Do you prefer stylized games or realistic looking ones?

[heidi2521]

Recently, the Industry has been going in two polar opposite directions.

Games are either becoming increasingly stylized (Bastion, Little Big Planet, Braid, Bioshock Infinite, Final Fantasy etc.) or are pushing graphics to look more and more realistic(Battlefield, Call of Duty, Killzone, Skyrim, Crysis etc.)

Which one do you prefer? Why?

I prefer stylized games because they hold up much better in the future and are more pleasing to look at. Realistic looking games may stun for a few months but they become meh as soon as they are eclipsed.

 

[Faun]

*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/customavatars/avatar146433_2.gif

 

[heidi2521]

*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/customavatars/avatar146433_2.gif

That is the result of being an image clicked from a 3DS screen using a SGS2 and being resized in MS Paint. It looks much better in motion



and even better in 3D on the 3DS screen.


To get what I mean, compare Viewtiful Joe(2003)



with Doom 3(2004)

 

[vickybat]

Voted for realistic. Reasons are obvious. They give that depth and sense of realism into gameplay. Everything appears believable and this is the direction most of the video games are heading into.

Engines like :

Epic - Unreal Engine 4
Crytek - Cryengine3 & Next Cryengine
EA - Frostbite 3
Capcom -Panta Rhei engine (Deep down)
Bethesda Zenimax - id tech 5
Square Enix - Luminous Next gen Engine
Ubisoft - Disrupt Engine (Watchdogs)
Bungie - Destiny Engine (Used in their new ip "Destiny")

These are all set to take future games into the next level of realism. This list is few and there are many more proprietary in-house engines from sony and microsoft which are going to be used on their next gen consoles as well as pc.

That said, i like stylized games too. Super meat boy, limbo , braid and trine are my favorites. They offer a different experience, more or like fantasy and aren't exactly competing with realistic games.
They have their own playing field. Indie games are basically heading in that direction. Nintendo games can be compared with indie titles to some extent or we can say their games are inspirational for the development of titles like braid and super meat boy.

 

[Extreme Gamer]

Voted for realistic. Reasons are obvious. They give that depth and sense of realism into gameplay. Everything appears believable and this is the direction most of the video games are heading into.

Engines like :

Epic - Unreal Engine 4
Crytek - Cryengine3 & Next Cryengine
EA - Frostbite 3
Capcom -Panta Rhei engine (Deep down)
Bethesda Zenimax - id tech 5
Square Enix - Luminous Next gen Engine
Ubisoft - Disrupt Engine (Watchdogs)

These are all set to take future games into the next level of realism. This list is few and there are many more proprietary in-house engines from sony and microsoft which are going to be used on their next gen consoles as well as pc.

That said, i like stylized games too. Super meat boy, limbo , braid and trine are my favorites. They offer a different experience, more or like fantasy and aren't exactly competing with realistic games.
They have their own playing field. Indie games are basically heading in that direction. Nintendo games can be compared with indie titles to some extent or we can say their games are inspirational for the development of titles like braid and super meat boy.

Yet we have Bioshock: Infinite, which visually wins over today's bleeding edge Crysis 3 because visually it is a lot more appealing and it is probably the best contender at the moment for GOTY. And it uses Unreal Engine 3 which is the predecessor of UE4 which you mention as a "realism" engine.

You are confusing art direction with technological advancement. An engine is just the source of all the technology you can use in your games to make them look visually appealing. Engines can be used both in a stylistic manner and in a realistic manner. It depends on how you use the features available to you to your advantage. dead5's poll is not about more accurate lighting, more accurate physics or something of that sort.

 

[heidi2521]

Voted for realistic. Reasons are obvious. They give that depth and sense of realism into gameplay. Everything appears believable and this is the direction most of the video games are heading into.

Engines like :

Epic - Unreal Engine 4
Crytek - Cryengine3 & Next Cryengine
EA - Frostbite 3
Capcom -Panta Rhei engine (Deep down)
Bethesda Zenimax - id tech 5
Square Enix - Luminous Next gen Engine
Ubisoft - Disrupt Engine (Watchdogs)
Bungie - Destiny Engine (Used in their new ip "Destiny")

These are all set to take future games into the next level of realism. This list is few and there are many more proprietary in-house engines from sony and microsoft which are going to be used on their next gen consoles as well as pc.

That said, i like stylized games too. Super meat boy, limbo , braid and trine are my favorites. They offer a different experience, more or like fantasy and aren't exactly competing with realistic games.
They have their own playing field. Indie games are basically heading in that direction. Nintendo games can be compared with indie titles to some extent or we can say their games are inspirational for the development of titles like braid and super meat boy.

Tech != Art direction. And their demos look amazing right now, but will not wow us in the same way 2 - 3 years in the future and may actually become displeasing to look at 7-8 years into the future. Iid Tech 4's demos looked amazing and took us to the next level of realism in 2004, but you will be mocked if you consider it amazing/visually pleasing today.

You can combine art direction with cutting edge technology to create games that will be visually pleasing even in the future eg. Half-Life 2(as much as i hate to use this as an example, it is the best one I have).

Spoiler

This was mindblowing back then
*static.giantbomb.com/uploads/scale_super/1/13692/1386568-ijhbm.jpg

as was this.
*recollectionsofplay.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/sm64-saving-penguins.jpg

Now it is up to you to decide which one looks better.

 

[vickybat]

Yet we have Bioshock: Infinite, which visually wins over today's bleeding edge Crysis 3 because visually it is a lot more appealing and it is probably the best contender at the moment for GOTY. And it uses Unreal Engine 3 which is the predecessor of UE4 which you mention as a "realism" engine.

You are confusing art direction with technological advancement. An engine is just the source of all the technology you can use in your games to make them look visually appealing. Engines can be used both in a stylistic manner and in a realistic manner. It depends on how you use the features available to you to your advantage. dead5's poll is not about more accurate lighting, more accurate physics or something of that sort.

Of course that's true. Games like borderlands(1,2), Dishonored and like you mentioned, Bioshock Infinite are amongst the elite. I never said game play or art direction should be neglected.
Even UE 4 has massive scaling options to use accordingly as per devs require.

Using visual studio, textures can be altered during compilation. That means code can be changed in real-time and in a different window, one can see the effects. This stuff used to take 15mins for a minor change in UE 3, but in UE-4 ,it takes just 30 secs. Weeks of work can now be manipulated and changed in hours. This sort of flexibility is what next gen tech provides.

Of course UE-4 will be used to make games with Bioshock Infinite like theme. I would consider BI to be realistic coz of gameplay mechanics and character emotion it brings.

 

[heidi2521]

Of course that's true. Games like borderlands(1,2), Dishonored and like you mentioned, Bioshock Infinite are amongst the elite. I never said game play or art direction should be neglected.
Even UE 4 has massive scaling options to use accordingly as per devs require.

Using visual studio, textures can be altered during compilation. That means code can be changed in real-time and in a different window, one can see the effects. This stuff used to take 15mins for a minor change in UE 3, but in UE-4 ,it takes just 30 secs. Weeks of work can now be manipulated and changed in hours. This sort of flexibility is what next gen tech provides.

Of course UE-4 will be used to make games with Bioshock Infinite like theme. I would consider BI to be realistic coz of gameplay mechanics and character emotion it brings.

This poll is about art direction. You may consider it realistic, but it does not have a realistic art direction. This isn't about workflow within the engine either.

 

[Extreme Gamer]

Of course that's true. Games like borderlands(1,2), Dishonored and like you mentioned, Bioshock Infinite are amongst the elite. I never said game play or art direction should be neglected.
Even UE 4 has massive scaling options to use accordingly as per devs require.

Using visual studio, textures can be altered during compilation. That means code can be changed in real-time and in a different window, one can see the effects. This stuff used to take 15mins for a minor change in UE 3, but in UE-4 ,it takes just 30 secs. Weeks of work can now be manipulated and changed in hours. This sort of flexibility is what next gen tech provides.

Of course UE-4 will be used to make games with Bioshock Infinite like theme. I would consider BI to be realistic coz of gameplay mechanics and character emotion it brings.

Do you realize that this poll is not about technological advancement? Why are you repeating yourself? Realism is one art direction and stylized is another.

Crysis 3 looks great, but it isn't as visually pleasing as Bioshock, or even puny little Trine 2 IMHO. And it is supposed to be the bleeding edge of technology. Over here the discussion is about the ART DIRECTION ONLY so please try to refrain from mixing it up with technological advancement.

Basically, if you like realism, you like it because you like to see games where you seem to be much closer to real life, and not because it is able to raytrace in realtime or because the engine in the game uses deferred shading. If you like stylized visuals, you like it because you find stylized art more visually appealing than real-life simulators (from a visual perspective).

 

[vickybat]

This poll is about art direction. You may consider it realistic, but it does not have a realistic art direction. This isn't about workflow within the engine either.

Your Poll- Do you prefer stylized games or realistic looking ones?

How in the heck you expect somebody to comprehend that as art-direction? Did you you specified art direction once in your post?

Do you realize that this poll is not about technological advancement? Why are you repeating yourself? Realism is one art direction and stylized is another.

Crysis 3 looks great, but it isn't as visually pleasing as Bioshock, or even puny little Trine 2 IMHO. And it is supposed to be the bleeding edge of technology. Over here the discussion is about the ART DIRECTION ONLY so please try to refrain from mixing it up with technological advancement.

Basically, if you like realism, you like it because you like to see games where you seem to be much closer to real life, and not because it is able to raytrace in realtime or because the engine in the game uses deferred shading. If you like stylized visuals, you like it because you find stylized art more visually appealing than real-life simulators (from a visual perspective).

Look at the above poll carefully mate. Its no where mentioned art direction. Its just brought about now.
He never meant games like bio-shock infinite. He was comparing realistic titles and simulators with indie games ( maybe nintendo too) in the back of his mind.
This is what i comprehend at least coz he clearly mentioned games like battlefield 3/killzone in his first post. These are nowhere near art styled themes are they?

 

[heidi2521]

Your Poll- Do you prefer stylized games or realistic looking ones?

How in the heck you expect somebody to comprehend that as art-direction? Did you you specified art direction once in your post?

Because stylization and realism are two different art directions? And the word 'looking' should have clarified that i mean just visually.

Edit: And i purposely avoided Nintendo to prevent a Nintendo flame war.

 

[Extreme Gamer]

Your Poll- Do you prefer stylized games or realistic looking ones?

How in the heck you expect somebody to comprehend that as art-direction? Did you you specified art direction once in your post?

Any normal person could...how do you correlate stylizing with technology/lack thereof?

Your Poll- Do you prefer stylized games or realistic looking ones?
Look at the above poll carefully. Its no where mentioned art direction. Its just brought about now.
He never meant games like bio-shock infinite. He was comparing realistic titles and simulators with nintendo games in the back of his mind.
This is what i comprehend at least coz he clearly mentioned games like battlefield 3 in his first post.

Erm realism is an art direction. Battlefield 3 just happens to be a highly technologically advanced version. LBP has strong technology behind it so your point is moot.

 

[cyborg47]

Both..only if they're well made and fun to play and look at.

Is this another Simulation vs arcade thread, or are we talking about the art styles?

 

[Extreme Gamer]

Is this another Simulation vs arcade thread, or are we talking about the art styles?

Although the answer lies in previous posts, I'll tell you that it is about art direction.

Disagree, a million times. That's just plain wrong.

Don't mistake correlation for equality. Although it is true that games look more visually appealing as technology progresses, the art direction is solely dependent on the skill of the artists and the design team in general. It is the quality that gets scaled up or down depending on the technology you use.

For example, Blender, 3ds Max and Maya are all modelling tools. They use different processes, but it is possible to achieve visually identical results in each tool through the different processes.

 

[CommanderShawnzer]

Voted.I prefer "stylized" games,
like

Spoiler

Darksiders series
Borderlands
Starcraft
Mass effect series
C&C 3
DMC 4
Ratchet & clank
Monster hunter.
Skyrim

ok thats about it

 

[vickybat]

Tech != Art direction. And their demos look amazing right now, but will not wow us in the same way 2 - 3 years in the future and may actually become displeasing to look at 7-8 years into the future. Iid Tech 4's demos looked amazing and took us to the next level of realism in 2004, but you will be mocked if you consider it amazing/visually pleasing today.

You can combine art direction with cutting edge technology to create games that will be visually pleasing even in the future eg. Half-Life 2(as much as i hate to use this as an example, it is the best one I have).

Spoiler

This was mindblowing back then
*static.giantbomb.com/uploads/scale_super/1/13692/1386568-ijhbm.jpg

as was this.
*recollectionsofplay.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/sm64-saving-penguins.jpg

Now it is up to you to decide which one looks better.

This post of yours doesn't prove anything really. At least nothing that i can buy.
For your information, tech gives rise to art direction. To make a game like Bio-shock Infinite, you need something like Unreal Engine 3 and not a mario, braid or bastion engine.

You are forgetting that when we talk of realism, its that we are trying to bridge the gap closer towards reality. To do that, tech has to move on and surely old tech will look displeasing in the future.
What's the point of bringing these here?

Also know that old tech gives rise to new. Without id tech 4, there would be no id-tech 5, UE-4, Frostbite and so on. John Carmack is considered the father of modern day gaming almost unanimously. I guess you know the reason why.

When id -tech 4 first made appearance in doom3, it was surely ahead of time and pushed technology to move and give rise to what we see today.
This is like Moore's law in gaming. I guess you know moore's law right?

 

[cyborg47]

Here's an example, this is a 2d(slightly 2.5D as well, sometimes) platformer called Ballpoint Universe. The game's art is completely made using a ball point pen. Now you're gonna need a basic-good engine/tech to create something as awesome as this, but not necessarily start of art tech like UE4, FB3.0, or CE3 right? They are co related, and dependent on each other, but you really don't need extremely high tech to create games that are compelling in terms or art.



[youtube]mn__OW4j4L4[/youtube]

 

[vickybat]

Both..only if they're well made and fun to play and look at.

Is this another Simulation vs arcade thread, or are we talking about the art styles?



Disagree, a million times. That's just plain wrong.

Yup mate. Seconded.

Any normal person could...how do you correlate stylizing with technology/lack thereof?



Erm realism is an art direction. Battlefield 3 just happens to be a highly technologically advanced version. LBP has strong technology behind it so your point is moot.

Actually i happen to understand what you are trying to say. LPB is actually the most advanced tech in that list.

 

[Extreme Gamer]

Here's an example, this is a 2d(slightly 2.5D as well, sometimes) platformer called Ballpoint Universe. The game's art is completely made using a ball point pen. Now you're gonna need a basic-good engine/tech to create something as awesome as this, but not necessarily start of art tech like UE4, FB3.0, or CE3 right?



[youtube]mn__OW4j4L4[/youtube]

Erm are you saying that art direction is dependent on tech or the opposite? By this post you actually seem to be supporting dead5 by saying that art direction isnt the same as tech.

 

[cyborg47]

Yup mate. Seconded.

Does this != mean not equals or did I miss something?

Erm are you saying that art direction is dependent on tech or the opposite? By this post you actually seem to be supporting dead5 by saying that art direction isnt the same as tech.

sorry for the delay..updated the post, have another look.