Poll: Discussion -- Would you sacrifice HD graphics for bigger and longer games?

[Kahunaburger]

As much as we pretend otherwise, graphics are really important to immersion in games, while I would accept a small graphical downgrade for more content in a game, I wouldn't be prepared to give up too much of it, because high fidelity graphics do play quite an important role in making a game immersive and giving the world life.

Although, I don't think anyone would accuse Halo: CE of being a game where the graphics detract from the experience. The animations, sounds, and enemy behavior are more than enough to hold up their own end, and (just like Doom) the game has aged well and will likely continue to age well.

 

[PinotEnvy]

I'd rather have developers sacrifice HD graphics for better AI than longer games.

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

I take the unlimited budget option and way more development time to keep HD and extend the lenght.

 

[SpaceBat]

I prefer tight and focused games, not sprawling, overly padded messes with shitty pacing.

Pretty much exactly why I dislike games like Skyrim. I don't care about length, especially since most of the "long" games I've played were long due to having an excessive amount of pointless and repetitive sidequests and other stuff to do. A huge world and tons of places to explore are only fun for me when I can somehow form an emotional bond with these things and have a compelling reason to do things within the world.

But on the other hand, I honestly don't give a shit about graphics either. Things don't need to be insanely HD for me to become interested and invested in a world. I prefer aesthetics and animation over super mega realistic ultimate HD graphics. It's the reason why Crysis bores me, but the first Bioshock blew me away.

I wouldn't turn in one for the other, but I'd turn in both for better storylines and characters, better thought out cities and environments et cetera.

Aesthetics + animations > graphics.

Pretty much this.

 

[V8 Ninja]

I would sacrifice HD graphics for better games, but not necessarily larger games. While more places to explore is nice, I would take the next Half-Life over a very open game world.

 

[Smooth Operator]

HD graphics... you do understand this simply means a resolution limit?

It's not about graphics and it's not about length, it is however about aesthetics, presentation, pacing and a good chunk of quality content.

 

[80Maxwell08]

Can I keep the resolution and anti aliasing? Seriously there's so many games I would be perfectly fine with as long as they aren't blurry and have good anti aliasing. Jagged edges just bug the heck out of me. Well to give a direct answer I don't really care too much for bigger but better yes.

 

[Infernai]

I am prepared to sacrifice graphics in order to gain better gameplay and longer games. HOWEVER, i would like to request that while graphics are allowed to be sacrificed, that isn't an excuse for the games to look like absolute ass and the developers to just get lazy with character models and textures. (If you want an example, look at the ps2 version of Force Unleashed...yeah). So, i guess I'm at the point that while i am prepared to sacrifice graphics for gameplay (I'm prepared to have all games look like ps2/Xbox level honestly) i still want them to put an effort into making the game world look somewhat appealing and that effort was placed into making it actually look nice.

 

[Lugbzurg]

I was just playing Doom today, and I still think it holds up, after 19 years. Imagine a game built that way on a modern disk. Think of how long it could be!

I reached the end of Half-Life a few days ago, and it may have been the greatest shooter I've ever played. Even [Prototype], which had graphics about five years out-of-date, was all kinds of awesome, and it may not have turned out as good and smooth if they'd put so much attention into high-definition graphics.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

i wouldnt mind oblivion level graphics or morrowind overhaul level, but in all honesty i dont want to go back to xbox level

Otogi 2 for the xbawks IMO looks solidly better than Oblivion and Morrowind + overhaul. How? Aesthetics + animations > graphics.

The Otogi games in general left a far greater impression on me than Oblivion or Morrowind. It baffles me how under-rated that series ended up being. I actually haven't played the second one but I beat the first.

---

The last few games I've played through, played with and, beaten were games from generations long past or, last generation because of how much more you can get out of them. There are games that I've beaten more than once and yet still haven't seen everything there is to see. I've never figured out how to make it to minus-world. I've never beaten or, even fought Ozma...Hell I'd much rather games go back to substance over style. There are games from last gen that look better than current gen games (looking at Okami and, Wind Waker there)

 

[Emiscary]

Dear gods yes. As long as everything looks *presentable* I don't need to be able to count the pores on my character's nose. And I don't need every game to be photo-realistic in it's art direction either.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

I wouldn't say "bigger". I do believe that graphics don't make the game, but many games are incredibly short and yet fantastic, Portal for example. If a game needs to be bigger, though, graphics can take a hit. An example of this is the Elder Scrolls series, which while not the most beautiful game series in the world (Skyrim included), has a massive world. Ultimately, it depends on the game.

 

[zombieshark6666]

Yes, hyper realism bothers me to no end. Capillaries, tears and animated hair just remind me that it isn't real. Total immersion breaker, uncanny valley and all.

 

[pure.Wasted]

The last few games I've played through, played with and, beaten were games from generations long past or, last generation because of how much more you can get out of them. There are games that I've beaten more than once and yet still haven't seen everything there is to see. I've never figured out how to make it to minus-world. I've never beaten or, even fought Ozma...Hell I'd much rather games go back to substance over style. There are games from last gen that look better than current gen games (looking at Okami and, Wind Waker there)

That's the nature of the beast. 2D animation from the late 90s, early 2000s looked better than the early 3D, but we're glad they stuck with it, aren't we? If they hadn't, we wouldn't have a Wind Waker to speak of, much less RDR, LA Noire, Bioshock, and countless other games that have used their visuals to great effect.

There's nothing wrong with games embracing a lower tech setting if it works for them (I'm looking at you, Bastion) but I don't think that moving deliberately backwards is key to anything. There's still too much potential in gaming to unlock moving in the other direction. Settling "merely" for making fun, awesome games now would be a disservice to the medium.

 

[Burst6]

When i think of good visuals i think 3 things.

1) Good graphics. The technical stuff. Textures, resolution, things like that. This has to be decent. It doesn't have to be amazing, just OK.

2) Good visual design. The environment has to be made with style and direction. It doesn't have to be realistic, it just has to look cool.

3) Animations. This is a major part of what makes a game immersive for me and something i think a lot of games miss. It doesn't matter how cool your graphics are, if your characters move like rusted robots or they look like they float when they run it'll look bad.


The visuals are important in a game. They make it more believable, and you can interact with other characters better if they seem more human in their movements and facial expressions, but you shouldn't go overboard with it. Costs too much money and time.


Chalk me up to yes, but to an extent.

 

[Dahdutcher]

I don't even have an HD tv to appreciate the graphics so... longer games please?

._.

This.

But even if I had an HD-tv, I would still prefer longer games over graphics.
I don't really care about that.
Sure, it's nice if the game looks beautiful, but I wouldn't have any problem with a game that looks like it's from 2000 as long as it is a pretty big game with a good story and mechanics.

 

[BathorysGraveland]

Of course. I like some good graphics and pretty visuals, but they don't have to be jaw-droppingly amazing. My computer can hardly run them anyway.

 

[Hazy992]

I'd be fine with games not striving to be ultra realistic all the time but I don't think I could go back to below HD.

 

[Grivahri]

Yes but I don't want "skyrim like" big games. I want games with varied gameplay, intelligent level design and not numerous small levels, and progression in terms of gameplay. Comprehensive games doesn't have to be one huge world with thousands of side quests. Good examples are Ninja Gaiden and Quake II

 

[Platypus540]

No, because frankly, length/size has just as little to do with the overall quality of a game as graphical fidelity. Also, 60+ hours minimum is just way too long. To me, a "long" game would be about 30-40 hours. If they're too long games can easily feel plodding, at least to me.