Just some thoughts stemming from my time spent playing Xenoblade Chronicles, and some information I've been picking up over the past couple years concerning game development.
It's been made quite clear that HD graphics are expensive (and presumably time-consuming), and I've starting to wonder if the push towards greater graphical fidelity has actually been getting in the way of the creation of the massive story-driven games (referred to as "grand adventures" in another topic) seen in previous generations of gaming. There's no question that the hardware can support visuals right now, and there definitely have been many impressive-looking games over the past few years; but I'm sure everyone has also noticed the stronger presence of shorter games, and that longer games seem much rarer these days.
I'm beginning to suspect the reason why games have been getting shorter is simply due to the cost of production. While it's true a publisher can make more money when a storyline is spread over a trilogy of shorter games rather than one big game, they also have to put much more resources into the entire project; they still have to make some profit, and splitting the game up makes for a safer investment. However, it's not unreasonable to think that they might actually be open to making bigger games... if the cost of production could be reduced. With HD graphics being a huge cost for many games, they'd be a good candidate to get the axe; after all, people do play older games and there are ways to compensate for the lack of visual fidelity (namely, good art design).
---
Xenoblade Chronicles is a fairly obvious example, and is absolutely massive for a single-player game. The length of the game is stated to be somewhere around 60-80+ hours for the main quest alone, and there are plenty of sidequests for those which are interested. There's a video in the spoiler below for a brief tour:
But yes, the unavoidable issue with the game is the low-resolution graphics; being on the Wii means the game isn't going to have HD graphics, but even then it's not too impressive in terms of fidelity. Still, the art design in the game is phenomenal; and when combined with the impressive draw distances for the game's locales, the game manages to look great (once you get used to the lower quality of the visuals, speaking from the technical perspective).
So why is a game that big on the Wii, the least powerful console of the current generation? Well, aside from being published by Nintendo. It would appear that the developpers decided earlier on that they didn't need high-quality graphics, possibly due to being released on the Wii. Not having to do HD graphics meant they could produce the game for less cost... or for the same cost as a game with HD graphics (if still not less), make the game much bigger. An interesting design choice, but Xenoblade Chronicles has certainly benefitted from it.
---
The question is whether or not other developpers and/or publishers are willing to consider this sort of thing. HD graphics do somewhat spoil the player, meaning playing a game with less sophisticated visuals at least takes some getting used to; if they're unwilling to tough it out for a bit, the game could be alienating and could end up being a flop (commercially speaking) as a result. The problem could be that they could view HD graphics as a necessity; nevertheless, the lower cost of production is definitely an incentive.
So the real question is should they consider it.
Or more specifically, is the player community willing to consider this option?
What do you all think? Are you willing to give up high-definition visuals if it meant the games you buy are bigger & longer? No difference in the cost to you, no change in the overall budget of a game's production, just a re-allocation of the development costs away from the visuals and into adding to a game's content. Yay or nay?
Also feel free to elaborate your answers as well.
---
EDIT:
Seems quite a few people are misinterpretting my intent here, though they are bringing up some good points in the process.
The main aim here is concerning the affordability of making larger games with HD graphics.
Yes, longer games aren't automatically better (and some games are better if they're shorter); that's always going to be a risk with any game, and the assumption is that quality isn't going to be an issue here. Padding out a game with unnecessary and/or repetitive content isn't the problem, and I'm mostly referring to story-driven games rather than the sandbox games.
What I'm trying to say is that if a developper were to see a publisher about getting a large story-driven game made with high-definition visuals, it would be turned down by the publisher simply because the higher cost of development means too much of a risk for them (and will probably take a bite out of their profits). However, if the developper was willing to consider using lower resolution visuals (it would still have good asthetic design), the lower cost might make the publisher consider otherwise and approve the project... if it wouldn't be a hinderance to sales to not bother with HD visuals.
So the question is "Would you, the player, be willing to play a game with less detailed graphics?"
It's been made quite clear that HD graphics are expensive (and presumably time-consuming), and I've starting to wonder if the push towards greater graphical fidelity has actually been getting in the way of the creation of the massive story-driven games (referred to as "grand adventures" in another topic) seen in previous generations of gaming. There's no question that the hardware can support visuals right now, and there definitely have been many impressive-looking games over the past few years; but I'm sure everyone has also noticed the stronger presence of shorter games, and that longer games seem much rarer these days.
I'm beginning to suspect the reason why games have been getting shorter is simply due to the cost of production. While it's true a publisher can make more money when a storyline is spread over a trilogy of shorter games rather than one big game, they also have to put much more resources into the entire project; they still have to make some profit, and splitting the game up makes for a safer investment. However, it's not unreasonable to think that they might actually be open to making bigger games... if the cost of production could be reduced. With HD graphics being a huge cost for many games, they'd be a good candidate to get the axe; after all, people do play older games and there are ways to compensate for the lack of visual fidelity (namely, good art design).
---
Xenoblade Chronicles is a fairly obvious example, and is absolutely massive for a single-player game. The length of the game is stated to be somewhere around 60-80+ hours for the main quest alone, and there are plenty of sidequests for those which are interested. There's a video in the spoiler below for a brief tour:
Xenoblade Chronicles Tour[/youtube]
The location the video reaches at the end is about 20-25 hours into the game on a no-frills playthrough, and it's stated to not even be the midway point of the game; it's actually stated to show only a mere 10% of the game world. It's also a bee-line from the starting area to that point, never mind exploring everything else in the game's massive locales; it also bypasses a sizable early-game dungeon, though that's because it becomes inacessible after it's completed.
The location the video reaches at the end is about 20-25 hours into the game on a no-frills playthrough, and it's stated to not even be the midway point of the game; it's actually stated to show only a mere 10% of the game world. It's also a bee-line from the starting area to that point, never mind exploring everything else in the game's massive locales; it also bypasses a sizable early-game dungeon, though that's because it becomes inacessible after it's completed.
But yes, the unavoidable issue with the game is the low-resolution graphics; being on the Wii means the game isn't going to have HD graphics, but even then it's not too impressive in terms of fidelity. Still, the art design in the game is phenomenal; and when combined with the impressive draw distances for the game's locales, the game manages to look great (once you get used to the lower quality of the visuals, speaking from the technical perspective).
So why is a game that big on the Wii, the least powerful console of the current generation? Well, aside from being published by Nintendo. It would appear that the developpers decided earlier on that they didn't need high-quality graphics, possibly due to being released on the Wii. Not having to do HD graphics meant they could produce the game for less cost... or for the same cost as a game with HD graphics (if still not less), make the game much bigger. An interesting design choice, but Xenoblade Chronicles has certainly benefitted from it.
---
The question is whether or not other developpers and/or publishers are willing to consider this sort of thing. HD graphics do somewhat spoil the player, meaning playing a game with less sophisticated visuals at least takes some getting used to; if they're unwilling to tough it out for a bit, the game could be alienating and could end up being a flop (commercially speaking) as a result. The problem could be that they could view HD graphics as a necessity; nevertheless, the lower cost of production is definitely an incentive.
So the real question is should they consider it.
Or more specifically, is the player community willing to consider this option?
What do you all think? Are you willing to give up high-definition visuals if it meant the games you buy are bigger & longer? No difference in the cost to you, no change in the overall budget of a game's production, just a re-allocation of the development costs away from the visuals and into adding to a game's content. Yay or nay?
Also feel free to elaborate your answers as well.
---
EDIT:
Seems quite a few people are misinterpretting my intent here, though they are bringing up some good points in the process.
The main aim here is concerning the affordability of making larger games with HD graphics.
Yes, longer games aren't automatically better (and some games are better if they're shorter); that's always going to be a risk with any game, and the assumption is that quality isn't going to be an issue here. Padding out a game with unnecessary and/or repetitive content isn't the problem, and I'm mostly referring to story-driven games rather than the sandbox games.
What I'm trying to say is that if a developper were to see a publisher about getting a large story-driven game made with high-definition visuals, it would be turned down by the publisher simply because the higher cost of development means too much of a risk for them (and will probably take a bite out of their profits). However, if the developper was willing to consider using lower resolution visuals (it would still have good asthetic design), the lower cost might make the publisher consider otherwise and approve the project... if it wouldn't be a hinderance to sales to not bother with HD visuals.
So the question is "Would you, the player, be willing to play a game with less detailed graphics?"
