultimately strip from the final release without giving a good reason for ‘why’, if they don’t make any kind of mention as to what system requirements will be necessary – don’t you think gamers would be more forgiving once they have the game in their hands and simply see “oh, so this is what the game looks like”?

    Take Fable 2 and/or 3 as an example. Molineux(sp) kept raving about how open the world would be, about being able to go anywhere that you could see. What we ended up getting was just Fable 1/2 with slightly bigger areas and zero jumping functionality, as in the previous games. Yeah, really open world that. Not being able to hop over a knee-height fence to go beat the stuffing out of a scarecrow makes a world of sense.

    • BrendanWard

      I’d certainly agree about developers. If they didn’t jump the gun on annoucements and overplay graphics so much it’d be much better for the games themselves because we’d take them on what they offer, rather than what we thought they’d offer.

      On the topic of Morrowind, while I was researching for this column I did stumble upon a bunch of mods for it, so I want to get hold of a copy and try it out with the updated graphics. And then I will have no life left.

  • Yashaar Mall

    Im with you Brendan. Never been one to put graphics as a top priority in a game. Sure the game must be a good game, but graphics are a by the way thing. Of course im not advocating having appalling graphics, I’m just saying that a game will not grab my attention by purely marketing its graphics. 

  • http://egamer.co.za/author/cavie Caveshen “CaViE” Rajman

    I do believe that aesthetics and atmosphere beat out pure graphics, such games as BioShock and Freelancer are testament to that, but I have to say that sometimes it feels as if developers use the excuse to make worlds that are bland and basically lazy, just to say hey we’re going for a certain aesthetic. Not always, granted, but tell me you haven’t played a game where you were bored out of your skull with the surroundings because although you understood the need for consistency, you tired of looking at the same things over and over again.

    This wasn’t the case in something like Skyrim or say, Dead Space.

    • http://www.facebook.com/nanonyous Theo Lubbe

      Crysis2.
      Mass Effect 1.
      To a lesser extent, Mass Effect 2.

      These are titles I can grab off the top of my head that were, to at least some extent for some, ‘ruined’ because of their raw repetitiveness.

      Then you get a game like Singularity – I don’t think I saw a single notably repetitive element throughout the entire game besides the monsters and other NPCs.

    • BrendanWard

      ME1 definitely! They even reused the SAME bunker design over and over. Each world was also essentially just Nepal with different weather.

      Cavie, I will definitely admit the look of a game can be soul-crushing if repetitive unless there is some overwhelming redeeming feature, like the overall feel, or a great storyline for example.

    • http://egamer.co.za/author/cavie Caveshen “CaViE” Rajman

       Damn, Theo. Believe it or not, I originally listed the games like this: “Crysis 2, some modern shooters and to a lesser extent Mass Effect…” as examples of lazy development. You pretty took the words right out of my, well… wherever words go when you backspace them.

      I think the first Crysis was the best example of doing the same thing in slightly different ways and pulling it off in a manner that made the game feel ‘right’ rather than lazy.