Ultra Realism VS Stylized Art Design in Games - Your Preference?

I was thinking about the upcoming reveal of Battlefield 4. Specifically - if it will go for the Ultra Realism of BF3, or if it will be slightly stylized like the Bad Company games were. Personally - I hope for the latter, and fear the former will be what EA/DICE is going for.

As a romantic at heart, I don't care about how things are, but how they should be. Hence - I find Ultra Realism rather appalling, and I suspect due to its more narrowly defined limitations, it makes for worse gamedesign - simply because it has to consider how things really are, rather than what they should be like for optimal results.

Please don't suck, Battlefield 4.

All games have to have a style. Even if they look "real" they are deliberately stylized for realism in a coherent way, making the whole look better than the sum of it's parts. This is the aim.

Well, I actually liked XIII, so...

@pillclinton said:

XIII was great! I'm right there with you.

Stylized. Always. A realistic look never really jumps out at me unless the graphics are really, really good or there's some impressive animations or something like that, and those things do not impress me as much anymore. Crysis 3 looked good but it didn't make my jaw drop or my eyes pop-out like the first one did and like Battlefield 3 once did.

In a very general sense, I prefer stylized graphics over realistic graphics, but there are infinite degrees between those two points and ultimately it's something I would decide on a case-by-case basis.

Stylized, since it's usually easier to justify things there than it is with realism.

Whichever style fits in coherently with the game's direction.

Obviously it depends on the game. Realistic graphics do age poorly and there is infinitely more variety with stylized visuals. Stylized does have more potential to be really terrible though. Aging visuals notwithstanding, current realistic graphics have less chance of looking like complete crap.

Now i managed to confuse myself. I'll say stylized.

i'll always prefer stylized visuals to a "photo-realistic" look. it's just a personal preference, but part of why i enjoy artistic endeavours is the alternative they present to reality. it's open to argumentation, but i think you can say a great deal more with a stylized image than a "realistic" one.

Something that can balance both. Immersive and original is what I look for.

I think it depends on the game and what is it trying to achieve. My to favorite looking games couldn't be more different:

-Battlefield 3: realism at its best, the lighting, texture, and colors are just amazing.

-Starcraft 2: Stylized, the textures in SC2 are art in my opinion, they have this handmade quality that makes that game so timeless.

A specific art direction is the obvious choice instead of aiming for life like graphics. Once you make it look like like there is no where to go and you don't have options. A stylized design is more interesting to look at. We already know what stuff looks like in the real world.

I don't mind ultra realism, but I generally prefer a unique art style over anything. Having a stylised art design makes the game more memorable to me and it takes a lot more creativity to come up with something different than to chase realistic virtual representation.

I enjoy both.

There's definitely a place for both- I wouldn't want my Zelda game to look ultra realistic, and I wouldn't want Battlefield to be all arty.

In the long run a unique art style will hold out more, it's why Japanese PS2 games are more appealing on the eyes when they're released in HD collections.

Like people have said, realistic tends to age the fastest. I'll go with stylized.

I generally prefer a non-realistic style. Cel-shaded and 2D games are always quickest to catch my eye.

Stylization always stands the test of time much stronger than realistic game art. It's pretty cool if a game manages to create a very cinematic experience at least in part through realistic renderings. However, there's also a good reason why a cartoonishly styled and well-crafted sprite-based games tend to remain visually appealing long after their conception while games that attempt to recreate real-world appearances 'age' faster, as they are always being outdone by next year's sequel sporting 'better graphics.'

It kinda depends on the game, doesn't it?

I prefer stylized graphics. They have been proven to stand the test of time more than realistic graphics.

Wind Waker and Okami will probably end up looking better than most games today because of that. We will look back and see how crappy these realistic unreal engine characters look when they are loading in all their face textures.

I think SNES games are more visually pleasing than most N64 and Ps1 games because pixel art is stylized. It's the reason A Link to the Past won't need a remake but something like Ocarina of Time or Majora's Mask does.

Even though it has realistic character models, MGS1 still has something interesting about it visually that I'd consider stylized, I played it for the first time recently and it's age didn't bother me.

If in HD many of the best Gamecube/ Wii games would have timeless visuals.

I already experience enough reality in, you know, the reality. Playing video games, I don't want to escape to the thing I want to escape from.

Stylized, always. Wind Waker still looks more appealing to me than any game aiming for realism has so far. I get why people don't want every game to have more stylized graphics but personally I wouldn't mind.

Generally speaking I would definitely say stylized. Though there are certainly styles I dislike, and there are lots of games where a realistic look simply fits the tone better. Really it's all about finding the look that best suits your game's narrative and gameplay, and on the axis between realism and stylized graphics, this look falls on a different point for every game.

I was going to say ultra-realism until you used Bad Company as your example of stylized. How do you figure?

The Bad Company games, especially the first one, has like a hint of cell shading going on - it's kinda like the take on realism you'd find in a comic book - whilst BF3 goes more for that cinematic ultra realism, with its overexposed lighting and blue/grey/oange tint, depending on map - like reality looks on film.

I much prefer the more vibrant colorful take on realism - let's say stylized realism - of the Bad Company games. I think it fits fun videogames better, whilst ultra realism is better suited for simulation centric games like ARMA, that care less about creating a fun game, and rather try to recreate reality as exactly as possible. If reality was that much fun, I'd not be into videogames in the first place.

Stylized is easier on my eyes but I do like realism.

With realism one thing i'd like to see more of is actual realism. Realistic graphics minus all the excessive bloom, HDR and lens flares. Battlefield 3 is an impressive looking game on a technical level but it also looks really stupid when they make it so your face is made of glass that gets covered with dirt and creates huge lens flares and distorted lights. When you have enemies "hiding" right in front of you under all that imaginary dirt it's just dumb.

Nah, both are fine. As is everything in between as well as outside of those two descriptors.

Stylized games age better. The designers visions still standout. The most extreme example is Windwaker compared to Twilight Princess.

If I really have to choose, I would choose realistic as it can be more impressive form a technological standpoint. Style is impressive but that comes more from imagination, which is important, of course, but I would still take realism over that.

@seppli: If they want it to be more realistic they have gotto get rid of that blue tint. I hated that look honestly.

I prefer stylized. To me I think it is a better way for the devolopers, and more often the game artists to show their skill. A game like God of War, where the graphics look good, but the style is all it's own and the monsters look real, and awesome.

Either or but I love style, I don't need everything to look realistic