Must I choose? Darkest Dungeon simply wouldn't work if it looked realistic, and the new Tomb Raiders simply wouldn't if they didn't.
Poll: Artistic vs Realistic graphic?
- Thread starter FakeSympathy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Both. Asking me to choose between the two is like asking me to lop off one arm to save another.
Art design isn't a question of finding the best possible style that's absolutely future-proof and adequate for all directions and projects; it's a question of finding the visual component to the game's soul, essentially. Graphics have to fit the theme of the game in question, or the designers have to come up with a convincing thesis as to why their, say, ultra-cartoonish art style would work adequately in the context of a gritty and by-the-numbers modern-day FPS.
In cases like the above, it's a hard sell. In others, like the Borderlands series; it's a perfect fit.
So the only style I *don't* like is any style or art design expression that clashes against what the game is trying to accomplish. I'm not sure I would've loved the SoulsBorne series, for instance, if Hidetaka Miyazaki had gone for a look and feel cribbed straight out of Platinum Games.
Art design isn't a question of finding the best possible style that's absolutely future-proof and adequate for all directions and projects; it's a question of finding the visual component to the game's soul, essentially. Graphics have to fit the theme of the game in question, or the designers have to come up with a convincing thesis as to why their, say, ultra-cartoonish art style would work adequately in the context of a gritty and by-the-numbers modern-day FPS.
In cases like the above, it's a hard sell. In others, like the Borderlands series; it's a perfect fit.
So the only style I *don't* like is any style or art design expression that clashes against what the game is trying to accomplish. I'm not sure I would've loved the SoulsBorne series, for instance, if Hidetaka Miyazaki had gone for a look and feel cribbed straight out of Platinum Games.
It depends on the game. I want my shooters to look realistic, and my RPGs can look however the hell they want. So yeah, might wanna expand your poll options.
Neither? It depends on the game, but the question is meaningless to me. It's more about art-direction (which exists in a game with realistic graphics) than the style of graphics for me. For example, the Dragon Age series has realistic graphics, but it's the beautiful vistas I'm staring at from the top of mountains, because the series has good art direction and photography.
Likewise, the first Metal Gear Solid opted for realistic graphics and really hasn't aged well. It's still perfectly playable, though, because the grey lifeless military base with the nightly blue-tint and the snow-covered areas all around it are very absorbing and in line with the atmosphere the game is trying to build. Similarly, Silent Hill; how many people prefer Homecoming's visuals to Silent Hill 1?
Cell-shading or cartoony graphics can equally look anywhere between boring to outright bad without proper art-direction. Okami stands out not because of its style, but because of what it does with it. The first Torchlight looks good enough, but I see no reason for it to have this particular style of graphics, from an artistic perspective.
Likewise, the first Metal Gear Solid opted for realistic graphics and really hasn't aged well. It's still perfectly playable, though, because the grey lifeless military base with the nightly blue-tint and the snow-covered areas all around it are very absorbing and in line with the atmosphere the game is trying to build. Similarly, Silent Hill; how many people prefer Homecoming's visuals to Silent Hill 1?
Cell-shading or cartoony graphics can equally look anywhere between boring to outright bad without proper art-direction. Okami stands out not because of its style, but because of what it does with it. The first Torchlight looks good enough, but I see no reason for it to have this particular style of graphics, from an artistic perspective.
Like other people said, It depends on the game. I think 'realistic graphics' were fitting for fallout new vegas but not so much for rayman. Some games it wouldn't really matter to me. I think I could enjoy XCOM just as much if it had a different, more quirky style and a more realistic looking rogue legacy wouldn't have been the worst thing either. I also think the difference between artistic and realistic isn't always so clear cut. A lot of broadly realistic looking games have various effects applied to them for artistic reasons. Lense flares, unlikely proportioned people (nobody in Gears of War looks like they couldn't exist but I find it hard to believe that every last soldier still alive is that enormous), having everything be in one state of decay or another. These are things that don't entirely break the realistic look of a game but that bend it to fit a certain style the developers where going for.
No, they really don't - as with everything it's a spectrum. Seriously, what is it with this place/teh internetz and an apparent loathing of nuance in 'polls'?sgy0003 said:
I'm replaying Deus Ex:HR at the moment, and it's primarily concerned with a notion of 'realism', yet consciously and cohesively presents it in a very stylised way. It is therefore both.
If I had to pick an overall stylistic or tonal bias - primarily defined by the game's overall themes? It would be for versions of more relatable worlds, given immersion is a quality I value in gaming, be it in fantasy worlds such as Skyrim, DA:Inquisition, and Witcher, or the sci-fi of Half-Life 2 and the aforementioned Deus Ex:HR.
Art is ultimately a reflection of who and what we are, correct? If so it seems an equally and ironically limiting thing for design to primarily service only escapism/a rejection of the mundane. All styles exist and are surely defined relatively to others, too; the fantastical could not be so without the grounded, and vice versa.Dreiko said:
As I alluded to above; generally, I see art as being about exploring who and what we are - that can't be done simply by removing ourselves from it. Reality isn't "paltry", or boringly "mundane" - it it what we are, day to day.
Plus, a bias towards 'realism' in games, as in film or animation, doesn't have to be dour - the colour, vistas, and detail of Tomb Raider's Yamatai being one example. And whilst the Assassin's Creed games are very sanitised (some might say lifeless and soulless... ), most of their ostensibly realistic worlds are gorgeous (particularly AC2).
I'm guessing what you mean is that some games have stylised graphics and other games attempt photorealism.
I am of the opinion that photorealism is not feasible and that most of the attempts at photorealism age very poorly. However there is a big difference between aiming for photorealism and aiming for an art style that's believable. Look at Half-Life 2, it's by no means photorealistic and it's a fairly old game at this point. It doesn't have character models with millions upon millions of polygons and the textures are mostly kinda low-res compared to today's standards. But the lighting and environmental detail absolutely sells it. Same with Portal and Portal 2.
I am of the opinion that photorealism is not feasible and that most of the attempts at photorealism age very poorly. However there is a big difference between aiming for photorealism and aiming for an art style that's believable. Look at Half-Life 2, it's by no means photorealistic and it's a fairly old game at this point. It doesn't have character models with millions upon millions of polygons and the textures are mostly kinda low-res compared to today's standards. But the lighting and environmental detail absolutely sells it. Same with Portal and Portal 2.
I think this is a malformed question. Realistic and Artistic aren't mutually exclusive. Enslaved: Odyssey to the West is both realistic and artistic, Dark Souls is both realistic and artistic.
I think what you mean Realistic styles vs Abstract styles, which again aren't mutually exclusive but aren't commonly used together. Quantum Break seems to make use of both realistic and abstract designs, the former being characters and environments and the latter being his powers. Alan Wake also had a similar combination, though Horrors often make use of the abstract so that's not surprising.
What do I prefer? Either... whatever works. I have no preference. The Last of Us is a great game that uses a realistic style but doesn't wash out it's colors like other games and doesn't lose any of that "grungy" realistic feel. Subnautica is a fun little indie game (early access) that creates a convincing alien environment using abstract "cartoon" designs. I thought the vibrant and colorful art direction in Red Alert 3 was fantastic, shame the game wasn't as good.
If it works it works. I will sway I've had more engrossing moments with abstract visuals then I've had with realistic ones, but that doesn't mean realistic ones haven't blown my socks off.
I think what you mean Realistic styles vs Abstract styles, which again aren't mutually exclusive but aren't commonly used together. Quantum Break seems to make use of both realistic and abstract designs, the former being characters and environments and the latter being his powers. Alan Wake also had a similar combination, though Horrors often make use of the abstract so that's not surprising.
What do I prefer? Either... whatever works. I have no preference. The Last of Us is a great game that uses a realistic style but doesn't wash out it's colors like other games and doesn't lose any of that "grungy" realistic feel. Subnautica is a fun little indie game (early access) that creates a convincing alien environment using abstract "cartoon" designs. I thought the vibrant and colorful art direction in Red Alert 3 was fantastic, shame the game wasn't as good.
If it works it works. I will sway I've had more engrossing moments with abstract visuals then I've had with realistic ones, but that doesn't mean realistic ones haven't blown my socks off.
Either.
In general I tend to like games that lean more towards realistic, especially with people and faces but with enhanced colour and lighting (stronger colours and higher contrast than how it looks in real life or good colour theme. The Witcher 2 & 3 for a example of this). Many games that go for completely realistic look washed out.
But it is really something to taken on an individual basis. I played Ori and the Blind Forests and Alice the Madness Returns largely for the artsytle.
In general I tend to like games that lean more towards realistic, especially with people and faces but with enhanced colour and lighting (stronger colours and higher contrast than how it looks in real life or good colour theme. The Witcher 2 & 3 for a example of this). Many games that go for completely realistic look washed out.
But it is really something to taken on an individual basis. I played Ori and the Blind Forests and Alice the Madness Returns largely for the artsytle.
Precisely. What's wrong with using artistry to mimic real life? Why can't we have a hyper-detailed game world that is also artfully crafted and, dare I say, even exaggerated?Ezekiel said:
Artistic beauty does not necessarily exclude realism. Realism does not necessarily exclude artistic beauty.
Definitely artistic games for me since alot of good games I have played were the artistic kind (e.g. Okami and Hyper Light Drifter).
Nobody is talking about escapasim though, I was talking about imaginatively creating things as opposed to copying existing things really accurately. This invaluable imagination allowed us to now have tools which a few centuries ago would be equally considered escapism, if not black magic, were they to be contemplated. Fixation with present reality equals backwardness and stagnation. To get to the next place, we have to first imagine where it is, and scuplt reality to best fit it. Art in the form of modern games has the unique capacity to show us a window to such a world so to waste that just to gander at what already is visible even without the game is a waste of effort for little reward, wasted potential.Darth Rosenberg said:
The human imagination has created so many things which reality simply can't contain yet and we can't really decide which is unattainable dreams and which are a few hundrd years of scietific development away so it isn't escapism to look for the future of culture or science or human consciousness in the potetial worlds offered by art and to experience something which feels indistinguishable from a real experience in our heart.
What we are is not just what we do in reality based on the modern limits that costrict us. A common dream or a shared passion for a specific feeling, irrespective of reality, also have a big part in who we are. Games offer one of the few ways of fulfilling that desire to experience an ideal version of potential reality so to just sacrifice that to remain in your confort zone and experience more of what is already possible for you to experience through other means is a waste.
As a simple example, if I get to pick to ride a fighter jet or a dragon, I will always pick the dragon, and this comes from a decades long ace combat fan too.
Ultimately, I don't want to remove ourselves, rather, I simply want to focus on an aspect of ourselves that is most neglected due to it merely not being "real" yet. Yearning for it to be real and endeavoring to find experiences allowing us to feel how it would be if it were real are necessary first steps towards progress and a fine purpose for art if I ever saw one.
Yeah, we have discrepancy in definitions.
1. Graphics is not the same as style. Graphics is the technical aspect (resolution, polygon count in models, lightening, specularity, etc). They are the tools to make a style. The word to use is aesthetic.
2. Artistic is not an aesthetic. It's an ambiguous term that can encompass even photorealism. The opposite of photorealism is stylization.
OT: I like both, when used right.
1. Graphics is not the same as style. Graphics is the technical aspect (resolution, polygon count in models, lightening, specularity, etc). They are the tools to make a style. The word to use is aesthetic.
2. Artistic is not an aesthetic. It's an ambiguous term that can encompass even photorealism. The opposite of photorealism is stylization.
OT: I like both, when used right.
There's an aesthetic for every occasion. Though it goes without saying that "artistic" ages better than "realistic".
