Do you prefer stylized games or realistic looking ones?

H

Recently, the Industry has been going in two polar opposite directions.

Games are either becoming increasingly stylized (Bastion, Little Big Planet, Braid, Bioshock Infinite, Final Fantasy etc.) or are pushing graphics to look more and more realistic(Battlefield, Call of Duty, Killzone, Skyrim, Crysis etc.)

Which one do you prefer? Why?

I prefer stylized games because they hold up much better in the future and are more pleasing to look at. Realistic looking games may stun for a few months but they become meh as soon as they are eclipsed.

*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/customavatars/avatar146433_2.gif

H

Faun said:
*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/customavatars/avatar146433_2.gif

That is the result of being an image clicked from a 3DS screen using a SGS2 and being resized in MS Paint. It looks much better in motion

and even better in 3D on the 3DS screen.

To get what I mean, compare Viewtiful Joe(2003)

with Doom 3(2004)

Voted for realistic. Reasons are obvious. They give that depth and sense of realism into gameplay. Everything appears believable and this is the direction most of the video games are heading into.

Engines like :

Epic - Unreal Engine 4
Crytek - Cryengine3 & Next Cryengine
EA - Frostbite 3
Capcom -Panta Rhei engine (Deep down)
Bethesda Zenimax - id tech 5
Square Enix - Luminous Next gen Engine
Ubisoft - Disrupt Engine (Watchdogs)
Bungie - Destiny Engine (Used in their new ip "Destiny")

These are all set to take future games into the next level of realism. This list is few and there are many more proprietary in-house engines from sony and microsoft which are going to be used on their next gen consoles as well as pc.

That said, i like stylized games too. Super meat boy, limbo , braid and trine are my favorites. They offer a different experience, more or like fantasy and aren't exactly competing with realistic games.
They have their own playing field. Indie games are basically heading in that direction. Nintendo games can be compared with indie titles to some extent or we can say their games are inspirational for the development of titles like braid and super meat boy.

vickybat said:
Voted for realistic. Reasons are obvious. They give that depth and sense of realism into gameplay. Everything appears believable and this is the direction most of the video games are heading into.

Engines like :

Epic - Unreal Engine 4
Crytek - Cryengine3 & Next Cryengine
EA - Frostbite 3
Capcom -Panta Rhei engine (Deep down)
Bethesda Zenimax - id tech 5
Square Enix - Luminous Next gen Engine
Ubisoft - Disrupt Engine (Watchdogs)

These are all set to take future games into the next level of realism. This list is few and there are many more proprietary in-house engines from sony and microsoft which are going to be used on their next gen consoles as well as pc.

That said, i like stylized games too. Super meat boy, limbo , braid and trine are my favorites. They offer a different experience, more or like fantasy and aren't exactly competing with realistic games.
They have their own playing field. Indie games are basically heading in that direction. Nintendo games can be compared with indie titles to some extent or we can say their games are inspirational for the development of titles like braid and super meat boy.

Yet we have Bioshock: Infinite, which visually wins over today's bleeding edge Crysis 3 because visually it is a lot more appealing and it is probably the best contender at the moment for GOTY. And it uses Unreal Engine 3 which is the predecessor of UE4 which you mention as a "realism" engine.

You are confusing art direction with technological advancement. An engine is just the source of all the technology you can use in your games to make them look visually appealing. Engines can be used both in a stylistic manner and in a realistic manner. It depends on how you use the features available to you to your advantage. dead5's poll is not about more accurate lighting, more accurate physics or something of that sort.

H

vickybat said:
Voted for realistic. Reasons are obvious. They give that depth and sense of realism into gameplay. Everything appears believable and this is the direction most of the video games are heading into.

Engines like :

Epic - Unreal Engine 4
Crytek - Cryengine3 & Next Cryengine
EA - Frostbite 3
Capcom -Panta Rhei engine (Deep down)
Bethesda Zenimax - id tech 5
Square Enix - Luminous Next gen Engine
Ubisoft - Disrupt Engine (Watchdogs)
Bungie - Destiny Engine (Used in their new ip "Destiny")

These are all set to take future games into the next level of realism. This list is few and there are many more proprietary in-house engines from sony and microsoft which are going to be used on their next gen consoles as well as pc.

That said, i like stylized games too. Super meat boy, limbo , braid and trine are my favorites. They offer a different experience, more or like fantasy and aren't exactly competing with realistic games.
They have their own playing field. Indie games are basically heading in that direction. Nintendo games can be compared with indie titles to some extent or we can say their games are inspirational for the development of titles like braid and super meat boy.

Tech != Art direction. And their demos look amazing right now, but will not wow us in the same way 2 - 3 years in the future and may actually become displeasing to look at 7-8 years into the future. Iid Tech 4's demos looked amazing and took us to the next level of realism in 2004, but you will be mocked if you consider it amazing/visually pleasing today.

You can combine art direction with cutting edge technology to create games that will be visually pleasing even in the future eg. Half-Life 2(as much as i hate to use this as an example, it is the best one I have).

This was mindblowing back then
*static.giantbomb.com/uploads/scale_super/1/13692/1386568-ijhbm.jpg

as was this.
*recollectionsofplay.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/sm64-saving-penguins.jpg

Now it is up to you to decide which one looks better.

Extreme Gamer said:
Yet we have Bioshock: Infinite, which visually wins over today's bleeding edge Crysis 3 because visually it is a lot more appealing and it is probably the best contender at the moment for GOTY. And it uses Unreal Engine 3 which is the predecessor of UE4 which you mention as a "realism" engine.

You are confusing art direction with technological advancement. An engine is just the source of all the technology you can use in your games to make them look visually appealing. Engines can be used both in a stylistic manner and in a realistic manner. It depends on how you use the features available to you to your advantage. dead5's poll is not about more accurate lighting, more accurate physics or something of that sort.

Of course that's true. Games like borderlands(1,2), Dishonored and like you mentioned, Bioshock Infinite are amongst the elite. I never said game play or art direction should be neglected.
Even UE 4 has massive scaling options to use accordingly as per devs require.

Using visual studio, textures can be altered during compilation. That means code can be changed in real-time and in a different window, one can see the effects. This stuff used to take 15mins for a minor change in UE 3, but in UE-4 ,it takes just 30 secs. Weeks of work can now be manipulated and changed in hours. This sort of flexibility is what next gen tech provides.

Of course UE-4 will be used to make games with Bioshock Infinite like theme. I would consider BI to be realistic coz of gameplay mechanics and character emotion it brings.

H

vickybat said:
Of course that's true. Games like borderlands(1,2), Dishonored and like you mentioned, Bioshock Infinite are amongst the elite. I never said game play or art direction should be neglected.
Even UE 4 has massive scaling options to use accordingly as per devs require.

Using visual studio, textures can be altered during compilation. That means code can be changed in real-time and in a different window, one can see the effects. This stuff used to take 15mins for a minor change in UE 3, but in UE-4 ,it takes just 30 secs. Weeks of work can now be manipulated and changed in hours. This sort of flexibility is what next gen tech provides.

Of course UE-4 will be used to make games with Bioshock Infinite like theme. I would consider BI to be realistic coz of gameplay mechanics and character emotion it brings.

This poll is about art direction. You may consider it realistic, but it does not have a realistic art direction. This isn't about workflow within the engine either.

vickybat said:
Of course that's true. Games like borderlands(1,2), Dishonored and like you mentioned, Bioshock Infinite are amongst the elite. I never said game play or art direction should be neglected.
Even UE 4 has massive scaling options to use accordingly as per devs require.

Using visual studio, textures can be altered during compilation. That means code can be changed in real-time and in a different window, one can see the effects. This stuff used to take 15mins for a minor change in UE 3, but in UE-4 ,it takes just 30 secs. Weeks of work can now be manipulated and changed in hours. This sort of flexibility is what next gen tech provides.

Of course UE-4 will be used to make games with Bioshock Infinite like theme. I would consider BI to be realistic coz of gameplay mechanics and character emotion it brings.

Do you realize that this poll is not about technological advancement? Why are you repeating yourself? Realism is one art direction and stylized is another.

Crysis 3 looks great, but it isn't as visually pleasing as Bioshock, or even puny little Trine 2 IMHO. And it is supposed to be the bleeding edge of technology. Over here the discussion is about the ART DIRECTION ONLY so please try to refrain from mixing it up with technological advancement.

Basically, if you like realism, you like it because you like to see games where you seem to be much closer to real life, and not because it is able to raytrace in realtime or because the engine in the game uses deferred shading. If you like stylized visuals, you like it because you find stylized art more visually appealing than real-life simulators (from a visual perspective).

dead5 said:
This poll is about art direction. You may consider it realistic, but it does not have a realistic art direction. This isn't about workflow within the engine either.

Your Poll- Do you prefer stylized games or realistic looking ones?

How in the heck you expect somebody to comprehend that as art-direction? Did you you specified art direction once in your post?

Extreme Gamer said:
Do you realize that this poll is not about technological advancement? Why are you repeating yourself? Realism is one art direction and stylized is another.

Crysis 3 looks great, but it isn't as visually pleasing as Bioshock, or even puny little Trine 2 IMHO. And it is supposed to be the bleeding edge of technology. Over here the discussion is about the ART DIRECTION ONLY so please try to refrain from mixing it up with technological advancement.

Basically, if you like realism, you like it because you like to see games where you seem to be much closer to real life, and not because it is able to raytrace in realtime or because the engine in the game uses deferred shading. If you like stylized visuals, you like it because you find stylized art more visually appealing than real-life simulators (from a visual perspective).

Look at the above poll carefully mate. Its no where mentioned art direction. Its just brought about now.
He never meant games like bio-shock infinite. He was comparing realistic titles and simulators with indie games ( maybe nintendo too) in the back of his mind.
This is what i comprehend at least coz he clearly mentioned games like battlefield 3/killzone in his first post. These are nowhere near art styled themes are they?

H

vickybat said:
Your Poll- Do you prefer stylized games or realistic looking ones?

How in the heck you expect somebody to comprehend that as art-direction? Did you you specified art direction once in your post?

Because stylization and realism are two different art directions? And the word 'looking' should have clarified that i mean just visually.

Edit: And i purposely avoided Nintendo to prevent a Nintendo flame war.

vickybat said:
Your Poll- Do you prefer stylized games or realistic looking ones?

How in the heck you expect somebody to comprehend that as art-direction? Did you you specified art direction once in your post?

Any normal person could...how do you correlate stylizing with technology/lack thereof?

vickybat said:
Your Poll- Do you prefer stylized games or realistic looking ones?
Look at the above poll carefully. Its no where mentioned art direction. Its just brought about now.
He never meant games like bio-shock infinite. He was comparing realistic titles and simulators with nintendo games in the back of his mind.
This is what i comprehend at least coz he clearly mentioned games like battlefield 3 in his first post.

Erm realism is an art direction. Battlefield 3 just happens to be a highly technologically advanced version. LBP has strong technology behind it so your point is moot.

Both..only if they're well made and fun to play and look at.

Is this another Simulation vs arcade thread, or are we talking about the art styles?

cyborg47 said:
Is this another Simulation vs arcade thread, or are we talking about the art styles?

Although the answer lies in previous posts, I'll tell you that it is about art direction.

cyborg47 said:
Disagree, a million times. That's just plain wrong.

Don't mistake correlation for equality. Although it is true that games look more visually appealing as technology progresses, the art direction is solely dependent on the skill of the artists and the design team in general. It is the quality that gets scaled up or down depending on the technology you use.

For example, Blender, 3ds Max and Maya are all modelling tools. They use different processes, but it is possible to achieve visually identical results in each tool through the different processes.

Voted.I prefer "stylized" games,
like

Darksiders series
Borderlands
Starcraft
Mass effect series
C&C 3
DMC 4
Ratchet & clank
Monster hunter.
Skyrim

ok thats about it

dead5 said:
Tech != Art direction. And their demos look amazing right now, but will not wow us in the same way 2 - 3 years in the future and may actually become displeasing to look at 7-8 years into the future. Iid Tech 4's demos looked amazing and took us to the next level of realism in 2004, but you will be mocked if you consider it amazing/visually pleasing today.

You can combine art direction with cutting edge technology to create games that will be visually pleasing even in the future eg. Half-Life 2(as much as i hate to use this as an example, it is the best one I have).

This was mindblowing back then
*static.giantbomb.com/uploads/scale_super/1/13692/1386568-ijhbm.jpg

as was this.
*recollectionsofplay.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/sm64-saving-penguins.jpg

Now it is up to you to decide which one looks better.

This post of yours doesn't prove anything really. At least nothing that i can buy.
For your information, tech gives rise to art direction. To make a game like Bio-shock Infinite, you need something like Unreal Engine 3 and not a mario, braid or bastion engine.

You are forgetting that when we talk of realism, its that we are trying to bridge the gap closer towards reality. To do that, tech has to move on and surely old tech will look displeasing in the future.
What's the point of bringing these here?

Also know that old tech gives rise to new. Without id tech 4, there would be no id-tech 5, UE-4, Frostbite and so on. John Carmack is considered the father of modern day gaming almost unanimously. I guess you know the reason why.

When id -tech 4 first made appearance in doom3, it was surely ahead of time and pushed technology to move and give rise to what we see today.
This is like Moore's law in gaming. I guess you know moore's law right?

Here's an example, this is a 2d(slightly 2.5D as well, sometimes) platformer called Ballpoint Universe. The game's art is completely made using a ball point pen. Now you're gonna need a basic-good engine/tech to create something as awesome as this, but not necessarily start of art tech like UE4, FB3.0, or CE3 right? They are co related, and dependent on each other, but you really don't need extremely high tech to create games that are compelling in terms or art.

cyborg47 said:
Both..only if they're well made and fun to play and look at.

Is this another Simulation vs arcade thread, or are we talking about the art styles?

Disagree, a million times. That's just plain wrong.

Yup mate. Seconded.

Extreme Gamer said:
Any normal person could...how do you correlate stylizing with technology/lack thereof?

Erm realism is an art direction. Battlefield 3 just happens to be a highly technologically advanced version. LBP has strong technology behind it so your point is moot.

Actually i happen to understand what you are trying to say. LPB is actually the most advanced tech in that list.

cyborg47 said:
Here's an example, this is a 2d(slightly 2.5D as well, sometimes) platformer called Ballpoint Universe. The game's art is completely made using a ball point pen. Now you're gonna need a basic-good engine/tech to create something as awesome as this, but not necessarily start of art tech like UE4, FB3.0, or CE3 right?

Erm are you saying that art direction is dependent on tech or the opposite? By this post you actually seem to be supporting dead5 by saying that art direction isnt the same as tech.

vickybat said:
Yup mate. Seconded.

Does this != mean not equals or did I miss something?

Extreme Gamer said:
Erm are you saying that art direction is dependent on tech or the opposite? By this post you actually seem to be supporting dead5 by saying that art direction isnt the same as tech.

sorry for the delay..updated the post, have another look.

H

vickybat said:
This post of yours doesn't prove anything really. At least nothing that i can buy.
For your information, tech gives rise to art direction. To make a game like Bio-shock Infinite, you need something like Unreal Engine 3 and not a mario, braid or bastion engine.

You are forgetting that when we talk of realism, its that we are trying to bridge the gap closer towards reality. To do that, tech has to move on and surely old tech will look displeasing in the future.
What's the point of bringing these here?

Also know that old tech gives rise to new. Without id tech 4, there would be no id-tech 5, UE-4, Frostbite and so on. John Carmack is considered the father of modern day gaming almost unanimously. I guess you know the reason why.

When id -tech 4 first made appearance in doom3, it was surely ahead of time and pushed technology to move and give rise to what we see today.
This is like Moore's law in gaming. I guess you know moore's law right?

When did he rob the title from Shigeru Miyamoto? I know that he is considered the father of 3D game engines, but modern Video Gaming?

This poll has nothing to do with tech so please don't keep on bringing it up.

My point was that stylized games hold much better than realistic one.

vickybat said:
This post of yours doesn't prove anything really. At least nothing that i can buy.
For your information, tech gives rise to art direction. To make a game like Bio-shock Infinite, you need something like Unreal Engine 3 and not a mario, braid or bastion engine.

You are forgetting that when we talk of realism, its that we are trying to bridge the gap closer towards reality. To do that, tech has to move on and surely old tech will look displeasing in the future.
What's the point of bringing these here?

Also know that old tech gives rise to new. Without id tech 4, there would be no id-tech 5, UE-4, Frostbite and so on. John Carmack is considered the father of modern day gaming almost unanimously. I guess you know the reason why.

When id -tech 4 first made appearance in doom3, it was surely ahead of time and pushed technology to move and give rise to what we see today.
This is like Moore's law in gaming. I guess you know moore's law right?

1. On the contrary, the developers decided on this art direction for the bioshock franchise and chose unreal engine as it would be the best way to display this art style. He consciously didn't mention Mario for a reason....
2. Which is why we said that realism correlates with tech. But it isn't because of tech that we want realism, but because we want realism that tech advanced. Demand isn't crated to meet supply (like apple junk), but supply is created to meet demand.
3. John Carmack is considered the father of first person shooters, not modern day gaming. Or are you telling me that modern day gaming is only made up of FPSes.
4. Moore's law seems to be slowing down...

H

cyborg47 said:
Here's an example, this is a 2d(slightly 2.5D as well, sometimes) platformer called Ballpoint Universe. The game's art is completely made using a ball point pen. Now you're gonna need a basic-good engine/tech to create something as awesome as this, but not necessarily start of art tech like UE4, FB3.0, or CE3 right? They are co related, and dependent on each other, but you really don't need extremely high tech to create games that are compelling in terms or art.

Doesn't that video kind of prove my point?

cyborg47 said:
Does this != mean not equals or did I miss something?

sorry for the delay..updated the post, have another look.

yes '!=' means not equals.

You're still supporting Dead5 btw, lol.

Extreme Gamer said:
yes '!=' means not equals.

You're still supporting Dead5 btw, lol.

oh ok..I thought its equals

So you do agree with dead5 right? Need to make sure lol.

Extreme Gamer said:
So you do agree with dead5 right? Need to make sure lol.

I do, yeah. I did get confused but got my point across in the previous post

Extreme Gamer said:
1. On the contrary, the developers decided on this art direction for the bioshock franchise and chose unreal engine as it would be the best way to display this art style. He consciously didn't mention Mario for a reason....
2. Which is why we said that realism correlates with tech. But it isn't because of tech that we want realism, but because we want realism that tech advanced. Demand isn't crated to meet supply (like apple junk), but supply is created to meet demand.
3. John Carmack is considered the father of first person shooters, not modern day gaming. Or are you telling me that modern day gaming is only made up of FPSes.
4. Moore's law seems to be slowing down...

1. Yeah but he pitted killzone and BF games against braid/bastion and the likes. No way he meant about Bioshock/Dishonored styled titles.
I would also like to put far cry 3 here if that's what this thread means of depicting stylized titles.

2.Of course this is a valid point. Realism exists due to tech and like you said in economics term, i would like to put it as "necessity is the mother of invention".
The dire need of realism gives rise to the development of advanced tech in both hardware and software fields ( game engines, api's and of course gpu

).

3.Well that's not what i meant. He's also considered as the pioneer of 3d graphics, fps, tps or any genre. Third person titles also are a derivative of fps only with a different camera angle.
He's best known for the innovations and contributions in advanced 3d graphics. His work on id-tech 4 and the recent id-tech5 are known to have driven the entire industry forward.
That was my point.

4.Moore's law still holds true. Gaming industry is showing no signs of slowing down in moving forward.

vickybat said:
1. Yeah but he pitted killzone and BF games against braid/bastion and the likes. No way he meant about Bioshock/Dishonored styled titles.
I would also like to put far cry 3 here if that's what this thread means of depicting stylized titles.

2.Of course this is a valid point. Realism exists due to tech and like you said in economics term, i would like to put it as "necessity is the mother of invention".
The dire need of realism gives rise to the development of advanced tech in both hardware and software fields ( game engines, api's and of course gpu ).

3.Well that's not what i meant. He's also considered as the pioneer of 3d graphics, fps, tps or any genre. Third person titles also are a derivative of fps only with a different camera angle.
He's best known for the innovations and contributions in advanced 3d graphics. His work on id-tech 4 and the recent id-tech5 are known to have driven the entire industry forward.
That was my point.

4.Moore's law still holds true. Gaming industry is showing no signs of slowing down in moving forward.

1. LittleBigPlanet is neither Braid nor Bastion-like.
3. List of people considered father or mother of a field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For point 3 notice that Carmack is father of 3D gaming, while Miyamoto is the father of modern video games. Besides, Carmack pioneered Shooters, not "any genre" as you put it. In Strategy circles (turn based and RTS) he is never mentioned (Sid Meier is probably the closest to father of for strategy), RPGs have Gary Gygax, Stealth Hideo Kojima, and the modern day industry is credited to Noland Bushnell.

There's a common misconception that good tech automatically means realistic graphics. Lot of people forget that its the color palette that actually makes all the difference, ask any experienced traditional fine artist, this is what they'll say.

cyborg47 said:
There's a common misconception that good tech automatically means realistic graphics. Lot of people forget that its the color palette that actually makes all the difference, ask any experienced traditional fine artist, this is what they'll say.

Very true. I hated the dull colours of Battlefield 3. They needed to be vivid to really make the game come alive.

Extreme Gamer said:
Besides, Carmack pioneered Shooters, not "any genre" as you put it.

err..he pioneered 3d graphics engines. His team used it to make fps games. Genres aren't limited by engines.

Extreme Gamer said:
Very true. I hated the dull colours of Battlefield 3. They needed to be vivid to really make the game come alive.

Not necessarily. That's the color palette DICE chose to go with. Nothing wrong with that. I think the game looks gorgeous.

cyborg47 said:
err..he pioneered 3d graphics engines. His team used it to make fps games. Genres aren't limited by engines.

Not necessarily. That's the color palette DICE chose to go with. Nothing wrong with that. I think the game looks gorgeous.

Yes, but if you read my post I've mentioned that he's the father of 3D gaming.

As for battlefield 3, that was my initial impression. I got used to it later and it wasn't so bad after that.

Extreme Gamer said:
Yes, but if you read my post I've mentioned that he's the father of 3D gaming.

Like John Lasseter for 3D animation

Extreme Gamer said:
Very true. I hated the dull colours of Battlefield 3. They needed to be vivid to really make the game come alive.

Far cry 3....

Besides i wanted to share this list but my place is having a hell lot of power cuts today and my ups battery is completely wasted. Besides i had a major surgery and cannot sit down on anything, let alone a chair.

IGN - 10. John Carmack

This list contains all the names you mentioned and i don't seem to disagree. Check out the new fox engine for mgsV The phantom pain. It seems Kojima is also heading down the reality road.

Metal Gear Solid 5 FOX Engine Tech Demo video is stunning | PIXEL ENEMY

*gamingbolt.com/fox-engine-gdc-2013-tech-demo-released-by-kojima-productions

Alright please some of my questions

1. Under which category Skyrim comes, realism or stylised ?? Please give proper explanation
2. Are we strictly talking about game graphics and no gameplay whatsoever in this thread ??

H

vickybat said:
1. Yeah but he pitted killzone and BF games against braid/bastion and the likes. No way he meant about Bioshock/Dishonored styled titles.
I would also like to put far cry 3 here if that's what this thread means of depicting stylized titles.

2.Of course this is a valid point. Realism exists due to tech and like you said in economics term, i would like to put it as "necessity is the mother of invention".
The dire need of realism gives rise to the development of advanced tech in both hardware and software fields ( game engines, api's and of course gpu ).

3.Well that's not what i meant. He's also considered as the pioneer of 3d graphics, fps, tps or any genre. Third person titles also are a derivative of fps only with a different camera angle.
He's best known for the innovations and contributions in advanced 3d graphics. His work on id-tech 4 and the recent id-tech5 are known to have driven the entire industry forward.
That was my point.

4.Moore's law still holds true. Gaming industry is showing no signs of slowing down in moving forward.

1. Just because i used LBP/Braid/Bastion as examples doesn't mean that the others are excluded. I used them because they came to my mind first and do a good job of showing stylization in games.

3. Except for the fact that the gaming industry was driven forward by idTech 1 - 4, but not much by 5. You said that he is considered the father of modern video gaming unanimously while he is considered the father of modern 3D games and FPSs.

4. The video game industry is slowing down.

*www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/arts/vi...ine-despite-new-hits.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The Video Game Industry is likely to Experience a Slow Down| Game Industry News | iPhone iPod Touch iPad Game News, Review and Updates
Video game industry weakens as recession worsens | TG Daily

Today AAA games cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to develop and need to sell 2 - 5 million copies to break even. Most games don't sell that much. Tomb Raider and Hitman couldn't meet Square Enix's expectations inspite of selling well.

Profits and margins of developers and publishers are down. Companies like Square Enix are bleeding money. I need not go into the recent THQ demise. One bomb is enough to add a game studio to this list:

NeoGAF - View Single Post - List of studios closed since 2006

Very little innovation is happening in AAA studios and they are becoming more and more risk averse(there are exceptions ofc). These are not signs of a healthy industry.

gameranand said:
Alright please some of my questions

1. Under which category Skyrim comes, realism or stylised ?? Please give proper explanation
2. Are we strictly talking about game graphics and no gameplay whatsoever in this thread ??

1. Imo Skyrim would come under realism. From character models(perfectly proportioned humans), textures, to the lighting and color palette(faded colors to give a sense of the bleak, harsh world that Skyrim is), I think Bethesda were definitely going for realism.
2. Yup, I think we're talking only about graphics.

Feel free to disagree.

darkv0id said:
1. Imo Skyrim would come under realism. From character models(perfectly proportioned humans), textures, to the lighting and color palette(faded colors to give a sense of the bleak, harsh world that Skyrim is), I think Bethesda were definitely going for realism.
2. Yup, I think we're talking only about graphics.

Feel free to disagree.

No I actually agree with you, I was thinking the same.

darkv0id put it aptly

H

gameranand said:
Alright please some of my questions

1. Under which category Skyrim comes, realism or stylised ?? Please give proper explanation
2. Are we strictly talking about game graphics and no gameplay whatsoever in this thread ??

Skyrim is definitely realism. The humans look like real humans. The buildings/environments are extremely normal and could be found in the real world. The fictional creatures look like they would look like that IRL. so it comes under realism for me.

And yes, we strictly are talking about visuals. Otherwise 99% of the games would be categorized as stylized

gameranand said:
Alright please some of my questions

1. Under which category Skyrim comes, realism or stylised ?? Please give proper explanation
2. Are we strictly talking about game graphics and no gameplay whatsoever in this thread ??

Skyrim is definitely realism. Its an astounding feat by devs for making the world of skyrim so so believable even though it contains mythical beings and creatures.

idk y u guys like skyrim so much i kind of got bored with it......

dead5 said:
1. Just because i used LBP/Braid/Bastion as examples doesn't mean that the others are excluded. I used them because they came to my mind first and do a good job of showing stylization in games.

You should have been specific in the beginning. It seemed to have been painting a different picture earlier. If you meant games like bioshock infinite, far cry 3 and the likes, then i would have voted stylized.

3. Except for the fact that the gaming industry was driven forward by idTech 1 - 4, but not much by 5. You said that he is considered the father of modern video gaming unanimously while he is considered the father of modern 3D games and FPSs.

Id-tech 5 is very new and you expect it to drive industry this early? We all saw the potential rage brought. Considering AAA titles already in development ( The evil within, doom 4 and an undisclosed project by machine games) and some world leading developers like shinji mikami and john carmack behind, expect it to take the industry forward. Evil within particularly looks to be genre defining stuff.

4. The video game industry is slowing down.

*www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/arts/vi...ine-despite-new-hits.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The Video Game Industry is likely to Experience a Slow Down| Game Industry News | iPhone iPod Touch iPad Game News, Review and Updates
Video game industry weakens as recession worsens | TG Daily

Today AAA games cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to develop and need to sell 2 - 5 million copies to break even. Most games don't sell that much. Tomb Raider and Hitman couldn't meet Square Enix's expectations inspite of selling well.

Profits and margins of developers and publishers are down. Companies like Square Enix are bleeding money. I need not go into the recent THQ demise. One bomb is enough to add a game studio to this list:

NeoGAF - View Single Post - List of studios closed since 2006

Very little innovation is happening in AAA studios and they are becoming more and more risk averse(there are exceptions ofc). These are not signs of a healthy industry.

Well the list has a lot of loose ends. Ea japan was moved under EA partnering model, whereas Dice Canada was closed because Dice was acquired by EA. That was great coz we got excellent franchisee like mirror's edge and of course took the battlefield franchisee into the next level.

Replies in green.... :neutral:

H

vickybat said:
Replies in green....

1. I see. Looks like my non inclusion of AAA titles in the examples made you exclude them from the category of stylized. I specifically used those examples because they were the most(and most brilliantly) stylized games i could think of without dipping into games that had something or the other to do with Nintendo. You can try asking a mod to change your vote(not sure if they have that power).

3. You did say "have driven the entire industry forward" not "will drive the industry forward"

. If Mikami's game does drive it forward, I'd wager that it would be because of the games content and not the tech behind it. I'm not gonna say much about the game because all we have had are a short trailer and some concept art. Bioshock Infinite may drive the industry forward by showing that gamers are accepting of vivid, stylized AAA games, but it won't be because it uses Unreal Engine 3.

4. You do have a point about loose ends. But that list and my point(s) still stand. That list wasn't tailored for this debate you know

. Just that a lot of them were shut down because a single game bombed. And I wouldn't call Mirror's Edge a franchise until we get some sort of official confirmation of Mirrors Edge 2. If you look at their Wikipedia page, they have largely been a Battlefield factory factory since their acquisition and EA and rise of Riccitiello who caused the company to go into gamers **** list. ME was probably too far in production at that point in time to get cancelled. I'm not gonna talk about BF since i'm not into them because their campaigns always were on the boring side of things.

vickybat said:
Replies in green....

@ vickybat Regarding the video game industry slowdown and the pursuit of visual realism

I think dead5 was referring to the school of thought that sooner or later visual fidelity will reach a saturation point vis-a-vis development budget. The question is not whether new engines like Unreal 4 and idtech 5 can be used by developers to raise the bar for visual quality, but if it is feasible for them from a financial standpoint.

As pointed out before, major AAA titles already require millions of $$$ in development budget to make. To increase visual quality, this development budget will have to be increased further. The question is, how many developers have franchises which will get enough sales to recover this development cost? Infinity Ward, DICE, Blizzard maybe?

The rest of the devs will have to rely on artistic world design and innovative gameplay mechanics to differentiate their product. If they rely only on great graphics and rehashed gameplay, simply put, they wont be able to recover the development cost, because gamers will stick to their CODs and Battlefields rather that pick a unknown product which offers the same gameplay.

This is why new engines like idtech 5 and Unreal may not have the same impact as their predecessors.

H

darkv0id said:
@ vickybat Regarding the video game industry slowdown and the pursuit of visual realism

I think dead5 was referring to the school of thought that sooner or later visual fidelity will reach a saturation point vis-a-vis development budget. The question is not whether new engines like Unreal 4 and idtech 5 can be used by developers to raise the bar for visual quality, but if it is feasible for them from a financial standpoint.

As pointed out before, major AAA titles already require millions of $$$ in development budget to make. To increase visual quality, this development budget will have to be increased further. The question is, how many developers have franchises which will get enough sales to recover this development cost? Infinity Ward, DICE, Blizzard maybe?

The rest of the devs will have to rely on artistic world design and innovative gameplay mechanics to differentiate their product. If they rely only on great graphics and rehashed gameplay, simply put, they wont be able to recover the development cost, because gamers will stick to their CODs and Battlefields rather that pick a unknown product which offers the same gameplay.

This is why new engines like idtech 5 and Unreal may not have the same impact as their predecessors.

Exactly. You managed to explain my point better than me

I like the setting to be unrealistic, like Dead Space etc. Something which is yet not developed and one can only experience in-game.

Realistic looking ones. But these games also left me with a headache after an hour or so.

Piyush said:
Realistic looking ones. But these games also left me with a headache after an hour or so.

And stylistic ones did not?

darkv0id said:
@ vickybat Regarding the video game industry slowdown and the pursuit of visual realism

I think dead5 was referring to the school of thought that sooner or later visual fidelity will reach a saturation point vis-a-vis development budget. The question is not whether new engines like Unreal 4 and idtech 5 can be used by developers to raise the bar for visual quality, but if it is feasible for them from a financial standpoint.

As pointed out before, major AAA titles already require millions of $$$ in development budget to make. To increase visual quality, this development budget will have to be increased further. The question is, how many developers have franchises which will get enough sales to recover this development cost? Infinity Ward, DICE, Blizzard maybe?

The rest of the devs will have to rely on artistic world design and innovative gameplay mechanics to differentiate their product. If they rely only on great graphics and rehashed gameplay, simply put, they wont be able to recover the development cost, because gamers will stick to their CODs and Battlefields rather that pick a unknown product which offers the same gameplay.

This is why new engines like idtech 5 and Unreal may not have the same impact as their predecessors.

Well written, but i beg to differ on the bold part. Its too early to make that kind of comment especially for Unreal.

Talk about rich developers and publishers, i would really like to count Bethesda and its subsidiaries(Zenimax-tango gameworks, id-software), Capcom, Warner Bros ( Rocksteady and others), Epic Games, EA etc all having highly successful games using the above engines and they all are pretty strong financially. Whether the same success will be replicated on next gen engines or not, only time will tell ( I strongly believe that it will). In other words, they know how business is done.

Unreal engine 4 is far more versatile than UE-3 ever was. Check this thread- *www.thinkdigit.com/forum/gamerz/172951-power-behind-unreal-engine-4-a.html

I don't see a reason why it won't make an impact. A UE-4 title is already announced by epic games. Its called Fortnite.

Unreal Engine also targets F2P games and has a huge impact among the list. UE-4 is destined to do the same.

G

Realistic it is (Crysis / Far Cry / Skyrim). Stylized don't really work for me, I guess that's I why never bothered with Borderlands / Bioshock.
I've never heard the stylized games in your original post. I think you could update your first post with more game examples.

But why there is a clash between realism and the so called stylized? A game, while looking absolutely beautiful can be stylized too. Skyrim and Far Cry do look very good but that does not mean that they are not offering high degree of game play. The character developments in Skyrim is really something.

Cilus said:
But why there is a clash between realism and the so called stylized? A game, while looking absolutely beautiful can be stylized too. Skyrim and Far Cry do look very good but that does not mean that they are not offering high degree of game play. The character developments in Skyrim is really something.

Exactly. Initially the thread depicted stylized titles to be indie game like titles with flashy colours and probably the ones with nintendo's approach.

I guess its in right course now....hopefully :neutral:

H

Cilus said:
But why there is a clash between realism and the so called stylized? A game, while looking absolutely beautiful can be stylized too. Skyrim and Far Cry do look very good but that does not mean that they are not offering high degree of game play. The character developments in Skyrim is really something.

What clash?

Stylized games usually tend to look absolutely beautiful.

Pretty much every game mentioned in this thread have a high degree of gameplay, be it BF, Skyrim, Viewtiful Joe or Monster Hunter(Except Call of Duty maybe

). Everybody agrees that art direction doesn't determine the degree of gameplay.

vickybat said:
Exactly. Initially the thread depicted stylized titles to be indie game like titles with flashy colours and probably the ones with nintendo's approach.

I guess its in right course now....hopefully

Well, stylized games do tend to be more colourful than realistic ones. Bastion and Braid while being colourful and vivid were not very flashy. And LBP(Sony) & Viewtiful Joe(Capcom) are not indie games. And none of them appear to follow Nintendo's approach which usually consists of bright clean colours, smooth character models and a high degree of contrast between the characters and the background.

I didn't realize that my examples could lead to such confusion. I'd presumed that everybody understood that 'stylized' meant not attempting to look realistic. Updating the OP to include more examples.

vickybat said:
Well written, but i beg to differ on the bold part. Its too early to make that kind of comment especially for Unreal.

Talk about rich developers and publishers, i would really like to count Bethesda and its subsidiaries(Zenimax-tango gameworks, id-software), Capcom, Warner Bros ( Rocksteady and others), Epic Games, EA etc all having highly successful games using the above engines and they all are pretty strong financially. Whether the same success will be replicated on next gen engines or not, only time will tell ( I strongly believe that it will). In other words, they know how business is done.

Unreal engine 4 is far more versatile than UE-3 ever was. Check this thread- *www.thinkdigit.com/forum/gamerz/172951-power-behind-unreal-engine-4-a.html

I don't see a reason why it won't make an impact. A UE-4 title is already announced by epic games. Its called Fortnite.

Unreal Engine also targets F2P games and has a huge impact among the list. UE-4 is destined to do the same.

That's why I used the word may while describing their future impact. I completely agree; for all our analysis, only time will tell how these engines impact the industry.

And yes, I had completely forgotten factoring F2P games in the equation. + for pointing that out.

dead5 said:
What clash?

Stylized games usually tend to look absolutely beautiful.

Pretty much every game mentioned in this thread have a high degree of gameplay, be it BF, Skyrim, Viewtiful Joe or Monster Hunter(Except Call of Duty maybe ). Everybody agrees that art direction doesn't determine the degree of gameplay.

Well, stylized games do tend to be more colourful than realistic ones. Bastion and Braid while being colourful and vivid were not very flashy. And LBP(Sony) & Viewtiful Joe(Capcom) are not indie games. And none of them appear to follow Nintendo's approach which usually consists of bright clean colours, smooth character models and a high degree of contrast between the characters and the background.

I didn't realize that my examples could lead to such confusion. I'd presumed that everybody understood that 'stylized' meant not attempting to look realistic. Updating the OP to include more examples.

I loved braid. The gameplay had complexity, while the water colour graphics coupled with mesmerizing music simply stole hearts of millions of gamers. I absolutely have no aversion towards that title. Its among my top played games ever. Same goes for little big planet and the likes. I know LPB is not indie and is one of sony's top AAA exclusives that sells.

But to play only that kind of games all the time and move away from realism is what i'm completely against off. See that's the reason why i support microsoft and sony consoles including pc as a platform. They offer everything thanks to a wider developer support including indie with all kinds of tastes. Another game i want to point out is Journey.

The game was GOTY stuff. Won several GOTY awards including a grammy award. :shock:

So these kind of platforms have something for everyone.

Amazing stuff. I wonder why sony ignored bringing this game to vita. Stuff like these are system sellers.

H

vickybat said:
I loved braid. The gameplay had complexity, while the water colour graphics coupled with mesmerizing music simply stole hearts of millions of gamers. I absolutely have no aversion towards that title. Its among my top played games ever. Same goes for little big planet and the likes. I know LPB is not indie and is one of sony's top AAA exclusives that sells.

But to play only that kind of games all the time and move away from realism is what i'm completely against off. See that's the reason why i support microsoft and sony consoles including pc as a platform. They offer everything thanks to a wider developer support including indie with all kinds of tastes. Another game i want to point out is Journey.

The game was GOTY stuff. Won several GOTY awards including a grammy award. So these kind of platforms have something for everyone.

I agree. Braid was (or rather is) one of the most brilliant games ever. The only complaint I have against it would be the giant black bars at the top and bottom of the screen.

I don't think anyone here who prefers stylization(me included) wants people to stop making realistic looking games. Sometimes stylization doesn't really suit them(The Assassin's Creed series comes to mind). It is just that stylized games look much more pleasing and hold up much better, much longer. If you have brilliant gameplay to back your game, your realistic looking game will continue to be loved and played even after it looks horribly dated(eg. The original Deus Ex. Looks horribly dated, but nearly anyone can pick it up and enjoy it even today). But if it doesn't have strong gameplay backing it and hopes to sell just on the graphics(Crysis 2 & 3), it may do well now, but will be mauled by other games in the future.

I am not against realistic looking games. I just prefer stylization.

I am one of those gameplay snobs, so the game must have brilliant gameplay(or minimal gameplay so that I can immerse myself in the story) for me to enjoy it while trailers and reviews for Journey seem to indicate it doesn't have much of that, causing me to not pick it up. I've tried Flower by the same dev and even though, much like Journey, it was critically acclaimed I personally did not enjoy it.

Extreme Gamer said:
And stylistic ones did not?

Nope, at least not for me.
I can play games like Borderlands for hours continuously but FC3 was difficult for me after crossing 90 mins or so.

Realistic.
Stylish games are for kids.

H

ithehappy said:
Realistic.
Stylish games are for kids.

uhh...

These games would beg to differ

Madworld

Bayonetta

Revengeance

God of War

etc.

ithehappy said:
Realistic.
Stylish games are for kids.

I would not tell a kid to play Bioshock.

Well it all comes down to personal choice really. I am OK with stylized type games too as long as gameplay is real nice and I would discard any realistic games also if gameplay is not much to talk about. Both have their own merits and demerits.

Stylized games are quite beautiful and colorful, I specially like cell shaded graphics in this area, on the other hand realistic games may make you say OMFG.

ithehappy said:
Realistic.
Stylish games are for kids.

LOL..another dumb post

cyborg47 said:
LOL..another dumb post

I remember something related to FC3 as well

Piyush said:
I remember something related to FC3 as well

Yeah he does that a lot. Pretty entertaining tbh.

Well, I don't care as long as the gameplay is good.