Can a cartoony artstyle really make up for bad graphics?

There's no such thing as cell shaded artstyle.
There are artstyle that use cell shading.
And there are 3D games that try to imitate it. And they look like dogshit. Every single one of them.

RDR2s visuals stand up because of it's style, the painting look too it and the camera view all makes RDR2 stand out.

I liked rdr2 open space and character models, world texture etc looked shit though so hoping for a pc release.
Botw was never about the graphics for me, its more of a game then rdr2 and for that alone it was better.

It's not that it makes up for it as much as it that cartoonish graphics seems to age gracefully in comparison.

>cartoonish graphics seems to age gracefully in comparison.
It already looks much worse than RDR 2 though so what gives?

I think my idea goes more for older games than new ones. However, things like Ori and Hollow Knight will look the same as they do now in the future, while higher fidelity graphics will be more easily comparable to the future games. Does that make sense? It's why if truly good pixel graphics look good, they will look good forever. There will never be a point in which Metal Slug looks like complete dogshit.

Aesthetic can easily make up for Bad graphics.
Look at Ps1 and N64 games. The only ones that hold up are the ones that had a good aesthetic.
BotW doesn't have a good Aesthetic.

I enjoyed botw and rdr2 but multiplying by 0 is still 0 user

>We will never get a highly graphically impressive Legend of Zelda with the darker tones and visuals of Twilight Princess ever again

:(

Can photo-realistic graphics make up for a lack of style and uniqueness? That's a better question. You look at BotW and you know it's BotW even if it's of a random dog. Couldn't say that about RDR2.

it doesn't make up for the lack of
HORSE
PUSSY

>photorealistism requires no style
t. retard

photorealism is known to be the hardest to pull of stylistically. making things look real is actually really difficult and requires top tier artists. you can't just plug shitty assets into unreal and hope that PBR rendering and bloom saves you. stylistic issues will come and bite you.

Artstyle >>>> Muh PBR shit
There is never an exception to this, especially when it's more than possible to not have something look cartoony without being MUH PBR.

PBR and style can exist in the same game retard. without any kind of realism your game will 100% look like cartoony shit

When the game is actually fun to play then yea

>No one cares about RDR2's visuals
On PC every R* game since GTA IV has been a benchmark tool.

I have played both. Rdr2 is a better version of botw in every fucking way. Better graphics, better story, better combat (though both are bad), better quests, better mini-games, better hunting, better clothing, better collectibles, better map. You literally can not find a thing that botw does better.

Traveling

People don't understand you can have high resolution textures and look like BOTW at the same time. With some nice lighting higher textures and just make it look like a better cleaner BOTW.

Instead of the blurry shit stain, it turned out to be.

You must be completely retarded because at no point in that post did I say making photo realistic graphics was easy yet your entire post is about how hard it is. Yea no shit it's hard, that's why AAA games take years to make. Just because something is hard to make that doesn't inherently make it stylish. I have no idea what your definition of style is (apparently it means "takes lots of work to you) but what I meant by it in the context of my post was a unique visual aesthetic. RDR2 does not have that, that was the point of my post. It looks like lots of other games. Something like BotW or Hollow Knight does not.

I don't have to abandon my horse any time I encounter a molehill in RDR2

Goddamn, 18 years now that Rockstar has plunged their dick into Nintendo's ass now?

Attached: Cyberpunk 2077 Seeks.png (1198x515, 897K)

>Can a cartoony artstyle really make up for bad graphics?
The cartoony artstyle do not make up for everything. Look at Wind Waker. Nice art style but terrible everything else after OoT set the standard.

close

Attached: Red Dead Souls.png (882x863, 339K)

As soon as you lose said horse what then? Atleast theres gliding, shield surfing and shit. Getting from point A to B is just more fun and quicker in Zelda

I played through Twilight Princess (and it's challenge dungeon) just before BotW, and I found TP far too easy. I much preferred BotW. I now prefer BotW on a PC via CEMU because it runs better and I can delete the white filter.

Better visuals would be nice, but performance is more important and gameplay is king.

Gliding and shield surfing is less than a quarter of your time spent traveling. The majority is walking and climbing, both of which rely on that tedious green circle, the latter of which you can't do while it's raining. Horse riding is not exceptionally fun but there is an auto-pilot, there is potentially infinite stamina, there are tons of dynamic events that the game alerts you to, and I don't have to wait for the rain to stop to continue traveling. There is nothing better in botw.

Nu-Zelda fans don't like Zelda.

>GOTY 2017
Yeah

The top will look much better in ten years while RDR2's graphics will have aged like milk.
Same thing happend when RDR1 came out and everyone was praising how good it looks.
Today it looks dreadful.

>ooohhh my game won 30 more awards than your game!!!

Attached: laughing.jpg (480x360, 25K)

>without any kind of realism your game will 100% look like cartoony shit
You're dead fucking wrong.

>The game will magically look better
No it won't. The game looks worse than RDR 2 and always will unless it gets a remake on a console that isn't as weak as the Shitch

>The top will look much better in ten years
In 10 years rockstar will be making new projects and setting new standards. Not living the past like Nintendo and it's fans. Well, Nintendo will probably be cell phone dev in 10 years

Stylized > Realistic
Stylized graphics will be remembered no matter how many years will pass while realistic graphics will be outdated within 5-10 years

Can realistic graphics make up for boring gameplay?

Lmao RD2fag could have used another reaction image to slide under the shill radar but naw

>Well, Nintendo will probably be cell phone dev in 10 years
Retards like you have been saying stupid shit like this for like 20 fucking years now.
Just give it up already.

Despite Sony and Nintendo paying for goty awards with their elusive games the last 2 years, RDR2 sold better and is more relevant. Wonder if they lay off paying E shills and websites for fake praise in the future?

the damn game is so relatively big... i feel like saying "ive been there!" even though its just the road to gerudo

This.

Shame they couldn't buy the award with that Gold Bar micro-transaction money.

Not really. You can easily see in Breath of the Wild where the artstyle is impacted by poor graphics like its shitty textures or technical limitations brought upon by the Wii U/Switch, like the LOD, framerate stability, and so on. A great comparison is to Wind Waker HD. If you want something cartoony or of a certain artstyle, then its individual pieces have to be crisp, clean, and of a good quality, and Wind Waker HD had that. BOTW banked off art style to make up for looking like it was being run on a low-end laptop, but the art style couldn't thrive because of the limitations it was trying to make up for.

>Reminder that this the result when Zelda goes realistic

Attached: oocoo.png (530x998, 107K)

>is more relevant
No one cares about RDR2 anymore, it's the video game equivalent of a Marvel movie

>Outsells 2 years of BotW within the first week
>N-No one cares
Cope

NOW YOU RAIKE TWAIRAITO PURINCESU!

He said 'anymore'. And he's right

Soul

>a few ugly character designs vs an entire game of shit visuals
hmm

Sales are irrelevant, since that's solely relative to Marketing & Company appeal, people buy RDR2 because it's a Rockstar game, and Rockstar pays huge money to get their games reviewed highly. Nobody actually likes any of their games except RDR1

I'd say everything was better just for the fact rdr2 bored me to where I never finished it while I was able to finish Zelda. But hey that's just me.

Meanwhile the small worlds yakuza games is still more immersive than huge maps of collectable bullshit.

Twilight Princess and especially the remaster look like these 'nintendo game but in unreal engine' videos that sometimes show up here.

It bored you because it didn't have Nintendo magic to drag you through it.

Stylized games tend to look all right even down the road whereas more realistic stuff falls apart. Compare Wind Waker to something like MGS2 or Max Payne, all of which came out around the same time

>bad graphics
What? for it's hardware these graphics are excellent.

this is fucking cool though, twilight princess is the best.

Can realistic graphics make up for boring environments? I don't want to visit fucking Wyoming for a reason. Not saying BOTW didn't suck, because it did.

no

I mean could be, but then again I don't like mario

That's also the reason that more stylized games seem to age more gracefully. There's definitely is value in realistic looking games, especially when it fits the narrative. And of course you need artistic skill to translate existing materials into a game and convey the same feel that these evoke through the screen, but I think these games will not be remembered for their graphics like you said.
You will not instantly think of RDR2 because you see a horse model, you will remember it when you see a horse shitting on the street and some dude slipping on the shit.

It can and it should

Attached: the-witness.png (1000x563, 678K)

>There's definitely is value in realistic looking games, especially when it fits the narrative
>I think these games will not be remembered for their graphics like you said.
Exactly the point I was trying to make. I would never suggest that no game should have realistic graphics, it's what you want for some games. And even some realistic games can pull off a unique visual style or good atmosphere. I would say Bloodborne is pretty realistic in it's art style and while it won't be remembered for it's graphics exactly it does have visuals and locations and designs that will stick with people.

Is as boring as RDR2 only alleviated because quick traveling to towers and gliding to your next destination is too damn easy.

but the graphic fidelity is excellent there

AND STILL NOTHING TO DO

Also, please recommend me games with graphics like The Witness'. I fell in love with its style but I'm not into puzzle games.

Attached: the-witness-2.jpg (1920x1080, 162K)

RDR looks fantastic scaled to 4k on the one x, shame no one owns that console.

If you look up close its low-poly and painted textures

Attached: the witness scshot3.jpg (1366x768, 202K)

>GTAV
>a benchmark tool

Huh?

and in what way is that bad?
OP's examples are both bad because, while they may have good art direction, they have terrible blurring obscuring everything.
Why even have realistic, or cartoony, designs if you can't actually see them?

No, and the horse/rider animations in RDR2 are based.

You pathetic, fucking weeb.

>459202846
It's not bad, it's amazing! By "graphic fidelity" I thought you meant realism, which the game doesn't even propose to do. More games should be designed like this.

Attached: the-witness-3.jpg (2208x1242, 270K)

Not just games, user. More of everything should be designed like that.
Aesthetics is becoming a lost art.

Can linear, repetitive, restrictive missions really make up for pouring all the device's resources into tryhard "realistic grafix" that still look like pastel cardboard cutouts?