Support NeoGAF

[Grand Theft Scratchy]

Here's an example: Grand Theft Auto set in Liberty City, Vice City, Los Santos, San Fierro and Las Venturas. That's five cities in one open world game. You can travel between three different states (Liberty, Florida, and San Andreas) and do all sorts of side activities, explore a decent amount of interiors, and even get a six-star wanted level to which the military will come after you like the good ol' days. You could even blow up a house with one of their tanks or maybe a UFO from Area 69 in this new game. I don't know about you but that sounds like it would be my new favorite entry in the series. I would pre-order this game in a heartbeat.

The catch? The graphics aren't photorealistic. And you can forget all about ray-tracing. This game clearly looks last-gen visually but to make up for it you can do so much more. The replayability would be endless, I think.

 

[brap]

Yes. I'm sick of the same old games that look slightly better.

 

[Trogdor1123]

Yes, that and fps. That would 100% be what I want

 

[Hawks Eclipse]

Here's an example: Grand Theft Auto set in Liberty City, Vice City, Los Santos, San Fierro and Las Venturas. You can travel between three different states (Liberty, Florida, and San Andreas) and do all sorts of side activities, explore a decent amount of interiors, and even get a six-star wanted level to which the military will come after you like the good ol' days. You could even blow up a house with one of their tanks or maybe a UFO from Area 69 in this new game. I don't know about you but that sounds like it would be my new favorite entry in the series. I would pre-order this game in a heartbeat.

The catch? The graphics aren't photorealistic. And you can forget all about ray-tracing. This game clearly looks last-gen visually but to make up for it you can do so much more. The replayability would be endless, I think.

All day, every day.

Photorealism has its value and place but a good artstyle is almost always preferable for me.

As an example, I think BOTW did a really good job by opting for an artstyle that's easier on the eyes and the hardware.

 

[TGO]

Don't need to sacrifice anything, some games will have photorealistic graphics and some bigger, more complex game worlds with good graphics.
Don't have to be one or the other.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Photorealistic translates to badly rendered character models that look otherworldly. So I fucking hate em.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Yes, I would gladly sacrifice graphics for better physics simulation/interaction.

 

[EightBit Man]

The more realistic games look the less impressed I seem to be. There was a time when I was genuinely impressed by visuals, but that time is long past. Combine that with the scummy practices of publishers, and you have one less consumer buying into a lifeless product.

I also think that games have become too big in terms of size and world building. I'd rather have a small, linear, and interesting experience (think of Half-Life or Mirror's Edge) than a long one full of soulless busywork and empty space. Open world games these days are just open world for the sake of it, not because they have anything genuinely interesting to add.

When I think of great open world games, I think of Grand Theft Auto III and Vice City, Mafia, Gothic I and II, The Elder Scrolls III and IV, the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games, Fallout 3 and New Vegas, and more recently The Witcher 3. What do all these games have in common? Interesting and engaging stuff to see and to do.

 

[Soapbox Killer]

I don't want to kill real looking people. The more realistic a game looks, the less I want to murder things.

The Last of Us 2 is already too real for my taste.

So I would rather have big stylish world over hyper photorealistic.

 

[Trimesh]

Yes, absolutely - in fact, I personally don't think the "make everything photorealistic" approach is a good one at all, largely because it tends to subtly constrain the gameplay to be "realistic" too.
You end up with games like RDR2 - which is a wonderful cowboy life simulation, but I thought was pretty meh as a game.

 

[Grand Theft Scratchy]

Don't need to sacrifice anything, some games will have photorealistic graphics and some bigger, more complex game worlds with good graphics.
Don't have to be one or the other.

Are they really bigger and more complex though? GTA V was touted as being their largest ever and yet it was just southern San Andreas - a highly-detailed Los Santos and then a couple small towns that made up Blaine County.

 

[MisterBrimstone]

The one that chooses graphics over gameplay needs to be shown the exit. It's all about the gameplay guys, remember we have movies for photorealistic graphics.

 

[Grand Theft Scratchy]

As an example, I think BOTW did a really good job by opting for an artstyle that's easier on the eyes and the hardware.

I haven't played it but what are your thoughts on the game world? Especially compared to previous entries.

 

[Danjin44]

I personally much prefer more stylistic look over hyper realism.

 

[Pantz]

Yeah, it seems like indie devs can make some pretty cool games with lower quality graphics. I wonder what would happen if one of the big studios put a AAA budget into a game not concerned with graphics.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

Don't need to sacrifice anything, some games will have photorealistic graphics and some bigger, more complex game worlds with good graphics.
Don't have to be one or the other.

They may not come at the same time... and making 5 cities with meaningful content / NPCs behaviour / immersive "missions" will take a lot of time no matter how you slice it.

 

[bitbydeath]

Open worlds need to be far more interactive like Days Gone. RDR2 was a half-step in that direction, hopefully Rockstar follow through on their next entry.

 

[magnumpy]

hell no I'm sick of the endless PS4 gen graphics it's time for an upgrade :<

 

[badblue]

Gameplay > Graphics

If I wanted to see photo realistic graphics, I'd go out side.

 

[wordslaughter]

More complex and interactive, sure.

Bigger? ...? Are open world games not already "big enough"? I think it could be argued some are a bit too big. Assassin's Creed Odyssey springs to mind.

No, give me a map like GTA V but that you can actually go inside all the buildings. I'd take that over a larger map any day.

IMO Rockstar is still leading in this area. Systems on top of systems on top of systems. They all layer together to make the world come alive. And Rockstar has shown us that we don't have to choose one or the other. RDR2 is one of the most complex open world simulations AND has some of the best graphics you'll find anywhere in gaming.

Next gen can offer us BOTH. Don't thik we need to "sacrifice graphics."

 

[Graciaus]

The open world fad is the worst thing to happen in gaming in awhile. Absolutely not. Create a more linear experience and they can do more.

 

[Hawks Eclipse]

I haven't played it but what are your thoughts on the game world? Especially compared to previous entries.

First off, I apologise for not being able to properly compare BOTW with every Zelda game that came before it; I've only gotten decently far in OOT 3D and finished TPHD.

I think the game world is very wonderfully realized. I do have some minor gripes with the world, primarily to do with the inevitable "edges of the world" and one section being a bit underrealized.

When I think of Death Mountain in OOT 3D and in BOTW, there is literally a colossal difference. Add to the fact that Link is capable of traversing it up and down relatively freely (non-Uncharted climbing) and there's this very real sense of understanding the geography in an intimate manner.

There's also a robust weather system with features like how wind affects your gliding, your arrow-shooting, your bomb-throwing, rain affects anything related to fire and electricity.

It's not 100% realistic but the general rules of nature that you'd expect in real life are simulated in a fashion that mirrors the artstyle; innately understood but also suitable for gaming.

Nintendo also used and tuned the Havok physics engine so that it'd behave in a similarly realistic-but-gamey manner.

People have ragged on the game for not having labyrinthian dungeons and that all shrines are essentially built from one tileset and those points are true.

That said, I think exploring the land of Hyrule itself at your own pace and whims is one of the major highlights of the game.

I remember when I started out of the tutorial, I went to the section with the most cliffsides and slowly got through there. Others might have headed straight to Hyrule Castle, yet others might go straight to a more verdant realm.

You're mostly free to go wherever, whenever and the obstacles keeping you from doing so are not locks and keys or story flags that haven't been triggered. Rather there are usually multiple solutions to bypassing those obstacles.

It's definitely worth going in blind and exploring for yourself.

P.S. I'd love to talk about the wonderful sound design and implementation but I might do it in another post.

 

[zcaa0g]

The gameplay > graphics mantra is tired. This is 2019. Good graphics assumed; good gameplay expected.

 

[Pidull]

I think Minecraft proves that sometimes what you can do in the world is far more valuable than how the world looks. Sure, it has a certain charm, but it could look so much better.

 

[Bigrx1]

No, I don't like huge games with huge worlds any open world huge game I've played has been filled with the most boring shit ever. I'll take a smaller, tight and concise game with consistent high quality and entertainment over a HUGE game with tons of filler bore mixed in between the interesting any day.

Now, if there was ever an open world game that was non-stop interesting without the filler bullshit we would have to see, I may be up for that.

 

[Danjin44]

IMO Rockstar is still leading in this area. Systems on top of systems on top of systems. They all layer together to make the world come alive. And Rockstar has shown us that we don't have to choose one or the other. RDR2 is one of the most complex open world simulations AND has some of the best graphics you'll find anywhere in gaming.

Next gen can offer us BOTH. Don't thik we need to "sacrifice graphics."

In my opinion RDR2 is example what happens if the systems are not working properly together. Rockstar sacrifice gameplay for sake of "immersion", I don't want to see any developers try make games like them.

 

[Joe T.]

Yes, easily. I'm a little less inclined to extend that to frame rate than I am photorealistic visuals, though. Games that chug along at 30fps or worse just don't have lasting power with me, whenever I play the PC or emulated versions of those games at 60fps+ there's just no going back whatsoever to consoles, even if we're excluding all the other benefits of the platform.

Going back to the GTA example, Rockstar took a butcher's knife to the physics and AI of GTAIV to achieve V's more impressive look, sacrificing a lot of the finer details that made that world come alive like paramedics reviving knocked out NPCs, the ability to shoot weapons out NPC hands, etc. When you take the time to focus on NPC behavior it's almost a night and day difference between the two games. I'm hoping they don't take the same approach of dumbing the series down for graphics' sake in the next installment.

 

[existensmaximum]

Easily. I'm never blown away by gameplay anymore, or by the possibilities of what you can do in the game's world. The last time was Skyrim...

I mean I love shiny and impressive graphics, but the novelty wears off real quick.

 

[Stuart360]

I dont think you really need to sacrifice anything, i mean look at the sheer detail in Assassins Creed Origins and Odyssey, then look at the ridiculous sizes of the maps.

 

[abcdrstuv]

I think photorealism is going to be anti-climactic - and style (like with photography and film!) matters much more than just looking "real".

 

[pr0cs]

I want better physics and destructable worlds, like this

 

[abercrombie]

Yes.

 

[Bakkus]

Yes, although I don't really think most of these 'AAA' developers have the creatitivy to do so.

 

[A Most Virtuous Cat]

I think I speak for the majority of us when I say: physics, 60fps, fluid gameplay, good score/ music > graphics/ photo-realism.

 

[Grand Theft Scratchy]

First off, I apologise for not being able to properly compare BOTW with every Zelda game that came before it; I've only gotten decently far in OOT 3D and finished TPHD.

I think the game world is very wonderfully realized. I do have some minor gripes with the world, primarily to do with the inevitable "edges of the world" and one section being a bit underrealized.

When I think of Death Mountain in OOT 3D and in BOTW, there is literally a colossal difference. Add to the fact that Link is capable of traversing it up and down relatively freely (non-Uncharted climbing) and there's this very real sense of understanding the geography in an intimate manner.

There's also a robust weather system with features like how wind affects your gliding, your arrow-shooting, your bomb-throwing, rain affects anything related to fire and electricity.

It's not 100% realistic but the general rules of nature that you'd expect in real life are simulated in a fashion that mirrors the artstyle; innately understood but also suitable for gaming.

Nintendo also used and tuned the Havok physics engine so that it'd behave in a similarly realistic-but-gamey manner.

People have ragged on the game for not having labyrinthian dungeons and that all shrines are essentially built from one tileset and those points are true.

That said, I think exploring the land of Hyrule itself at your own pace and whims is one of the major highlights of the game.

I remember when I started out of the tutorial, I went to the section with the most cliffsides and slowly got through there. Others might have headed straight to Hyrule Castle, yet others might go straight to a more verdant realm.

You're mostly free to go wherever, whenever and the obstacles keeping you from doing so are not locks and keys or story flags that haven't been triggered. Rather there are usually multiple solutions to bypassing those obstacles.

It's definitely worth going in blind and exploring for yourself.

P.S. I'd love to talk about the wonderful sound design and implementation but I might do it in another post.

Honestly thinking about picking up a Switch Lite to play it. The last entry I played was A Link Between Worlds and I liked how you could choose which dungeon to explore first but Breath of the Wild looks and sounds like they really doubled down on the exploration.

I've only played five Zelda games - A Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, Wind Waker, Four Swords, and A Link Between Worlds. I've never finished any of them (almost did on the 3DS) but I think this might be the one. It's not known for having a higher difficulty, is it?

 

[Belmonte]

If they sacrifice graphics to make bigger and emptier worlds, with a lot of uninteresting collectibles for trophy hunting and bars to fill, please, don't, and give me my ray tracing back.

If they sacrifice graphics to make the world more interactable, like Zelda Breath of the Wild or with NPCs schedule, choices and consequences like Gothic and other CRPGs, then is a resounding yes. In fact, if the devs want to go that way, the limit of what I can handle, graphics-wise is much more wide than only last gen.

I would definitely pay $60 for a PS2-like Dwarf Fortress.

 

[Woo-Fu]

I don't see the point in presenting this as a negotiation or a trade-off when that is anything but the case.

Maximizing profitability is incompatible with your game design vision, it is simple as that. Support the indies and fund the kickstarters of people attempting to make the sort of games you want because you're not going to be getting them from the major publishers any time soon.

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

Yes

 

[Alexios]

I'd easily sacrifice graphics (in general, not just photo realistic, since those have yet to be achieved, and won't be any time soon, lol, can't sacrifice what you don't have) AND size (who thinks game worlds can't be big enough already, it's what in them that's the problem, not their size), lol.

 

[Rodolink]

Complex yes, bigger no.
I prefer a richtet experience (deus ex, dark souls, botw) than size with empty spaces.

 

[GHG]

No.

If anything game world's need to become smaller more well realised spaces.

I'd happily trade thousands of square feet to have a game set in a small town where every building was enterable, every NPC had a meaningful reason to exist and every object is interactable.

 

[Hawks Eclipse]

Honestly thinking about picking up a Switch Lite to play it. The last entry I played was A Link Between Worlds and I liked how you could choose which dungeon to explore first but Breath of the Wild looks and sounds like they really doubled down on the exploration.

I've only played five Zelda games - A Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, Wind Waker, Four Swords, and A Link Between Worlds. I've never finished any of them (almost did on the 3DS) but I think this might be the one. It's not known for having a higher difficulty, is it?

Oh you reminded me, I did play partway through ALBW and yes, they took that idea of freedom and went to town with it in BOTW.

The difficulty curve is kind of like an inverted bell: it starts out cruel, gets easier as you acquire gear, hearts and knowledge whilst the end section is fairly tough and meant to pose a sizeable challenge.

However, outside of the very early hours, the rest of the difficulty is almost entirely of your own making. I actually avoided combat for the most part because I was hoarding my precious weapons lolol.

I'd reckon that the most likely reason you might not finish the game is because you don't want it to end or you got bored at some point and decided to drop it.

Just to reiterate, BOTW is built around the idea of giving the player as much freedom as they could, so much so that even the story is made to be pieced together regardless of the order in which you uncover the details.

Lastly, if your budget and living circumstances (room size, availability of TV etc.) isn't an issue, I'd highly recommend you get/borrow a regular Switch.

BOTW plays great in portable but it's quite the experience to see it on a big screen too!

 

[Hawks Eclipse]

No.

If anything game world's need to become smaller more well realised spaces.

I'd happily trade thousands of square feet to have a game set in a small town where every building was enterable, every NPC had a meaningful reason to exist and every object is interactable.

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided should fit the bill.

 

[Starfield]

Everyone says yes but when the actual game comes out everyone goes "BUT MUH GRAPHIX"

y'all a bunch of whiners

 

[Mato]

What sacrifice? I'd gladly throw it in the fire.

 

[bellome]

I just need innovative game concepts, better physics, better IA.

I am fine with 1080p resolution (although i have a 4k tv)

 

[ColonialRaptor]

I want both, is there something wrong with that?

 

[stickkidsam]

Jesus fuck YES!!

I'd ALWAYS prefer that games focus more on the gameplay than whether or not I can make out the details of every pube on my half naked warrior monk.

 

[Dhoulmagus2008]

Certainly. Or maybe a mix of both.

 

[Virex]

I would sacrifice it all for 60FPS