I don't care how the game looks as long as it's fun, sure nice graphics are appreciated but I can have just as much fun in Crackdown as I can in Just Cause 2, no matter what the visual style.
Graphics - Realistic or Stylistic?
- Thread starter oldaccount2000
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Reminds me of an argument I had with an friend at school about "Realistic gameplay" throughout gamings history, with me being on the whatever is awesome side, and him being on the MW2 is the best game ever, all games should be like MW2 side. Please note that I have nothing against MW2.
I managed to end the arguement by telling him *ahem* "It doesn't need to realistic. It needs to be fun and/or awesome. You can go have fun with your boring, uninteresting assault rifle and die in one shot from a bullet to the foot, and I'll go have fun with my gun that shoots a parasite that drills into your skull, drains out your brain fluids and then explodes in a gory mess."
If you're wondering I was refering to the Cerebral Bore from Turok 2.
EDIT: That was a little off topic, so I choose the "I don't give a shit as long as it looks awesome" option. Having Style is better than looking realistic IMO.
I managed to end the arguement by telling him *ahem* "It doesn't need to realistic. It needs to be fun and/or awesome. You can go have fun with your boring, uninteresting assault rifle and die in one shot from a bullet to the foot, and I'll go have fun with my gun that shoots a parasite that drills into your skull, drains out your brain fluids and then explodes in a gory mess."
If you're wondering I was refering to the Cerebral Bore from Turok 2.
EDIT: That was a little off topic, so I choose the "I don't give a shit as long as it looks awesome" option. Having Style is better than looking realistic IMO.
Part of me likes it when a game looks freakishly realistic.
However the arty part of me much prefers it when they jazz it up with colourful and vibrant or just generally visually interesting to look at then I think it'll stay in my memory much more vivdly.
However the arty part of me much prefers it when they jazz it up with colourful and vibrant or just generally visually interesting to look at then I think it'll stay in my memory much more vivdly.
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
Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne example of cell shading and art style done well
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.
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.
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.
I prefer the graphical style used by Borderlands than the realism used in games such as MW2. As they don't age as quickly.
Style. You've either got it or you don't...
For example, Morrowind's graphics have aged rather well for one reason. Architectural style.
For example, Morrowind's graphics have aged rather well for one reason. Architectural style.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Not G. Ivingname said:
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.
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.
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.
