Massively^™

Pet peeve time, ladies and gentlemen. I despise the realism movement in video games. Sure, I love seeing more accurate graphics and more realistic environments -- that's the nice part. I get to use my nice computer to explore amazing landscapes and take part in some beautiful interactions.

But, whoever wrote the equation "Brown + Grass + Bland Colors = Realism" needs to have their head checked. With all of this amazing technology, we've seemed to have forgotten the magic of what games stand for. But what really gets me is the culture that's springing around this phenomenon. Apparently "toony" games aren't welcome here anymore. So I need to ask the question: "Who decided brown was an awesome color?"

BrownQuest 2 ended up proving that too much of something was bad -- horribly, horribly bad. BrownQuest 2 could barely run on most systems because no one could handle the "extremely, super cool, melt your face" graphics and ended up sitting on the shelves that holiday season. The new rationale about the game was that it had future-proofed itself, lying in wait for computers to exist to run it at its graphical peak.

That peak came, and no one rushed to buy the game. People came in and people left, and the game didn't turn out to be the huge blockbuster it was anticipated to be. And now, 4 years later, I turn on my computer and run BrownQuest 2 at maximum graphics easily, and I'm just not fully impressed. Are they good graphics? Sure they are. Are they so amazing that they make me run around my room screaming so loud that I can drown out Lewis Black? (NSFW) No, not really.

So, with all of that in mind, let's turn to something more relevant. Let's turn to World of Warcraft. Say what you will about the game, but I think we can all agree that the game design of WoW is solid. It's not the holy grail, but it's certainly good enough to make 11 million people play it. Now ask yourself the question: "Would WoW be as popular and as good if it sported the extreme graphics EverQuest 2 did?"

If you're hijacking my brainwaves, you know the answer already. Of course WoW wouldn't be popular if the graphic requirements were through the roof. Even if it was an amazing game, no one would be playing it because no one would be able to run it. In these times, we can't afford to go running off and upgrading our video cards just because we want to play that one game, *cough*Crysis*cough*.

And is World of Warcraft a beautiful game? Of course it is! The vistas, the sunsets, the snow, the shattered landscapes. And for being so "cartoony" it can still pull off some really imposing places, like Blackrock Mountain, Hellfire Peninsula, Netherstorm, Icecrown Glacier, and many others. Certainly, the graphics have improved in the latest expansion, but the other areas of the game just don't scream "I'm dated" as loudly as "realistic" games can.

Say what you want about graphics that don't push the edge of technology, use bright colors, and attempt to engage us in veritable water-colored landscapes. The truth is these things make sure that the game still looks good and appealing to us years down the line, they let the tone and aristry of the game shine through in ways that realistic graphics cannot, and they make sure that you can still play with your friends without spending wads of cash to upgrade your rig.

Because, in the end, isn't that what a massively multiplayer game is about? Playing and enjoying the world with other people at your side?

---

Colin Brennan is the weekly writer of Anti-Aliased who believes games need to grasp the imagination, not your video card. When he's not writing here for Massively, he's over running Epic Loot For All! with his insane roommates. If you want to message him, send him an e-mail at colin.brennan AT weblogsinc DOT com.

World of Warcraft is probably the best known example of a game whose graphics don't strive for realism, but instead have a cartoony, colorful look. It is sometimes criticized for being unrealistic (or even 'childish'), but this arguably misses the point. A cartoonish style allows boundaries to be stretched, making for stylised, expressive landscapes, buildings and creatures, as well as armor and weapon designs that would otherwise be merely absurd. Fantasy doesn't have to be realistic. WAR also seems to be going down this path.

On the other side, we have games that strive for a realistic look, rather than a cartoonish one: the highly detailed drifts of garbage that litter the City of Villains, the gleaming interstellar behemoths of Eve, and in the fantasy genre, the gushing gore and rippling thews of Age of Conan. Attempting a realistic look can be more immersive, but it can also be harder to engage the player emotionally, not to mention being costly on graphics resources.

Which do you prefer? Do you want your MMOs to look like games, without trying to appear realistic? Or do you disdain the more cartoony styles in favor of realism and detail?

When you hear the word "realistic" as it's applied to graphics and/or gameplay, do you cheer or wince? World of Warcraft, Mabinogi, Hello Kitty Online -- these are all titles that make a fantastical graphics aesthetic work well for them. At the same time, Age of Conan, Guild Wars, Tabula Rasa -- these games make a good showing of a more "realistic" style, and people seem to like it.

Then again, there's "realistic" taken to an extreme; we're thinking of the way The Sims makes you exercise, eat, sleep, excrete, etc. Now, while The Sims is of course not an MMO, do we want that sort of thing in our fantasy worlds? Does realism attract more people than surrealism? Could you take currently realistic/cartoony games and switch the aesthetic around and make it all better?

As far as artistic game development goes, there appear to be 2 schools of thought: Expressionistic aesthetics allow the designers to better portray emotional states, or heighten the absurdity/drama of a moment; photorealism lets players immerse themselves more readily into a world that might be unfamiliar to them, and generates a stronger feeling of verisimilitude. Of course, your mileage may vary, but in general, these modes of thought hold.

When it comes to MMOs, where an overarching story frequently takes a backseat to game mechanics, which style provides a better experience? Would WoW benefit from an overhaul of its graphics, making things more realistic-looking? Would EVE Online become a completely different game if everything were cel-shaded and anime-like?

To follow our earlier post about the Age of Conan press event, here is a Gallery full of artwork given to us by the AoC artists themselves. We're talking screenshots, renders, and concept art, all of which look outstanding. It's clear that one of the mandates for the art direction was to go for a core of realism in all things, from building design to creature physiognomy. Certainly the fantastical elements are in force, but they're tempered by a solid aesthetic that really appeals to those who aren't into the cartoony, oversaturated palette of World of Warcraft and the like.

And, in fact, I'd be willing to bet that the artists took some inspiration directly from the pulp novels themselves. There's an almost indefinable quality here that hearkens back to those great old covers. This is a well-executed strategy that will keep players fully immersed in the world, and it's all absolutely gorgeous. Without further ado, have at it!