On Gaming: Cel-Shaded Embargo
The graphics in Grand Theft Auto IV are vastly improved over the previous generation’s iterations. This stands to reason: The Xbox 360 and the PS3 have more powerful graphics capabilities. But GTA is still, subjectively, a pretty ugly game. Compare it to something like Gears of War, Call of Duty 4 or Heavenly Sword and it becomes clear that eye-popping visuals are not Rockstar’s strong suit. Some may say, that’s cool, they’re more interested in the experience than the graphics.
I doubt many people have a problem with that. GTA conveys a sense of place (and time, as evidenced by Vice City and San Andreas) and IV does such a phenomenal job at getting the details right that it’s not difficult to overlook the lack of eye candy in favor of the overall “feel.” It’s also highly likely that the sheer number of things going on in any given scene requires the graphics engine to scale back a bit to handle everything they want to show.
But for Rockstar’s obvious perfectionism, it seems a bit strange that they would consistently make graphical compromises with their flagship game. And what’s even more bizarre to my mind is that they have a very powerful artistic style closely tied to their products that they could draw on to solve the problem, but they fail to do so with each new iteration.
The style I’m referring to is the striking flat-shaded line art that graces the game covers and has done so since the original GTA III. Each successive title uses the same basic premise with minor stylistic adjustments, up to and including IV. And most significantly, each style evokes the mood of the game and looks great.
Since most graphically striking games rely on detailed textures and heavy bump maps to achieve their photorealism, it stands to reason that cel-shaded or heavily stylized games are less taxing on a system and therefore easier to produce. GTA games already have a smooth, attractive style associated with them, so why settle for the half-cocked “realism” of the engine they use?
The biggest question is more general: Why does there seem to be either a stigma attached to or a general aversion for cel-shaded graphics? Most of the games I find visually stunning, on any platform, are cel-shaded. Eternal Sonata. The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker. XIII. Robotech: Battlecry. In fact, compare the last one from Battlecry with this shot from the sequel, Invasion, where they tried to take a more realistic approach.
I watched the Wind Waker backlash with some curiosity and I watched with growing bewilderment as the wretchedly paced Twilight Princess was given raves and all I could think was that gamers were more interested in crowing about TP’s “improved” graphics than they were actually trying to get far enough in the game for something fun to actually happen. I played the game for three hours and never got into any interesting situations. Compare that to the Phantom Hourglass which captured Wind Waker’s charming style and managed to be a fun game on top of that.
Is it the “kiddie” vibe that cel-shading puts off? Do “mature” gamers feel silly playing a cartoon-y game? It makes no sense because plenty of well-regarded games are, essentially, cartoons: Street Fighter II (reinforced by the HD remix). Guilty Gear. Sam and Max. Ratchet & Clank (although its cartoon nature is semi-obscured with high res textures). Even games that don’t go with the hand-drawn look are often lauded for their use of stylistic touches, like Okami.
It’s fine to marvel at the achievements of games like Crysis. I’m certainly not denying that there is a place for those games that push the envelope in terms of photorealism. But reaching for the realistic look and then settling on something less, I wonder why there is so much aversion to taking a different approach.
