What graphical style do you like more - cartoony or realistic?

Avatar image for SolidGame_basic
Posted by SolidGame_basic (24041 posts) 1 month, 22 days ago

Poll: What graphical style do you like more - cartoony or realistic? (57 votes)

Cartoony 42%
Realistic 58%

I guess I like realistic more, but cartoony is ok. When I think of cartoony, I think of games like Fortnite or Overwatch. When I think of realistic, I think of DMC V, which is cooler. So realistic for me. You, SW?

Avatar image for npiet1
#1 Posted by npiet1 (2094 posts) -

A game for pure fun, cartoonish. But any other realistic.

Avatar image for onesiphorus
#2 Posted by onesiphorus (2827 posts) -

It would be realitic as long as the game is done professionally.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
#3 Posted by MirkoS77 (14056 posts) -

That depends on the game.

Avatar image for Archangel3371
#4 Posted by Archangel3371 (27584 posts) -

I enjoy them both depending on the game and source material. However most of my all time favourite games are ones such as:

- Chrono Trigger

- Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Arcade Game and Turtles in Time

- Dragon Quest VIII

- Final Fantasy VI

- Super Mario games

- The Legend of Zelda games

So I guess you could say that in general my preferences lean towards cartoon style.

Avatar image for adsparky
#5 Posted by adsparky (1310 posts) -

I can appreciate the technology behind the realistic style, but they tend to age really bad, meanwhile a cartoony style looks great almost all the time.

Avatar image for vfighter
#6 Posted by VFighter (4804 posts) -

@onesiphorus: That doesnt make any sense what so ever.

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#7 Posted by uninspiredcup (32807 posts) -

...

!

Avatar image for tocool340
#8 Posted by tocool340 (21356 posts) -

Blend of both, though leaning more toward the realistic side of the spectrum. Sort of like the Metroid Prime series or Twilight Princess (Or that Zelda Wii U tech demo)....

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#9 Posted by R4gn4r0k (30722 posts) -

Both

Realistic: Battlefield series, Metro series

Cartoony: Void Bastards, Age of Empires Online, Zelda: Wind Waker

Avatar image for ajstyles
#10 Edited by AJStyles (737 posts) -

Realistic is always better.

Anyone can make a cartoon game with no textures or no effort like fortnite or Nintendo’s games.

Cartoons/cel shading and the like scream low budget and lazy. The games are always worse.

Realistic games tend to have higher budgets and are of overall higher quality.

Avatar image for Yams1980
#11 Edited by Yams1980 (3432 posts) -

Somewhere inbetween the two. I don't want completely realistic, but not too cartoonish like borderlands with the annoying cell shading.

I lean more to cartoonish though. I actually liked the Sims 4 style a bit more compared to Sims 3, more expressive but edging a bit more cartoonish but not in a stupid way like borderlands with cell shading trash.

I think Tomb raider needs to be rebooted and look more like xbox 360 look with the Tombraider Underworld/Legend games. Loved the way things looked in those games, i hate most of the newer tombraiders, they've tried too hard to make it look realistic and Lara is a depressed disaster in those games and not an easy going cleavage monster like in all the older ones.

And look at Double Fine with their games, they have a nice style since the Day of the tentacle/Monkey Island days all the way up to Psychonauts, i really like the look of each game they make.

As for fighting games, not really a fan of the over cartoonish look of the newer Street Fighter games, I prefer more Soul Calibur or Dead Or Alive look, which is still cartoonish but looks realistic as well.

Avatar image for vfighter
#12 Posted by VFighter (4804 posts) -

@ajstyles: Bullshit, complete bullshit.

Avatar image for Litchie
#13 Posted by Litchie (23717 posts) -

Depends on the game.

I love realistic graphics, but have a softer spot for cool artstyles.

I love how Sekiro looks, which is quite realistic.
I love how Wind Waker looks, which is very cartoony.
I love how Breath of the Wild looks, which is a blend of both.

I usually prefer artstyle over realism. Sekiro isn't the most realistic looking game I've played, but hot diggedy damn it's beautiful. Those japanese people knows how to create game worlds..

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#14 Posted by mrbojangles25 (43784 posts) -

Honestly it depends on the capabilities of the developer.

There are developers that can take the CryEngine and make it look like absolute garbage. Meanwhile, there are modders that can take the 15-year old Source engine and make it look surprisingly relevant.

Likewise, smaller studios might go for a cel-shaded or cartoonish aesthetic because they don't have millions to dump on a fancy game engine license, but they put so much effort into it--hand-crafting textures, rending models artistically, and so forth--that it goes beyond realism into something so much better. It goes into art territory.

Context is also important. I wouldn't want to play a realistic flight sim if it had cartoonish visuals; on the flipside, I could totally get down playing an arcadey space-sim if it had cartoonish art direction.

@vfighter said:

@ajstyles: Bullshit, complete bullshit.

That's all the guys says. @ajstyles's mouth opens, bullshit spills out.

Avatar image for Litchie
#15 Posted by Litchie (23717 posts) -
@R4gn4r0k said:

Void Bastards

Hey, wtf is that?! Looks awesome. *heads to youtube

Avatar image for i_p_daily
#16 Posted by I_P_Daily (11434 posts) -

I don't have a favourite graphic style per say, if the game is fun for me graphical style doesn't matter.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#18 Posted by R4gn4r0k (30722 posts) -
@Litchie said:
@R4gn4r0k said:

Void Bastards

Hey, wtf is that?! Looks awesome. *heads to youtube

Gameinformer did a video on that recently.

Looks like a mix between XIII and System Shock.

Avatar image for xantufrog
#19 Posted by xantufrog (11170 posts) -

I wish I didn't have to pick, because I don't have a strong preference. That being said, I guess jazzy graphics are, on balance, more eye-catching to me most of the time. That being said, really, artistry>>>>realism

Avatar image for ghosts4ever
#20 Posted by Ghosts4ever (9597 posts) -

Realistic obviously. i just cant stand cell shaded cartoonish borderlands style.

Avatar image for robert_sparkes
#21 Posted by robert_sparkes (2930 posts) -

Realistic but do enjoy the cell shaded art style of games like telltale in certain genres.

Avatar image for madrocketeer
#22 Edited by madrocketeer (6234 posts) -

I can't choose. They both have pros and cons. I think the term "Cartonish" is a bit limited in scope; I prefer "Stylized." I think Stylized graphics, when done well, can age better. Okami, for example, was released in 2006, and it's going to be widely cited as a great looking game pretty much forever. Meanwhile, Crysis was released in 2007, and while bits of it still look awesome, other things in the game are clearly showing its age. Another example; Team Fortress 2 still looks sharp, clean and timeless 12 years later, while Counter-Strike: CO, released 5 years afterwards, is already showing its age.

So yeah, a well-executed Realistic game jumps out and impresses from the get go, then fades over time. A well-executed Stylised game merely lands well on its feet, but holds up for much longer.

Avatar image for PAL360
#23 Edited by PAL360 (29554 posts) -

I like both equally, but i have a particular love for pixelart.

Avatar image for dzimm
#24 Edited by dzimm (5358 posts) -

Art style doesn't matter to me as long as it's executed well and fits the tone of the game.

Avatar image for Pedro
#25 Posted by Pedro (33956 posts) -

Stylize graphics has ALWAYS aged better than the "realistic" graphics.

PS: The vast majority of games that are considered realistic is just stylized realism.

Avatar image for mobius_basic
#26 Posted by mobius_basic (582 posts) -

For me it all depends on the game, I like both as long as it "works". I like "cartoony or cell shaded" for games like Attack on Titan or DBZ, stuff like that. I really enjoyed the animation style in the tell tale games like TWD or Batman series.

Avatar image for Jag85
#27 Posted by Jag85 (13360 posts) -

Depends on the genre. Certain genres are better suited to certain art styles. But most of the time, I prefer a cartoony art style.

Avatar image for speeny
#28 Posted by Speeny (1513 posts) -

Cartoony for me. More of an old school kind of guy.

Avatar image for CTR360
#29 Posted by CTR360 (8670 posts) -

both for me

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#30 Posted by Sevenizz (3638 posts) -

Depends on the game. If it’s Nintendo - cartoony. If it’s Xbox, realistic.

But I do not tolerate anime. Too ugly and cheap looking. I will not play an anime styled game - ever.

Avatar image for Ovirew
#31 Posted by Ovirew (8863 posts) -

cartoony. I see enough bs in real life.

Avatar image for warmblur
#32 Posted by warmblur (2160 posts) -

Realistic

Avatar image for robbie23
#33 Posted by Robbie23 (320 posts) -

I have never really enjoyed cell shaded graphics. I enjoyed XIII and first borderlands, but got over it after a while.

Avatar image for mtron32
#34 Posted by mtron32 (3906 posts) -
@ajstyles said:

Realistic is always better.

Anyone can make a cartoon game with no textures or no effort like fortnite or Nintendo’s games.

Cartoons/cel shading and the like scream low budget and lazy. The games are always worse.

Realistic games tend to have higher budgets and are of overall higher quality.

Actually it takes far more sweat equity to produce great cartoony graphics since you're creating everything from scratch. All the things in the world need to be designed by a solid concept art group under a knowing art director so that everything from characters to light poles fit inside that world and are visually coherent. That art style then has to be maintained throughout the modeling and texturing process while also customizing the lighting and shaders you'll be using. All that is dependant on if you even have artists that are capable of hitting the style you're after. The animation also needs to fit with the style of art you've produced so that the consumer can remain immersed and that's assuming you've actually developed compelling game play.

While realism takes time and can be impressive, all you need to do is throw money and bodies at it and you can have a finished product, you don't need to train the staff to achieve that because we already know what it looks like. You can also use plenty of 3D scans to help you along and in the end, you'll hopefully have something nice. However, as a gamer, realistic games just lack a soul and I feel bad for all the people that end up working on them, they look like an absolute bore to develop.

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#35 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (25196 posts) -
@mtron32 said:
@ajstyles said:

Realistic is always better.

Anyone can make a cartoon game with no textures or no effort like fortnite or Nintendo’s games.

Cartoons/cel shading and the like scream low budget and lazy. The games are always worse.

Realistic games tend to have higher budgets and are of overall higher quality.

Actually it takes far more sweat equity to produce great cartoony graphics since you're creating everything from scratch. All the things in the world need to be designed by a solid concept art group under a knowing art director so that everything from characters to light poles fit inside that world and are visually coherent. That art style then has to be maintained throughout the modeling and texturing process while also customizing the lighting and shaders you'll be using. All that is dependant on if you even have artists that are capable of hitting the style you're after. The animation also needs to fit with the style of art you've produced so that the consumer can remain immersed and that's assuming you've actually developed compelling game play.

While realism takes time and can be impressive, all you need to do is throw money and bodies at it and you can have a finished product, you don't need to train the staff to achieve that because we already know what it looks like. You can also use plenty of 3D scans to help you along and in the end, you'll hopefully have something nice. However, as a gamer, realistic games just lack a soul and I feel bad for all the people that end up working on them, they look like an absolute bore to develop.

Oh, because Diablo 3 turned out so well on release, right?

And Skyrim didn't look outdated upon release, right?

You're both swinging to extreme sides of the spectrum, and are both completely wrong.

Developers do manage to make crappy looking games that are cartoony, such as Human Fall Flat. Fun game, but the graphics are complete shite.

And then Skyrim, which had tons of money poured into it, yet had textures that were lower res than modded Oblivion on release.

Avatar image for dire_raven
#36 Posted by Dire_Raven (44 posts) -

Preferably realistic. The cartoonish graphical style, in most cases, lacks details , in favour for a more unique artstyle.

Avatar image for Cloud_imperium
#37 Posted by Cloud_imperium (14922 posts) -

Realistic. Dark and gritty. Slower paced.

Avatar image for l34052
#38 Posted by l34052 (3902 posts) -

I like realistic myself, however, cartoon style works for some games. I loved Jet Set Radio for instance on the DC and then later the original XB, the cell shading really set the game apart from others at the time.

Avatar image for BenjaminBanklin
#39 Posted by BenjaminBanklin (4350 posts) -
@MirkoS77 said:

That depends on the game.

Yup. I mean, what else can be said? A cel-shaded CoD game would be goofy and a super-realistic Mario game would disturb me to no end.

Avatar image for mtron32
#40 Posted by mtron32 (3906 posts) -

@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@mtron32 said:
@ajstyles said:

Realistic is always better.

Anyone can make a cartoon game with no textures or no effort like fortnite or Nintendo’s games.

Cartoons/cel shading and the like scream low budget and lazy. The games are always worse.

Realistic games tend to have higher budgets and are of overall higher quality.

Actually it takes far more sweat equity to produce great cartoony graphics since you're creating everything from scratch. All the things in the world need to be designed by a solid concept art group under a knowing art director so that everything from characters to light poles fit inside that world and are visually coherent. That art style then has to be maintained throughout the modeling and texturing process while also customizing the lighting and shaders you'll be using. All that is dependant on if you even have artists that are capable of hitting the style you're after. The animation also needs to fit with the style of art you've produced so that the consumer can remain immersed and that's assuming you've actually developed compelling game play.

While realism takes time and can be impressive, all you need to do is throw money and bodies at it and you can have a finished product, you don't need to train the staff to achieve that because we already know what it looks like. You can also use plenty of 3D scans to help you along and in the end, you'll hopefully have something nice. However, as a gamer, realistic games just lack a soul and I feel bad for all the people that end up working on them, they look like an absolute bore to develop.

Oh, because Diablo 3 turned out so well on release, right?

And Skyrim didn't look outdated upon release, right?

You're both swinging to extreme sides of the spectrum, and are both completely wrong.

Developers do manage to make crappy looking games that are cartoony, such as Human Fall Flat. Fun game, but the graphics are complete shite.

And then Skyrim, which had tons of money poured into it, yet had textures that were lower res than modded Oblivion on release.

The OP only granted the option of two extremes so that's where I decided to riff on. Diablo 3 was neither cartoony nor realistic, just highly detailed with bad lighting. Skyrim looked fine considering the massive scale of the world and the amount of content it provided. I guess they couldve taken a couple moer years to get the textures the highest possible resolution, but that just compounds the cost and keeps the game off shelves that much longer. Those Oblivion textures looked great because a bunch of modders had LOTS of time to noodle around with things and upgrade the world, developers don't have that luxury. Fast, cheap, quality: you can only have two.

Yes, developers put out crappy renditions of both ends of the coin but that doesn't discount the fact that both take an enormous level of talent and man power to produce.

Avatar image for GarGx1
#41 Posted by GarGx1 (10928 posts) -

Depends on the game, I don't have a set preference.

Avatar image for davillain-
#42 Posted by DaVillain- (36062 posts) -

@i_p_daily said:

I don't have a favourite graphic style per say, if the game is fun for me graphical style doesn't matter.

I'm going what I_P_Daily stated. That's basically how I see it.

Avatar image for raining51
#43 Posted by Raining51 (804 posts) -

I just don't have a preference it 100% dpeneds on how it's done.