High End Graphics or Immersive Worlds?

[Demi-fiend]

Just a personal rant that I've needed to vent on for some time now --

To start off, I think current-gen graphics are good enough as they are. Most developers can't really push visuals at a higher level without it ending up as a much higher cost for the consumers.

I'm all for more expansive worlds on next-gen... but it seems that fewer and fewer games are actually taking this route, and that's really disappointing.

Why is it that so many game developers are having such a hard time making a profit? And they want to move on to even higher graphics when next-gen hits instead of actually making the worlds themselves bigger?

Personally, I would like the "quality" (not the artistic quality, just the computing power) of the graphics to be lowered instead of raised -- this way, the consumer gets more out of their game, and developers wouldn't feel so pressured to make "Call of Duty Experiences", which is a concept that shouldn't even exist in the first place.

 

[ROCKMAN X]

Well to me a game which isn't immersive fails as a game.

A game which fails to immerse you into the game's atmosphere and the gameplay just fails as game itself games these days seem to be really lowered in terms of freedom and imagination.

 

[Loopy]

I'd take immersive world any day over flashy graphics. If a game looks good, but you don't feel involved with the world created in the game, then the game is a fail.

 

[Super90sgamer]

To me, I care about the gameplay more than the graphic.

 

[JessenReinhart]

i want both. i mean, why not?
the more the merrier XD

 

[Demi-fiend]

While it shouldn't be 1st priority it shouldn't be wrong to want graphics that best represent the system the games are played on & the time developers put into creating it & the money spent putting it together as well as money spent buying it.

​

But that doesn't mean i'm a shallow gamer who'd buy an HD television just to get prettier graphics when i can see the same games clearly on a SD television set & still find them very enjoyable.

That's not what I meant, though. I was just asking if people were willing to downgrade back to to PS2 graphics in order to keep costs low, have faster deadlines, and for worlds to be able to expand.

Take a look at Monolith's "X" for example. It's a huge world, and still has great graphics. We don't need next-gen.

Oh, and Xenoblade also had a huge world, great real-time combat, with good graphics. I say, that at least a few developers out there wouldn't even need this gen.

Remember, in the end, this is still a business. And the current "flashy graphics" business model is not a sustainable one because fewer and fewer developers are actually breaking even, let alone making a return on their games (and profits are the end goal in any business, no exception).

i want both. i mean, why not?
the more the merrier XD

Well, now I know who put up that one vote.

 

[ROCKMAN X]

Me personally i'd say no because even though it's not just about graphics for me i'd expect a certain level of graphic performance from todays consoles & developer skill level.

No one is asking to go back in time

We have technological advances and people still crave for more and more graphical details and sh!t like that no one even cares about..

The core concept of game is just having fun not the level of detail the game has however it is true that by time the standard for graphical and technical aspects have been amped up no way does it mean that we should exploit those advancements to slack off real content.

For ex: i can already see people bitching and whining about graphics of GTA 5 i mean seriously i just want to lock those idiots up in a room with an atari 2600

Is the Hollywoodization’ of the AAA games really that important to gamers?

It is more profitable for the gaming companies.. they can easily market this stuff to a non-gaming audience and can also streamline the everyliving crap out of the game.