How much do you care about the graphical leap between consoles at this point?

[curl-6]

pikashoe said:

CGI-Quality said:

Eh, beyond the fact that no game is truly photoreal (and developers are actually not chasing that), claiming that the more realistic style visuals don't hold up just isn't true. Plenty of games from the 360/PS3 era hold up nicely today, and as graphics get even better, that will continue to be the case. Games that are more stylized also hold up well, but both can be true without trampling the craft of one of them.

Any examples, because I cant think of a single ps360 game with realistic graphics that looks good now. The last of us is considered one of the best looking games of that gen and it's pretty ugly now.

Just personally, I can think of several realistic/semi-realistic styled PS3/360 games that still look good to me; Halo 4, Gears of War 3/Judgement, Killzone 3, Uncharted 2 & 3, God of War Ascension, Forza Horizon... 

scottslater said:
Focus on "photo realistic" graphics is a rabbit hole not worth chasing. These games never hold up over time, and I for one would rather want to boot up a game in 5 years like BotW, Mario Odyssey, Luigi's Mansion 3, etc. The art direction of these games will allow them to hold up better over time and with a bigger focus on GAMEPLAY they are a superior experience over the rinse and repeat cycle of Microsoft/Sony IPs. And besides, if you want a focus on graphics, go PC.

While more stylized art direction does tend to age more gracefully, I don't agree that there's no merit in attempting realism. For some games, it's the style most appropriate to the experience they're trying to convey. Even on Switch I reckon realistic-styled games like Outlast II, Alien Isolation, Metro Last Light, and The Vanishing of Ethan Carter still look good.

I for one would never want to play only cartoonish games.