Realism or an artistic look?

Now that hardware is becoming much more advanced it is becoming possible to finally create realistic looking 3D environments within games. But equally we don't have to make games look real; they could just as easily look more artistic and unique in style.

So which do you prefer? And which would you like to see more of in the future? More realism and cinematic like visuals in games? or more artistic and unique looking games?

I personally like to see the later. If I wanted photo realistic visuals I could watch a film. I prefer games to look more artistic with a unique style. Although certain genres such as first person war games would work better with realism and true to live visuals.

A game should always look like a game, I don't want a digitized game, I always hated that. Digitized would be too realistic, but I like games which have a realistic setting too with good graphics, but you should be able to see that it is a game.

What do you exactly mean by cinematic? That the ingame graphic is looking like CG? If so, I would like it, but as I already said (twice), I don't want digital material in games. That already annoys me, when missions are debriefed, some games use digital stuff, wasn't that also the case with C&C games?

Oh, I didn't mean digitized, I meant photo realistic so that a game is hard to distinguish from a film. As you said, I also prefer a game to look like a game, and can be recognised as a game.

But you are right about digitised video. I've always hated that too. It just looks so false and tacky, like some low budget cable sci-fi show or something, especially the C&C cut scenes. At least they are not doing it so much now and instead using in game scenes for the cut scenes in most games now. It was when CD started to take off as the new media for games that every developer was trying to utilise the space on CDs with video clips and the buzz word was "multimedia".

I quite like variety. I'd like a game to look as realistic as possible if that's the intention providing the gameplay isn't compromised as a result. On the other hand, I also like games with a quirky style. A lot of the most original (and fun) games have made no attempt to look realistic at all and instead have concentrated on making the environment as fun as possible.

I like both styles, but I chose artistic because in general I would like more original games. They make me want to play the game because it is unique from other games that are available. Having said that, if I were playing a game like battlefield, I would want the game to look as realistic as possible

I love it when graphics are done right. People hated Wind Waker but I thought its graphics were fantastic. Games like Okami, Jet Set Radio and Paper Mario are just as impressive to me as the likes of Oblivion, Shoadow of the Colossus and Metal Gear Soild 4. As long as they suit and enhance the game then I couldnt care if they looked like a film or a picasso!

I chose 'artistic', but it's not like I don't appreciate a game that can offer photorealistic visuals where it's needed. The genres that benefit most from realism is the driving/flight sims. For everything else, I'd rather the developers use some imagination instead.

What actually amazes me that this question has been asked on a retro site :)

Seriously thoughly, I don't care as long as the graphic quality does not detract from the playability of the game. Sure, I like to be able to recognise what it is I am manipulating/shooting at/flying/driving. I am a huge fan of cel-shaded graphics, but I also feel that games like Resistance would not be so good if the graphics were not up to the quality that it has.

An example of games that I like, regardless of the quality of the graphics, are things like Monster Rancher (Not great graphics, but a great game), SSX Tricky (The main reason I include this is that the graphics and the gameplay worked, whereas the later games where not so balanced and were not as fun).

Great graphics are great :owned: but not at the expense of gameplay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by v85rawdeal

What actually amazes me that this question has been asked on a retro site :)

---

I suppose you have a point, but even on the Amiga many developers were trying for realism. The 16-bit era with the introduction of harddrives and the CD were really the first platforms to allow such ideas to be tried.

Look at games like Microcosm or Nighttrap. They were trying to create realism before it was truly possible, but the developers did hint at the future.

Personally I still prefer sprite based graphics over 3D for many genres.

Quote:

---

Personally I still prefer sprite based graphics over 3D for many genres.

---

Me too. I prefer isometric view like in Jagged Alliance, XCom games or Fallout. I don't know what Fallout 3 will look like when it's finished, but I hope they manage it to keep the game playable.

But when you take a look at RTS games, it's great to see that they get it looking great even in 3D. If you would still use sprites, it would never get such details. Just look at World in Conflict, even when you zoom in, you still have perfectly animated 3D landscapes, soldiers, vehicles aso. And that's the kind of realism I like in games, it still looks like a game, but you think you are on a real battlefield.

The problem with some of the newer games is that the characters are getting closer to falling into the Uncanny valley.

I like realism for some games, but it really is something that is very hard to achieved. I think that something done with style will be better. The previously mentioned Wind Waker is a fantastic example of this. There is room for both, but something done with a strong artistic sense is ace.

Bah, silly poll. Gameplay is the key, 20 year old amiga classics cant be beaten, sooner todays games companies realise this the better.

I think they finally did with this current console generation. Why else would all three systems have downloadable gaming arcades? With many of the games on offer being old or updated classics. ;)