Would you rather have a deep game or a pretty game?

[impeccable]

Would you rather development time be allocated to having a deep, complex game with a myriad of paths and choices to discover, several play throughs worth of exploration and outcomes based on your actions or would you prefer a more simple game with astounding graphics, where every action is captured perfect and the detail is presented without flaws, glossed and polished to perfection?

I've noticed that the nicer games are starting to look, the less in depth the worlds are starting to become. I have two prime examples to bring up, and I realize I am pretty much only talking about RPG's, but please use any games you feel appropriate as examples.

Morrowind, released in 2002, was graphically inferrer to oblivion in every way but the actual game was significantly deeper. These games were four years apart. The Original Deus Ex was an incredible play through, very unique while DE: human revolution Has a pretty straight forward game world that is one of the most polished games to date, boasting a combat system that is fun and fluid. Theses games were 11 years apart.

So tell me escapists, what are your thoughts on the matter?

 

[The Virgo]

A deep game, without a doubt. However, a deep game is always helped by pretty graphics.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

I see a problem here. This topic assumes that a game has to have multiple pathways in order to be "deep" but sometimes a game that is linear can be deeper than a game with multiple pathways because developers already know how the story is going to go and can polish it to fit that path (instead of coming up with some half baked endings in the interest of having "multiple choices")

To me, the more thought put into a game world, the "deeper" it is. This can mean multiple choices, or one path way. A game can be great or half baked either way.

But it's easier to mess up a game with choices than it is a game with a linear path, because there's more the developers need to take into consideration.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

That's an incredibly loaded question, just so you know. Of course most people are going to pick a deep game.

Though I will say, a pretty game is much easier to appreciate at a cursory glance. And being deep doesn't always work in a games favor. Its possible to be too complicated.

 

[Zhukov]

Y'know, I think I'd rather the pretty one. Technically sophisticated graphics and a well designed aesthetic? Yes please.

People preach on and on about depth and complexity, but I don't think I've ever seen a game that I would consider deep. Maybe some of the turn-based strategy games... although most of those just suffer from a shitty interface and inadequate tutorials. But something like Deus Ex? Phht. There's nothing remotely "deep" about that.

 

[ckam]

3rd option: Both.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I've noticed that the nicer games are starting to look, the less in depth the worlds are starting to become. I have two prime examples to bring up, and I realize I am pretty much only talking about RPG's, but please use any games you feel appropriate as examples.

Oh you noticed that, did you? I noticed that some time ago and have often wondered if the cost (IE deep meaningful game worlds with lots to do and see, replay value, etc) of current gen graphics has not been too great.
In answer to your question, if you haven't already guessed, is I'd prefer the a deep game over a graphically perfect game.
Ideally I'd like a deep game with a visually appealing art style, which doesn't necessarily require the best graphics in the world. Extra Credits covered this, but sadly that episode is no longer viewable as far as I know.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

I've noticed that the nicer games are starting to look, the less in depth the worlds are starting to become. I have two prime examples to bring up, and I realize I am pretty much only talking about RPG's, but please use any games you feel appropriate as examples.

Oh you noticed that, did you? I noticed that some time ago and have often wondered if the cost (IE deep meaningful game worlds with lots to do and see, replay value, etc) of current gen graphics has not been too great.
In answer to your question, if you haven't already guessed, is I'd prefer the a deep game over a graphically perfect game.
Ideally I'd like a deep game with a visually appealing art style, which doesn't necessarily require the best graphics in the world. Extra Credits covered this, but sadly that episode is no longer viewable as far as I know.

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/graphics-vs.-aesthetics

New home of EC

 

[NeutralDrow]

To be honest, I can go for either. Pretty ones tend to hold my attention for less time, overall, but they can still hold my attention to a worthwhile extent.

I play games that look like this

What do yo think my answer is ?

Pool of Radiance? Hell yes.

Strangely enough, I'm actually replaying Champions of Krynn now...

 

[New Frontiersman]

If I had to choose between the two I'd pick a deep game, but I'd prefer a fun game over both of them. It's not just a choice between depth and graphics, there are other factors too. Fun, gameplay, aesthetics, uniqueness, level design, good characterization; all of these and more apply to game development, some apply to certain games more than others and others don't apply to certain types of games at all. There are many aspects to consider when developing a game.
That's not to say pretty games aren't nice though, although I prefer the ones with interesting art styles and good aesthetics over the ones with super realistic graphics.

 

[Viral_Lola]

Deep over pretty any day but what I want is both.

 

[Wuggy]

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/graphics-vs.-aesthetics

I couldn't watch any more after he said how much he liked the style of that stupid rapper game or whatever the fuck it's called.

ParappaTheRapper is an awesome game and you know it! Seriously though, you'd refuse to hear out the point because "Stop liking things I don't like baahh baahh"?

OT: It depends on the game. If the game relies on immersion, then the aesthetics may take the front seat from the complex mechanics. If otherwise, then I'd say the depth of the gameplay is wee bit more important. Then again, I'd rather have both.

The OP seems to confuse depth with simply "open-endedness". A game doesn't have to have choice for it to be deep. It can have that, sure, but that's not what the dictating prerequisite for deep gameplay.

 

[ultrachicken]

There's a balance that needs to be struck. I don't want a game with so many pathways and things to consider that I just get confused and wrapped in brown menus with difficult to read text, but I don't want something that requires you to press only A and occasionally B to succeed.

 

[Truehare]

It really depends on what you consider "pretty". If you mean HDR, high-res textures and a bazillion polygons, then I'd go with "deep". But pretty doesn't always have to mean high-tech.

Limbo is a beautiful game. Braid is a beautiful game. Outcast looks stunning, even today. Shadow of the Colossus and Gothic 2 are absolutely gorgeous. And the list goes on ad infinitum.

Then again, I still prefer depth (and that doesn't mean "complexity", as my Limbo example clearly shows) over looks, but as many people have pointed out already, they don't have to be mutually exclusive. If you have a great artist handling the (technically simple) visuals, it won't eat up resources from other parts of the game, and you can make a deep AND beautiful game.