In case my OP was misunderstood by some, as CGI rightly pointed out, I am not saying resolution is entirely unimportant. Just that I personally think the end result is often more pleasing when other graphical aspects are prioritized over sheer pixel count, and that I feel the raw number of pixels is sometimes given more emphasis than it warrants.
This is one of the reasons why I kind of don't understand this topic, or rather the many replies in this thread. Old games look infinitely better at higher resolutions; sometimes resolutions they don't even support.
Resolution is ALWAYS going to be one of those things that many people don't care about much in the present, why? Because you're playing games that are already at an acceptable resolution, which were tailored for the standards of today. When that happens, of course people are going to say resolution is "overrated". They take it for granted, especially in an era where remasters allows us to look at games the same way we thought they looked back when we had first played them.
It really is an important factor. Not the most important but it's up there.
Edit: Also next gen I want to see better AI mostly : )
A lot of us don't only play games made in today's standards though. This year I've spent more time playing on my 360 than my Switch due to the lack of appealing games on the latter, so a lot of the stuff I've played recently are games made 6-13 years ago. Speaking of Switch, due to hardware constraints when porting from more powerful hardware, some of its games don't reach the generally accepted resolution "standards of today" either.
Totally agree with your edit, that and interactivity are two areas I want to see future games focus more on.
Also that poll is a bit silly since more resolution = more detail.
Not necessarily; a higher resolution can only further clarify asset detail that already exists. But by spending more of your processing budget on more pixels, you have less left over to spend on asset detail.Last edited by curl-6 - on 03 December 2018