Topic: Is a game’s art style very important when you play?

This is a random thought that popped up in my mind…

Recently I’ve been having a fun chat on another popular thread on here, and the chat was focused on a video game called Conker’s Bad Fur Day, and the chat shifted to a discussion on art styles while still pertaining to the game. We talked about the cartoony art style of the game, and the the game’s remake having a more gritty and semi-realistic than the original, as well as talking about art styles we prefer to see and love a lot.

However, usually I do not see many people talk about the visual art styles of games, and it tends to not be a huge focus in game reviews or gets small mentions, and it isn’t as big as the gameplay and graphics, though I should add that I’m not trying to insinuate anything or imply something bad. Out of curiosity, I want to know…when you play a game, is the art and visual style of the game really important, and does it play a factor in your enjoyment of the game alongside other aspects like gameplay? Does a game using a certain art style increase your interest in it or decrease interest?

For me, being someone who likes drawing and art, I honestly do not find the art style or any aspects related to visuals (like graphics) to play a big factor in my opinions of games, and I don’t hate any art styles and I love them all…however, it does play a factor in my interest in any games I might potentially play, and I have some preferences to some art styles, but I don’t outright hate any. I tend to lean more toward art styles that are filled with bright Technicolor visuals and coloring, as well as being cartoony and bearing resemblance to Western cartoon art styles like Disney, and I do think that types of art styles like that aren’t super common nowadays besides a few exceptions.

To add, I think the art style adds charm, and makes the game more memorable. Because of this, I find myself having less interest in more higher budget games that use more realistic art styles and gritty and dark visuals, but I also think it’s because of how common I find the art style and direction to be with triple-a games, and whenever you hear “triple-a game”, a realistic art style might pop into your head. Rarely do you see a triple-a game with a more simplistic, cartoony art style, and for me, I feel like there is not enough variety in the art styles for triple-a games. I think the art style for a game can also add onto the memorability of a game for me.

Still relating to Conker, I found the art style to add lots of charm, mostly from the cute and cartoony character designs and really expressive characters, alongside a bit of slapstick violence and a few common cartoon hijinks tossed in too, and so many of the environments were bright and appealing to the eye, which made the game super memorable and I think about it a ton. To add, the game is supposed to be lighthearted and crass, as well as being subversive with cliches and tropes commonly found in platformer games, and it’s basically supposed to be a “mature” game disguising itself as a kids game visually, so when you take a glance at it, you think of it as a kids game but you then feel surprised and shocked with the adult and family-unfriendly content you see and hear when you play.

The remake, while still retaining some cartoon the original had, had a big shift with the art style, which was now more detailed, a bit semi-realistic, and more grittier, and to add, a few of the cartoon elements were downplayed (like the facial expressions being stiffer and the main character’s weapon choice of a frying pan being replaced with a baseball bat) and several of the characters received redesigns that removed some of the cuteness and cartoony-ness to their designs. While I didn’t mind it, it made the remake a bit less memorable, as the type of art style the remake had was super common for shooter games in the 2000s, but I should add that the remake’s huge focus was on a now defunct online multiplayer shooter mode rather than the single-player, which could have been why the game went toward a grittier and dark look. The art style I think takes away from some of the subversion of the original, since the art style immediately gives away the fact that the game is aimed toward older audiences. It tends to be the more cartoony games that stick in my mind more than realistic and gritty games.

This is just how I feel. I really want to know your opinions! I just thought’d this be a nice and interesting discussion topic, as I don’t really see a lot of video game threads related to art on here.

That’s a good question, and I agree it isn’t really talked about much.

Overall, I like many art-styles, and it’s cool to see different art styles in different games. Lighting, realistic environments, stylized, and cartoony things are some of my favorite things to see in a game’s art style. An art style alone can’t make a game good, though.

My favourite games do tend to be beautiful games with art styles that really charm me.

Mario Kart 8, Breath of the Wild, Wind Waker, the Yoshi games. But the sound design can't be ignored, it's an essential component too.

The art style can make or break a game for me personally. There are plenty of art styles I like, but some I can't stand. And some otherwise mediocre games can be raised up to greatness with really good visuals.

Sometimes this is a big topic in reviews — think Pokemon Brilliant Diamond where a lot of reviews and people were complaining about the art style. Personally I liked the art style and it added to my enjoyment of a game a lot of people disliked. On the other side, a lot of metroidvanias seem to get attention because they have lovely art. I bought Bo: Path of the Teal Lotus primarily because of the art style. The gameplay is fairly fun, but the art is what makes the game really stand out.

Conker's Bad Fur Day is one where I'm not a big fan of the art style (I generally find most of those early 3D games ugly) although I don't mind it enough to avoid the game.

@BowsersBuddy Cuphead is an interesting one. The art style in static is fine but the art style as animation with the weird bounciness is something I can't stand... enough so I can't play the game even though I think I would enjoy the gameplay.

I mean it can go both ways in many cases but not all. Only examples I can think of on short notice is Rayman Origins & Legends. Both incredibly lovely titles with great art & gameplay. But I prefer Origins digital ink style over Legends oil painting style. That's just me.

I'm sure there are better example out there than what i listed.

Art styles don't make or break a game for me really- unless it just looks genuinely ugly. I mostly judge a game based off the gameplay or the content that the game has to actually offer. There are some games that I can't stand the style of (Breath of the Wild's character models), and there are games that actively attract me for their art styles (Xenoblade 3 and Octopath Traveler). So long as the game looks well polished though, I tend to be open to anything.

It's relevant but not anymore than anything else. A normal amount of relevance. Otherwise I would honestly say nowadays its probably more relevant to getting me to check out a game or notice it exists rather than defining whether I like it or not. There's probably exceptions where the art style is so good that it dramatically elevates the game its in (for me this is most true for games with high quality 2D art and animation being the focus). Best example I can think of is that I played Megaman 8 again a year after playing 11, and I feel strongly enough about how underwhelming 11 looks, so because of that difference I now feel way more fondly towards 8 than any other post-NES game in the classic Megaman series. (though there are certainly gameplay elements to it as well) I would say in general the trend of "good enough I guess" 3D re-imaginings of classic game franchises since Nintendo made NSMB sequels that are the biggest example of a bad or underwhelming art style genuinely hurting a game for me.

But I can also say a game doesn't look great and not care by the time I get to it. I did grow with N64 so I don't need great graphics to enjoy a game certainly.

Uhm-a-no? Because I don’t crap on people’s art style.

I feel like there is a big difference between enjoying some art styles more than others and crapping on them 😆

I'm playing Gris at the moment and that game is practically all art style. The gameplay is good but the gorgeous visuals are the main draw; the same gameplay but with bland graphics would be a completely different and much worse game.

So the art style absolutely can elevate the quality of a game, but it's not the be-all and end-all. For example, Twilight Princess has probably my least favourite art style for a Zelda game but it's still in my top 5 games in the series.

Can some game studios today claim that their games even have art styles? The push for realistic graphics has ensured that, and games like Horizon: Zero Dawn, Marvel's Spider-Man and The Last of Us have no visual charm outside of "it looks realistic so we can tell a human story and ground the player". And these are three games that I love playing on the PS.

By contrast the recent Zelda games have taken some incredible directions over the last 20 years, from Wind Waker's cel-shading, Skyward Sword looking like a Paul Cèzanne painting, Breath of the Wild mixing the two styles perfectly, and the GREZZO games having a diorama toy-like feel. There's so much energy despite the lack of pure horsepower graphically.

Yes, the art style is important. It is very rarely that the story and the gameplay loop could redeem art style, but it happens.

For example, I hate chibi looking art style, but I can tolerate it in Pokemon Brilliant Diamond/Shining Pearl just because it is Pokemon.

Frankly, no. Gameplay rules all. Plain and simple.

It’s important, of course. Only one of multiple important pillars, and a game can win me over or be enjoyed despite its art style, but of course it’ll have an impact. If I don’t like the look of your game, might not be inclined to buy it, and if I do buy it, might enjoy it less than a game whose art style is more up my alley. A good artstyle can only take a mediocre game so far though, and a great game with a middling artstyle will probably still be more fun.

I'd say it's important, definitely in terms of how a game feels and how immersive it can be.
A good art style can also help in the long run, even if the game is old the visuals can help.

Personally I have more respect for a well thought out art style. As an animation student I was frequently disappointed - it was 3D, you could make anything. But what did you get? Bad attempts at photorealism, a Pokémon or Star wars rip-off, a failed attempt at cel shading because they like anime or the Wind Waker.

Games developers seem to fall into the same pitfalls. A lot of trying to emulate a style without any of the thought behind it, or lacking any style whatsoever.
I understand that it's expensive and probably takes a lot of time and planning. But it's an investment, and is probably worth it when everything is remade or upscaled these days.

I mean, art style affects gameplay. Is the gameplay as good in a visual novel if the game is ugly? A game could have amazing platforming controls but have an art style where you can barely see what is happening. Or bad art could make you have no ideas of the hit boxes of an enemy. Those are all extreme examples but the point is it is often hard to seperate art and animation from the concept of 'gameplay'. Fundamentally, the art style is part of the game you are playing and therefore part of the gameplay. Unless you're playing a text adventure game without even ascii art.

While not the most important thing as games with average/poorly aged visuals can still be good, I'd say it's still important as it's something that can make a game just that bit more special and stick with people. I feel like a lot of games wouldn't be as popular/iconic as they are if they didn't have strong visuals/presentation, even if they made up for it in other areas like gameplay/story/music/etc. Cuphead, Hollow Knight, Pizza Tower, Persona 5, TWEWY, Hi-Fi Rush, Jet Set Radio, Rhythm Heaven, and many more. Games like these would still be very good even if they had average visuals/presentation, but their visuals/presentation give them that extra special something, y'know?

I see where you’re coming. But it is worth highlighting the topic was acquiring in regards to personal experiences, so I feel something here was lost in translation as I have been merely doing that, and not making a general statement about game design. I’m a game design freak, so I would obviously agree with what you’re saying here and more than willing to expand when I’m less sleep deprived. But since my good buddy Paste was curious about our own subjective experiences, I’ve wanted to share that first and what affects my own personal enjoyment, before dissecting specific elements. I hope that clears it up.

@Yousef- apologies; I wasn't trying to be rude or deny the validity of your answer. I am just genuinely curious what people mean when they say 'gameplay' and specifically don't include certain aspects of the game. Like if you had just said 'I don't care about graphics' that would have felt clear, but you did specify a separation which is what I was curious about. If you think that is irrelevant to this thread, fair and feel free to disregard me. 😆

@FishyS apologies not needed. : D
You did not sound rude or anything preposterous like that.
If anything, I’m the one who feels bad. I come off more assertive than I intend when presenting an idea, especially when the topic is something I’m quite passionate about, such as game design.

Mechanics are something I hold dear due to the factor of longevity. Longevity in this case would refer to me returning and/or continuing to play a game. And I’ve found myself quite often replaying games I thought looked ugly but were fun to play, and rarely revisiting games I thought the story were good, but were tedious to play.

While such factors would not detract from the artistic merit of a product, it would however have an impact on my own subjective personal experiences where I find myself not only pouring hours into games with fun mechanics, but finding myself feel increasingly more attached to them and find new positives to pick out about that, funnily enough, are not strictly limited to the intended game itself.

Sometimes unintended parts of an experience, such as glitches, or such as an external story about game’s development or even something like a licensed song can add up to a more memorable experience. Although I’m beginning to realize a lot of what I’m alluding to here happens to affect sandbox games, which is admittedly my favorite genre. So that can be a reason as to how my perspective is shaped here.

However, If we dissect the ideas and judge by their own objective merit, it is indeed necessary to highlight the need for great visuals and sound design. Not just music or artstyle, but things like character animation can ultimately make or break a given game.

I believe someone already has or is already planning to go into the core essentials of sound design, so I won’t hog their limelight and go back to my tea.

Best of wishes.