i wanna preface this by saying this isn't me tut-tutting anyone who feels they deserve an acceptable level of quality from a product free of any sort of meddling from some CEO looking to cut corners to save on costs or maximize profits, nor am i trying to downplay any sort of controversies attributed to the media discussed (vis a vis corporate meddling).

now, that being said

i was reflecting recently on the virtue of imperfect media that, regardless of actual quality, i still find myself enjoying purely for the fact that it still manages to be what i'm looking for, in terms of, like, Content or Vibes (content in this case being What It Contains, not, like, Content™). lemme try and explain.

I fuckin hate this pervasive nugget of wisdom I'm Video games. Cause not only is it wrong, it doesn't even understand what it's saying.

Realisim IS art direction. Realisim done well will look more visually striking and hold up years down the line better then a cartoon game done poorly.

Video games don't come out the box with realisim and then you have to art direct yourself to jet set radio. Every visual thing you see in a game is a decision, it had to be created at some point by an artist. Weather to make it realistic or cartoony or whatever is a choice.

And good art direction is always going to help a game age well but good art direction can also include realisim? No one is gonna say silent hi 2 looks bad now cause it tried realistic graphics. It used them as part of a larger intention in its art design and as such looks fantastic.

And by the same note look at crackdown 3, a far more technologically advanced game with cartoony vibrant aesthetics and it just looks, immediately Forgettable. This games aesthetics are nothing it's got weaker art direction in spite of it being less realistic.

Then control from the same generation focusing on realistic characters and rendering is going to look striking and visually incredible for decades to come because of its strong art direction.