cartoon games vs real life looking games. which one is more fun to play?

i just realised that all my faves game are cartoon games like conkers bfd, the 2 banjos, dk64, simpsons hit n run, super mario 64, diddy kong racing etc.

which type of games do u enjoy more?

discuss

I tend to like cartoon but just anime style artwork. Melty blood looked great even though i havent played it. I love the automodelista graphics eventhough the game sucked. I loved ZOE2, DOA, guilty gear, KOF, etc.

Then again I also love Ninja gaiden, Devil may cry, etc which you can say is semi real and semi animeish.

you're right. my favourite games are all cartoon/stylistic/abstract/fantasy. i don't think i have that many photo-realistic games.

however, there are games like resident evil and silent hill that are really engaging and also photo-realistically detailed.

most of my favourite video games are japanese, so i think the more realistic-looking games come from the europe and america. europe and the uk in particular seem to be facisnated by that style of graphics - e.g. hitman, just cause 2, crysis, assasin's creed, and all the racing games from the uk.

i was thinking about fun recently, in relation to graphics. and it seems to be the case that with cartoon-looking games, the gameplay is also simple and fun to match the graphical style. however, when it comes to photo-realistic games, the gameplay is not necessarily more challanging, and the themes and ideas aren't necessarily deeper or more realistic.

often, photo-real games give the appearence of depth and realism, but you realize in a lot of cases that the developers are either working with the same principles of simple fun, or they can't pull off the complex mechanics, or the writing is poor, or actually there is no story. so you either end up with something that is 'fun' or 'cool' without much depth, or something that is boring as hell.

yeah, so i prefer games with some imagination.

You can always tell by what the graphics look like what the game is going to be like. A more cartoony-looking game obviously isn't going to take itself as seriously as say.. GTA4 or Forza whose graphics have been toned to the max.

It really depends on the mood you're in to choose which is more fun. If yoou want a hardcore action-filled shooter most likely the graphics will try to look realistic, or even pseudo-realistic. More comedy and wind-down fun will come with a more cartoony look.

IMO i dont think artistic style will dictate whether a game is "fun" or not. If it's fun then it's fun case in point. 4NGoods

you're right. my favourite games are all cartoon/stylistic/abstract/fantasy. i don't think i have that many photo-realistic games.

however, there are games like resident evil and silent hill that are really engaging and also photo-realistically detailed.

most of my favourite video games are japanese, so i think the more realistic-looking games come from the europe and america. europe and the uk in particular seem to be facisnated by that style of graphics - e.g. hitman, just cause 2, crysis, assasin's creed, and all the racing games from the uk.

i was thinking about fun recently, in relation to graphics. and it seems to be the case that with cartoon-looking games, the gameplay is also simple and fun to match the graphical style. however, when it comes to photo-realistic games, the gameplay is not necessarily more challanging, and the themes and ideas aren't necessarily deeper or more realistic.

often, photo-real games give the appearence of depth and realism, but you realize in a lot of cases that the developers are either working with the same principles of simple fun, or they can't pull off the complex mechanics, or the writing is poor, or actually there is no story. so you either end up with something that is 'fun' or 'cool' without much depth, or something that is boring as hell.

yeah, so i prefer games with some imagination.

just_nonplussed

I agree with this. :)

I tend to prefer 2D sidescrolling and overhead games (like Zelda 3). As far as more 3D-ish games, I prefer to see my character, so an FPS is out. Third person perspective ones are the usual preference, like Pac-Man World 2 or something (just a random game that came to mind).

Cartoony games for me. Games like de Blob and World of Goo are basically the strongest arguments you can have for the "games as art" debate. Plus, games are meant to be a form of escapism, not simulation.

Cartoony games for me. Games like de Blob and World of Goo are basically the strongest arguments you can have for the "games as art" debate. Plus, games are meant to be a form of escapism, not simulation.

k_smoove

It doesn't matter whether they look real or cartoonish. As long as the game play is good, and the story line is fair enough so that I don't lose interest, I'm all good. Well, that, and my skills also have something to do with it. I find typically the ones that look like real life are a bit harder for me to play. :( I suck at this. I hope I get better.

These days im more into the more realstic looking games, because with computers ect. getting better everything in the game is looking more real so i can find that i can sort of become more engaed in the game. But cartoon games are a lot of fun to play.

[QUOTE="4NGoods"]IMO i dont think artistic style will dictate whether a game is "fun" or not. If it's fun then it's fun case in point. bluebusiness

you say graphics have nothing to do with gameplay, but that's not true at all. they both work together and influence each other.

let's take an example.... super mario bros. SMB is a sidescroller, created with sprites, with a simple, colourful style. the limitations of 2D graphics create the genre of sidescroller, and thus the 'gameplay' that follows that approach. now, move mario into three dimensions, and things change, alot. the graphics have allowed for total 3D movement, and the level design has changed from a simple XY axis, to XYZ. you can go through as well as up and down, perform lots of different moves, and rotate the camera - all a part of the gameplay, and all facilitating the level goals. now with super mario galaxy....change the flat worlds (the graphics) to spherical worlds, and the gameplay changes again.

another example: if mario was a realistic-looking character, his whole world would be different from the day-glo playgrounds that we have at the moment. just take a look at these different illustrations of mario. if mario was more fleshed out, his job would probably take on more of a central role, thus what you 'do' in the gameworld would change, and there would probably be a lot more emphasis on a serious story had mario been taken into a detail, realistic dimension. the world would have more objects and backgrounds to explore rather than play around with because, you know, playing is for young children, and with mario being all grown-up we must focus on sex, emotion and violence... so cue the dramatic cut-scenes with text and voice acting. would this be fun? who knows. but it would be completely different from what mario is now. and why? because of the 'graphics'.

also, another exampe: go and replace all the charming sprites from super mario world with realistic photographs and i bet you the game will be less fun.

and you probably got bored of crysis because the realism and detail in the graphics didn't match the depth in gameplay. but i haven't played it much, so...just a guess.

[QUOTE="k_smoove"]

Cartoony games for me. Games like de Blob and World of Goo are basically the strongest arguments you can have for the "games as art" debate. Plus, games are meant to be a form of escapism, not simulation.

Shhadow_Viper