Gameplay is king, aesthetics just takes it to another level. Valheim kinda looked like shit to me when I first played it, I wasnt a fan of that PS1 look. But the gameplay was excellent, and deep, and I came around to the visuals to the point of actually loving them.

The beauty of a good game is that it can take you somewhere regardless of how it looks. Imagination fills in the gaps and you can feel like you’re there.

I personally have no preference regarding art style. As long as the style is "competently done" then I don't think I'd have a problem with a game's look.

I do think that some art styles can work better with different genres. Pixel art might work better with a retro-inspired game and hand drawn art might go well with something more narrative driven.

For me a game's art style doesn't affect my judgement of the game's value. I think some people perceive pixel art to be "cheap" but when well executed it's gorgeous and difficult to make.

I'd go with hand-drawn in general. They're the hardest to make but usually end up being the most beautiful. Games like Gris, Cuphead, Hollow Knight, etc.

But I think more than which general artstyle is how well implemented it is and the general aesthetic they're going for. Like, when you say pixel art, it depends if it's something that looks like NES games and super high level pixel art like Hyper Light Drifter and Owlboy. If it looked like those, I'd take pixelart any day. On the other hand if it's really pretty 3D like Hi-fi Rush and Guilty Gear Strive, I'd go for that.

So in the end it depends on what's the most visually appealing. It doesn't really matter which style the dev chooses as long as it looks good and works well with the game.

I don't think this can really be answered until after the fact. Anything that I (and I suspect most) people could say about an artstyle are going to be particular to an instance of that artsyle. If I'd give advice as someone who is neither an artist nor a game designer, what attracts me more than anything is a unique artstyle, which, if I'm gonna give a brutal opinion, starting from a vague category like 'pixel', 'hand drawn' or '3D' probably won't get you there.

I feel like I even struggle to answer your question at face value because it doesn't align well at all with how I conceptualize game art. For example, Cruelty Squad is a game that I don't think I'd have gotten if not for it's artsyle. Like, sure, it's 3D, but it's a lot more like a PilotRedSun animation than it is a game like TF2. Or take a game like Factorio: most of the assets of that game are pre-rendered 3D sprites, so despite being artisticly unique in a way that interests me it doesn't fit into the categories you've asked about. The best I can say is "I dunno", and I don't think anyone else can answer it further than that.

I really despise that 3D no texture / low poly look. On Reddit when you see those ‘I have a dream, quit my job and now I’m making ………. Game!’ posts, some concepts sound amazing; aaaaaand it’s one of those game.

Settlement Survival is one. Big Banished fan, and Ss’ graphics just look worse to me. Like a cheap mobile game.

Not to say all of these are bad, Deep Rock looks gorgeous and smashes it in the art direction department

2D I don’t mind as there’s a lot of wiggle room to play with stylistically.

I am older than Pong. I've lived through all the art styles, and going backward to pixel art usually frustrates me. I'm a huge fan of Synty's low polygon style. I think they do great work

Hmm depends on how well that style is executed but if they were all equal high quality and its just comes down to preference of aesthetic .

Now if they were of all equal low quality. Then i would say pixel art lends itself theost to being the most aesthetically effcient for low quality art style.