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

[MiriaJiyuu]

These aren't the movies, interactivity and game mechanics are where the enjoyment in a game comes from, not the story or the visuals.

We don't say a game was fun because it had a good story or stunning visuals, those are just added bonuses, we say a game is fun because we enjoyed whatever game mechanics the developers gave us, whether it's being able to blow someone's head off from 500 ft away with a sniper rifle for no other reason then because you can, or launching wingless birds at pig's houses and destroying them, personally I find both incredibly fun and that's why the games were enjoyable. Any semblance of a story or stunning visuals is not necessarily important to that.

Opinion: It's a balance issue, some games could stand to put a little more effort into content and give us a bit of a longer and more fleshed out story, or a story at all in some cases, (Borderlands), while others could stand to be not so long it makes me want to claw my own eyes out, (Witcher series, I'm looking at you).



...That said the visuals certainly make a sniper round to the head all the more satisfying.

 

[370999]

I think it's a false choice, we should have both. In addition, I would say both of them aren't the sole factor in making a game good so there is that. A 120 hour game which is awful to play isn't going to interest me.

 

[Bad Jim]

A couple of points

1) Another factor which is very important is how niche/mainstream the game is. I do believe that mainstream games are fairly short because the average gamer doesn't actually play them all that long. So short, HD games will make most of the money while low res epics are made on a low budget, which will mean even more graphical sacrifices in the name of length.

However . . .

2) Sacrificing HD does not require going back to the graphical standards of the past. Low resolution, polygon counts and texture detail are down to the hardware limitations of days gone by:

-You can use multitexturing, overlaying a detail texture onto a main texture to create the appearance of a larger texture with fine detail. It doesn't look as good as a high resolution texture, but it looks a heck of a lot better than just a low resolution texture. The detail textures themselves require extra work though. It's an old technique but wasn't used much because it was slow, and graphics cards that were fast enough were typically able to handle high resolution textures.

-You can use curved graphics primitives. Closely modelling something like the human face will always require work, but you can make a vaguely head shaped blob quickly, and it won't be obvious that it's made of polygons.

-You can use procedural generation. It's probably not a great idea to generate the whole world that way, but it's great for filling in little details. You can make a landscape with broadly defined terrain, then let algorithms make small terrain undulations, add trees, add foliage etc. You can generate some textures.

-You can just re-use a lot of assets. Do cheap tricks like palette swapping to avoid things looking too similar.

You can drastically cut back on graphics without them looking terrible. They will be rather repetitive, but not an offense to the eyes like early 3D games were.

 

[OutcastBOS]

Honestly, I couldn't give any less of a shit about graphics than I do right now. I don't even HAVE an HDTV, so that makes one strike against it. I'd much rather have more content, rather than being able to see more beads of sweat, or that extra freckle on the left tit of the scantily clad female lead. So you know how I'll vote.

 

[funcooker11811]

I would rather just have better level design. Its really hard to find levels in games where everything just flows right, but without relying on quick time events or auto targeting or something. Best example is Act VI from the original Ninja Gaiden. After dying in it quite a few times and having to go back through it after dying to the bosses another few times, you get into this kind of weird, transcendent state. Everything that use to look like a cheap death is really just another note on music sheet, making something that takes a good bit of skill to get through, but without slowing down(except for those fucking jetpack ninjas).

Also, what happened to cel-shading? Why did that go out of style?

 

[ThePS1Fan]

Eyup. I'd take that any day of the week.

 

[josemlopes]

I can totally dig a game with simple visuals, but the resolution has to be high (HD), the textures them selfs dont need to be HD (Team Fortress 2 textures dont need to be HD for most cases because it uses a lot of solid surfaces)

Spoiler

And the fact that there isnt supposed to be a lot of detailed stuff on the scenery means that the levels can be clean and simple.
Here is a good example of simple graphics looking good (other then TF2)

 

[EmperorSubcutaneous]

I really don't like long games. Anywhere from 2-10 hours is about ideal for me.

The only exception being MMOs where there's no distant conclusion weighing on my mind and I can just enjoy myself and do whatever I want for as long as I want.

I also don't want super-realistic HD graphics, but I do want a good art style.

So in conclusion...I really don't care.

 

[viranimus]

Depends on the game really.

FPS, absolutely, because they REALLY need some help to make them better.

However I typically am a RPG player and really many RPGs are padded too long as it is. So in that sense, no longer would not be better, but I would sacrifice RPG graphic fidelity in exchange for good combat akin to Dark Souls if not better. Otherwise, no.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm fine with last gen graphics and graphics can stay the same or all I care, on the next gen with 50 GB discs standard and such, we could se awesome games with decent graphics.

Of course, voiceovers still limit things, and people actually have to WRITE for games that expansive.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

This. Considering a well designed engine will scale up with the hardware, there's absolutely no reason /not/ to allow higher resolutions in a 3D game. Heck, the initial version of Mechwarrior 2 was capable of putting out better than HD resolutions, and that was a DOS game. You can have an HD resolution without really needing to put immense amounts of effort into photo realism, which is where most of the cost of modern game graphics comes from. In fact, I kind of prefer it when you get high rez games with cartoony graphics.

 

[LilithSlave]

Well, yeah. Considering that I don't much care for high level graphics to begin with.

16-Bit games look better than everything.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Absolutely. Graphics don't have to be amazing for the game to be good, or even for the game to look good (aesthetics and animations > DOF and motion blur).

agreed, although I would like the aspect of good mod tools for those who would like to beef up those graphics in any way possible (for those of us who might appreciate it after a runthrough or two of the game.)

This is one major reason why I am stoked for wastelend 2, a great team with a great idea with no annoying publisher AND we are getting a decent mod kit?

fuck.yes.

 

[Brad Calkins]

I play Runescape, what does that tell you?

 

[KingGolem]

I'd sacrifice HD graphics in a heartbeat. The graphics of Xenoblade Chronicles are more than sufficient, and coupled with the superlative visual design, it's the best looking game I've played this year. An example I like to bring up is The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. By modern standards the graphics are "terrible," but it has such good visual design that I prefer the look of OOT to most modern games I can think of.

 

[Reincarnatedwolfgod]

games don't need any hd if they are stylistic. stylized games just needs good aesthetics and animation.

a game trying to be realistic can't get away with that. even now games trying to be realistic can easily fall into the uncanny valley. take away hd from all games and ones that strive for realism will never get out of the uncanny valley.

over all it depends weather the game strives for realism or goes for stylization.

really size does not matter(stop being immature) it is the content. example(non hd game):i fail to see how giving no more heroes bigger world would help it. in fact i think it should be a smaller.

a padded game counts as making the a longer game. so making a game longer does necessarily make it better. there is such a thing as a too long

that game has aged well so far
i kinda want to play it again but after my finals

 

[Moagim]

For me 40 hours is plenty for a single player game, and since all the 40+ hour single player experiences I have played recently also already have amazing graphics, I actually would consider it less appealing if for example, the Witcher 2 downgraded all of it's graphics to add 20 hours to the game. I think that would be too long. On the other hand, there are plenty of games with shit graphics that are only 6 hours long anyways, so I find the question kind of moot since graphics and substance never were mutually exclusive. I think Portal 2 is another example to consider. Portal 2 had by no means bad graphics, they served the purpose for the game they were used in, but they were nowhere near the cutting edge that say Crysis 2 or The Witcher 2 were. Yet despite Portal 2 having a pre-established engine to run on and despite it's lesser focus on visuals, it was still only 6 hours. 6 amazing hours, for certain, but 6 nonetheless. I have no doubt that Valve said "This is the length that we want the game to be because it is suitable for the intensity of the game". At the end of the day, I think the only determinant for the length and visual quality of the game is the developer. If they want awesome graphics and 40 hours of gameplay they'll make it happen. If they want a 5-minute long 8-bit sidescroller, they'll do that, too.

 

[TakeshiLive]

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.

One definite recurring downside is that many games such as Skyrim and BF3's devs assume that we're playing a large, 46 inch HD LCD TV. Then the text is friggin' impossible to read! Not only that, my TV is almost as old as I am and it crops off a bit of the left and right side of the screen. This is one small detail that CoD has implemented for people with shittier TV's, adjustable screen dimensions and I appreciate that.

 

[NerfedFalcon]

Okami is still one of the best games ever, and you hardly even notice that it can't go into a higher resolution than 480p without emulation - a win for eye-candy fans and people who love adventure games alike. Unfortunately, it didn't sell well enough for the major players to pay it any heed as a possible benchmark.

 

[ResonanceSD]

I've got a vested interest in pretty games due to my new screens =D

But still, yes, to an extent. Also it'll keep me at max GFX for longer XD