Support NeoGAF

[Mista]

If I can do so much more then yes. But having a bigger world just for the sake of it just being bigger and dull then no thanks

 

[H4ze]

Would sacrifice too for stable 60 fps

 

[Katsura]

Yup. Don't really care about graphics fidelity. As long as the art direction is good, it can be low poly for all i care

 

[Farawayfromhell]

Nope.
It's time to have both.

 

[Teslerum]

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.

Yes and no.

Yes, as in generally making game worlds a decent size and no, because that sounds fucking boring. Content needs to match up and even then a game world overstays its welcome.

Additionally what your idea needs are excellent traversel mechanics, otherwise you end up at a point where its fast-travel mania and you spend 90% of game time looking at load screens.

 

[deriks]

I'm happy to live in a world with Breath of the Wild and Resident Evil

 

[ksdixon]

I've long said that Gameplay trumps Graphics, for me personally.

 

[Fake]

I prefer sacrifice nothing for bigger, more complex game world.

 

[ROMhack]

Not for me. I've given up on reality owing to how hard and generally scary it is. It's only by entering photorealistic worlds in videogames and pretending I'm there that keeps me going on this cold, empty rock hurtling through the universe.

 

[Birdo]

Yep. Good design is far more important to me than photo realism.

The only time I prefer photo realism is in racing games and sports games. Because they are simulating real life.

 

[Closer]

I want better AI, better physics and better interactions with the game's world. Everything else is secondary, including graphics.

 

[The_Mike]

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

Yes let us get open world picture books.

 

[xool]

yes

I'd rather see art than scanned images. Though recent photogrammetry based games look amazing too.

Works better with some genres though I think. Fantasy - yes, WW2 based FPS - no so much

 

[Kagero]

I don't think photorealism is the hindrance to performance. That's just art style. It's resolution and framerate that's the problem. I personally prefer a more detailed world over resolution and framerate any day.

 

[Vawn]

Most games already overstay their welcome. I'll take more compact, shorter games where every portion is highly polished, including graphics and performance.

 

[INC]

Better physics, destruction and AI

 

[Contica]

Never gave a damn about photorealism, not about to start now.

Graphics aren't that important. Good execution of a visual style is far more important than how advanced it is.

 

[Tiamat2san]

Yep but only if the art direction is great.

 

[Mochilador]

I would sacrifice open world games for linear games.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

i'd much rather have more complex game worlds. "realism" is an illusion anyways.

just feels like games have so much potential, they don't just have to stick to photorealism like movies, they can have animation, they can have all kinds of new experiences. making a realistic game means you are already limiting yourselves, i'd rather see what game devs can accomplish when there are no restraints.

 

[Saruhashi]

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.

The main problem I can see here is that there is too much content.

I know that sounds a bit daft. I pay my 60 bucks for the game and then moan that there is too much content. What I mean though is that the game will get boring long before I am able to play all of the content.

Even then, would a game of this size cost just 60 bucks? You'd have to think that with all of the content it's going to cost more to make and so it's going to be sold for more? Unless the content is mostly copied and pasted to save time and money and that brings me back to the first problem.

My experience with the recent Ubisoft open worlds (Farcry5 , Assassin's Creed Origins and Odyssey) and with RDR2 is that I play the game for a couple of days but then need to take a break as it just gets too boring. Then after a few weeks I might go again for a few missions and activities before taking a break again.

An endlessly replayable game just sounds like a game that will eventually become boring.

I'd rather developers show restraint and don't repeat a good idea over and over and over until it becomes tired.

If the choice was between better graphics and larger, more complex, game worlds then I would recommend that developers maybe cut away some of the fat from their game-world plans and use the resources to improve graphics.

Some games have tons and tons of content but you've probably discovered all the new stuff after about 10 hours and from there it's just "oh another enemy outpost, oh another race to point B" etc.

 

[ethomaz]

Why not smaller worlds?
Open world is pretty overrated.

 

[Fbh]

I think there's room for both approaches and I like both of them. I tend to preffer gameplay focused franchises but every now and then it's also fun to play one of those games that focuses on pure visual spectacle.

But in general terms yeah, I'd honestly be ok if most next gen games looked like current gen ones while expanding on other areas like making more complex and interactive worlds, having better physics, etc, The one thing I don't need or want is bigger worlds, if anything I'd like to see smaller areas that are more detailed and have a more hand crafted feeling to them. Like Prague in mankind divided was way more fun to explore than a lot of giant open worlds, if someone managed to get that level of world design on a mid scale gameworld it would be amazing.

 

[hooijdonk17]

I'd personally be OK with an Ultima game that looks like Ultima VII. Or Ultima VI. Or even Ultima V.

 

[LokusAbriss]

No. Atleast from next-gen on, I expect both. Current consoles are too weak obviously, but soon there is no excuse anymore. But like others said, it needs to fit a purpose.

Way more important are physics and game world interactions. Better graphics will show the weaknesses in those areas.

 

[MetalRain]

I think Outer Wilds did this quite well. Graphics are good enough, each planet have lots of details and there are quite a bit space to explore.

 

[GameOfPixelsX]

Depends on the game.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

Why not smaller worlds?
Open world is pretty overrated.

this is the problem with realism. it sort of demands an open world. there are no invisible walls IRL. problem is, if you decide to make a linear game, in order to focus on graphics, you paradoxically draw more attention to the gaminess of it all. the more realistic the graphics, the more grating the invisible walls will be. MGS1 Snake not jumping over boxes is ok, but when he's as realistic as MGS4, a 2 foot tall box as invisible wall just seems silly.

chasing realism introduces all sorts of similar problems, drawing attention to issues that otherwise wouldn't be a concern. level design, animation length, game control latency, etc. character AI. a game company could get lost in the weeds just focusing on realism, trying to make the most realistic game ever, near simulation quality, but if they didn't consider the game itself, the play, it won't matter at all.

i think chasing the realism dragon just introduces more problems than it solves. i'd rather people focus on the depths of the gameplay rather than the surface presentation.

 

[Katsura]

I think Outer Wilds did this quite well. Graphics are good enough, each planet have lots of details and there are quite a bit space to explore.

Really? I thought the art style was awful and the areas were small
EDIT
I can't into reading. I read Outer Worlds

 

[-Troid-]

I wouldn't equate bigger/more variety to necessarily being better.

I think the industry should move away from the trend of this gen trying to make every game an open world experience. Breath of the Wild was one of the few exceptions I felt because it at least had complex physics/universal mechanics that made for an interesting sandbox. But as much as I like BotW I'm kind of hoping not all Zelda games are just like it from now on.

 

[Dr. Claus]

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.

I prefer the smaller worlds of Vice City, Bully, and 3 over the larger San Andreas for GTA. I don't ever need photorealistic worlds, I just want a well made world that doesn't feel needlessly large and pointless (which GTA V does).

 

[johntown]

I would rather have a more in depth and complex game as opposed to one that looks great but feels dead and lifeless (like all GTA games).

 

[ethomaz]

this is the problem with realism. it sort of demands an open world. there are no invisible walls IRL. problem is, if you decide to make a linear game, in order to focus on graphics, you paradoxically draw more attention to the gaminess of it all. the more realistic the graphics, the more grating the invisible walls will be. MGS1 Snake not jumping over boxes is ok, but when he's as realistic as MGS4, a 2 foot tall box as invisible wall just seems silly.

chasing realism introduces all sorts of similar problems, drawing attention to issues that otherwise wouldn't be a concern. level design, animation length, game control latency, etc. character AI. a game company could get lost in the weeds just focusing on realism, trying to make the most realistic game ever, near simulation quality, but if they didn't consider the game itself, the play, it won't matter at all.

i think chasing the realism dragon just introduces more problems than it solves. i'd rather people focus on the depths of the gameplay rather than the surface presentation.

Yeap I understand that.

I just find a waste of resource to have a open world where most place you will never go.

I know there is crazy guys that go everywhere due curiosity but it is a waste developed open world parts that are needed to the game... I think that time and money can be used something else.

 

[synchronicity]

Yes of course. I prefer stylized, artistic, reality-interpreted visuals anyway. Plus there's a lot of charm to tech that is considered antiquated.

I still love all eras visually, even the much-hated (by some) PS1-era warping polygons.

I remember saying when PS2 came out that if graphics never got any better technically-speaking, I would be fine. Granted, I'm not saying that I don't enjoy tech advancement, but it's not necessary to my enjoyments of games.

The more realistic games look the less impressed I seem to be.

Yes, I often feel that way as well. In the pursuit of realism, we've lost much of our imagination - which used to be actively engaged when gaming. Less is often more.

 

[Inanilmaz]

Would sacrifice it for 20fps

 

[yeeeeeezy]

I'm a sucker for graphics but yes I would.

 

[Atrus]

A good mix of both, favouring gameplay interaction and complexity.

I will take Red Dead Revolver 2’s graphics applied to the settings in Baldur’s Gate 2.

Athkatla with St. Denis’ graphics and the ability access every area or follow NPC’s like Elder Scrolls would be amazing.

 

[Xenon]

You are talking to someone who loved Crackdown 3. So hell yes. Make 4 look exactly the same with more shit and I'm there day one baby!

 

[Grinchy]

I want better physics and destructable worlds, like this

Yep, that's where I was gonna go too. I'd love to see an entire GTA-sized world made up of slightly smaller voxels than this.

I wouldn't give a single fuck if it didn't look as good as the brain-dead corridor shooters.

 

[Brumfieldhm]

Yes , firstly , this term photorealistic is Incorrect . Photo realistic afrer about a year does not look photo realistic anymore , so what exactly is the point in saying you would prefer those GFX. SECONDLY it is no fun pushing a character thru what is basically a disguised tunnel .... GOD OF WAR cough ...

 

[brian0057]

I would sacrifice photo-realistic graphics for SMALLER, more complex worlds, not bigger.
Give me more Deus Ex: Mankind Divided and less The Outer Worlds.

 

[Grand Theft Scratchy]

I want both, is there something wrong with that?

Hardware limitations. Sooner or later you're going to run out of memory.

 

[Roni]

I'd be all over it. I'm gameplay first and there's tons of cool things they could do in a game built right, but not exactly pretty.

 

[Meesh]

Sure. I mean art style can immerse a person in ways photorealism might not. And really, as good as the graphics are these days sometimes I'm hit with that old uncanny feeling that pulls me out of the experience.
Like I know my character shouldn't move, talk or look that way in a given scenario, ect.

 

[Sygma]

I want complete destructibility and the only game that kinda offers it is Crowfall. Just make everything like crowfall

 

[PleaseWaitStation4]

The tech exists today to have both or at least soon will.

 

[Deleted member 471617]

Hell no in regards to bigger. Maybe in regards to complex. That would depend on what the complexities would be in the game.

 

[Chromium.Wings]

I'm not sure if I'd sacrifice photorealism, but I would definitely sacrifice resolution. I don't need a game at 4K60 when I can have something with better effects, better AI, so on and so forth, all at 1080p60 or even 1440p60. Hell, I'm playing Red Dead Redemption 2 on PC and I could have pushed for a higher resolution image if I wanted, but I'd lose a lot of effects elsewhere. Resident Evil 2 gets pretty close to photorealistic and I think that for what that game is, it definitely pays to be more realistic rather than stylized.

Eventually we won't have to sacrifice either, but since we're living in a point in time where we have to sacrifice one or the other, I'd much rather have my game look to blow my mind by what it can do rather than how it can look. Also, for a good chunk of games, I'd also gladly sacrifice world size for other enhancements, as I feel like game worlds for some series are just growing too large.

 

[Bigfroth]

Yes, all those cities in one game plus Country side in between them. If it looked like gta 5 does now I'd be happy.

 

[olimariOA]

I would take a 720p 30fps game with Tekken 2 models if...

1. The lighting and animation were INCREDIBLE and cutting edge
2. The physics systems were incredible and everything was interactive like the real world.

I don't even care if it's open world or not as long as it's a good game and the physics are nutty.