I dont have a problem with great graphics. I would be a stupid fool if I refused to play any game that featured fancy-pantsy polygons instead of good old-fashioned 16-bit pixel art. But in a world where breathtaking, hyper-realistic graphics are de rigeur, people are forgetting that great graphics arent required to make a great game. The most recent iteration of Tomb Raider is gorgeous. Crystal Dynamics did a superb job of creating beautiful environments, characters, and cutscenes. But did I think the game was fun? Not really. I thought it was repetitive and scatterbrained, not to mention it implemented the dreaded health regeneration technique I mentioned previously. (For a researcher whos never had anything bad happen to her, Lara Croft can sure take a machete to the throat like a champ). I had an infinitely better time playing Animal Crossing for the Nintendo Gamecube, which I still boot up every once in a while. This has a lot to do with personal preference. Regardless, even though Tomb Raider had a larger budget, a bigger development team, and the luxury of being a part of a celebrated franchise, Animal Crossing (which was initially in development for Nintendos aging N64 console before being quickly tuned up and slapped on the Gamecube) provided a much more memorable experience for me. Is it sad that I remember that Tom Nook pays 3,000 Bells for a Red Snapper? Probably. But the fact that I connected so deeply with Animal Crossing and not a Triple-Distilled, Grade-A, Premium-Cut cash cow like Tomb Raider proves that sometimes graphics and performance should take a backseat to solid, cohesive gameplay.
Eller likes a lot of old video games, and some new video games. Follow him on Twitter (@JordanEller) for updates about articles, but mostly silly jokes.
