yes, but as Emil points out, more pixels = more read noise
And as with any trade-off, one has to quantify the opposing advantages and disadvantages, not just declare that any amount of additional noise is more important that amount of additional resolution [or vice versa].
With read noise these days at the level of only a couple of elections, it is vastly outweighed by photon shot noise until you are at light levels many, many stops below mid-tones, in the realm tat is almost always printed totally black. Say a DSLR pixel has a well capacity of 40,000. At full well, shot noise is sqrt(40000) or about 200 electrons. At 8 stops down, more than four stops below mid-tones, which is the traditional black level or noise floor in measuring the ISO speed of film, and in a straight print is totally black, the signal is still about 160 electrons, shot noise of about 14 electrons, still overwhelming read noise.
Only at about 12 stops below maximum, signal about 10 electrons, is read noise significant compared to photon shot noise ... and by then S/N ratio due to read noise alone is a pathetic 3:1, so it is going to be ugly anyway if you attempt to print those deep, deep shadows at anything above pure black.