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

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

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

That depends on the game.

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.

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.

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

...

!

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)....

Both

Realistic: Battlefield series, Metro series

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

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.

@ajstyles: Bullshit, complete bullshit.

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..

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.

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

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

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

Gameinformer did a video on that recently.

Looks like a mix between XIII and System Shock.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

both for me

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.

cartoony. I see enough bs in real life.

Realistic

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

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.

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

Realistic. Dark and gritty. Slower paced.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

I like the best graphics,like FH5 and Flight simulator

No option in the poll for this...

:P

I dont really have a strong presence either way. depends on what the game is going for. as long as the art style and art direction compliment the tone of the game and its executed well then whats the fuss?

i like to see both the state of the art in realistic graphics and whatever crazy stuff developers can come up with with the hardware available to them.

the more stylised games do tend to age better though.

What's up with the two year necro?

Both?

HaH