Graphics - Realistic or Stylistic?

[Lullabye]

Honestly, either really is fine.
It just depends on the game.
Still, a realistic style done well will always have my vote.

Spoiler: Case and Point

Eat our heart out Ookami.

 

[Sakurazaki1023]

I normally prefer style. Realistic graphics have never really been a selling point for me, and cell shaded graphics combined with a great art style usually look much more appealing to me then the modern brown-a-thon that some gamers seems to like.

Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne example of cell shading and art style done well

Spoiler

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Either or. Just go one way or the other. If you can't do realistic, don't try to or it will make it all more obvious when you mess up and something doesn't look real. One side of the uncanny valley or the other.

 

[SextusMaximus]

Both I guess, but I prefer stylistic - makes it feel more like a game and less like a chore.

Borderlands Graphics > CoD's graphics, IMO - because Borderland isn't afraid to cock up graphics wise and goes for the full on cartoon outlines, which are damn cool.

 

[Kaymish]

i like stylised graphic for some games and more realistic graphics for others either or are ok so long as they work with the rest of the game

 

[mikecoulter]

I prefer the graphical style used by Borderlands than the realism used in games such as MW2. As they don't age as quickly.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Style. You've either got it or you don't...

For example, Morrowind's graphics have aged rather well for one reason. Architectural style.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

I perfer sylization because everybody seen what real life looks like. With realism, their really is only one way you can go with it. With styliaztion, you endless posiblities that can be pleasing to the eye long after the engine it is running on is obsoluete. Tell me, what games characters looks better, GTA4 or TF2? GTA4 was made on more powerful engine. Yet TF2 looks better on its much older engine with a art style that makes characters look a special kind of cartoonish that makes giant minigun wielding men lovable.

 

[Marter]

Depends on the game, and the setting that the developer is trying to get you involved with.

 

[Woodsey]

As long as the developer commits fully to being "either or", and it suits the style of the game, then I have no problem with either.

It did particularly annoy me in a review of Crysis when the reviewer said the art direction was rubbish (although the game looks amazing), when Crytek were clearly trying to create something as close to photo-realism as possible.

 

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

I don't mind realistic stuff, but it has a tendency to get kind of samey. I prefer stylized stuff, whether it's mostly realistic but with its own touch, completely cartoony, or somewhere in between. What I'd really like to see now that we have so much processing power available is more games that use different artistic styles instead of just movie-style realism or cel-shaded cartoons. Some games have done a pretty decent job of looking like oil or watercolor paintings (Braid, Legend of Mana, etc.), but I think there's a lot more that can be done with that. If we're going to spend so many millions of dollars per game on artists and artwork, at least let them experiment with interesting art styles more often to see how it turns out.

 

[Petromir]

I perfer sylization because everybody seen what real life looks like. With realism, their really is only one way you can go with it. With styliaztion, you endless posiblities that can be pleasing to the eye long after the engine it is running on is obsoluete. Tell me, what games characters looks better, GTA4 or TF2? GTA4 was made on more powerful engine. Yet TF2 looks better on its much older engine with a art style that makes characters look a special kind of cartoonish that makes giant minigun wielding men lovable.

Hate to tell you this but fairly sure TF2 uses source, and Half Life 2 which also uses it can has aged fairly well, and it went with realistic.

If done right styalisation can improve how well a game ages, but it doesnt always.

The choice should match the gameplay, Modern Warefare 2 would be silly with styalised graphics, but borderlands 2 is improved (that said it'll age well mearly becasue its already butt ugly).

Styalised also shouldnt mean you ignore the fancy effcts if you can get them in without ruining the effect. Stylised can look great, and to do very well it can be as labour intensive as realsitic in most areas apart from textures.

Some people remove graphics to far from gameplay, sometimes the two can be closely linked.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

I don't mind either way. I think that graphics don't need to be realistic to be good.

Look at WoW. It has always catered to the lowest common denominator in terms of graphics. It looks cartoony. But I get just as immersed as I do in Assassin's Creed.

 

[Dango]

definitely stylistic, stylistic graphics like BlazeBlue will always look good, where as realistic graphics will just look horrible when the next generation comes about

 

[IamQ]

I think I actually perfer realistic graphics. From my experience, most games that use cel-shaded graphics or other kinds, usually use it as an excuse for their worthless gameplay.

 

[Idlemessiah]

It really depends on the tone of the game.
Something like CoD or GoW needs the gritty realness of close to reality graphics to enhance immersion. Whereas something like Brutal Legend, Team Fortrees or maybe Jak and Daxter can capitalise on the cartoon graphics because it allows them to do wacky things and create greater extremes of environment.

 

[RicoADF]

As long as the artistic style fits the game style I'm good with both. In the end their meant to work together to create the immersion that sucks you in.

 

[Kollega]

Let's see.

- Stylized graphics look more original. There's only one reality, but there are an infinite amount of art styles. There's a place for games stylized like impressionist paintings or Silver Age comics...
- Stylized graphics can look way more beautiful, even taking into account the beauty of some real landscapes. Case in point: Team Fortress 2 looks as good as Uncharted 2, if you ask me.
- Stylized graphics age much better. Case in point: Quake 3 looks butt-ugly by today's standards, but Sheep Dog 'n Wolf, a game stylized as Looney Tunes cartoon, still looks decent.

In summary, the so-called "realism" is just useless, pointless, etcetera. And if you want dark grittiness, go learn a couple of lessons from Machinarium.

 

[SpecklePattern]

I want them both!! Don't make me choose Well TF2 and BFBC2 are just not the same. Other is war-simulation-thingy and other is cartoon-shooter. Love them both by the way. Actually I am just happy with current state of craphics. The actual gameplay is always the thing I watch for. Still I really want to see what they invent next in the 'realism' and the 'cartoon'-like graphics.

I actually like the new battle field so much that I might be a bad player (because of the nice graphics). If you see a recon running and planting C4 in the trees and blowing them up just to see how pretty it looks like... thats probably me

 

[o_O]

Both I guess, but I prefer stylistic - makes it feel more like a game and less like a chore.

Borderlands Graphics < CoD's graphics, IMO - because Borderland isn't afraid to cock up graphics wise and goes for the full on cartoon outlines, which are damn cool.

...What? I'm confused. Are you praising Borderlands art direction or criticizing it? As is, with the less than sign, it seems more like you're bashing it, yet then you go say it's cool?

OT: I find stylized ages better, though we're getting to that time when even realistic games don't age poorly. >_>