Great point & example, but I'm curious how well that translates to simulation games, where immersion is a large part of the selling point, as opposed to fun & tight game mechanics full of balanced flow & fiero.

Isn't one of the main aspects of immersion that it feels like the real thing?

That's far harder to do right than graphics and it's going to have a bigger impact on how immersive the game is. You can always improve graphics down the line but getting the mechanics and handling right is a lot more important and will be a lot harder to change later on.

I got absolutely immersed in Indianopolis 500 back in the day[0]. The graphics were pathetic by modern standards but the long races felt like you had to manage a variety of things (tire wear etc) and you really had to commit to it. So I would agree graphics are secondary to the immersion experience.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indianapolis_500:_The_Simulati...

Whether it looks like the real thing certainly also plays into whether it feels like the real thing.

Oh absolutely however the "feel" matters far more. If the graphics look super dated or minimal but it plays great, you'll still get lots of players however if it looks stellar but plays poorly, you won't retain very many players.

I watched my younger cousing playing the new Rainbow Six. Compared to the fist one, they are completely "arcadized". Just a narrow step down from Urban Terror on "cinematic gameplay". "Realist", but not so much.

Graphics, yes. But the actual gameplay... a joke compared to the first Rainbow Six and tactical matches on SWAT3.

Battlebit and Minecraft (which was mentioned in another reply here) won't ever actually be mistaken for a game from the 1990s, there's way too much detail into the far distance, the lighting is too good, and the UI looks relatively modern (especially in Battlebit).

Linux Air Combat on the other hand really does look the way games looked 30 years ago, and the UI looks worse.

It's fine, we don't need good graphics in everything. But it will hurt its popularity in a way that Battlebit is not hurt, because people can tell the difference between intentionally making a game with a retro look vs. just not having the art resources for good graphics.

I've been playing with minetest a bit and the lighting really is the thing that stands out. The animations are noticable when you really watch something, but the difference in how cubes are shaded jumps out at first sight as the thing the commerical game has that really makes it look polished.

Have you tried MineClone2 which is built with minetest? The minetest guys claim they are only an engine providing tools and are not trying to recreate the minecraft experience. MineClone2 wants to provide an authentic experience and then MineClone5 is the "new features branch" but is unstable. Then there is Mineclonia which aims for stability and performance in neglect of MineCraft parity.

MineClone2 is exactly what I was thinking of. It looks fine but the lighting/shading effects throughout it look visibly weaker than real Minecraft.

Thank you for making me aware of BattleBit.

It looks like Roblox Battlefield.

The only real complaints on an otherwise ridiculously overwhelmingly positive Steam page seem to centre around the anti-cheat.

The MinSysReq also suggests it'll run on a potato, so it sounds worth a shot!

But battlebit graphics while low fi is excellently executed, it's 90s in look but 2020 in functionality Anne concept.

Except battlebit uses perfectly modern rendering techniques, technologies, and features, just with cuboid player models. It looks rather nice. This on the other hand is rendered clearly with 90s systems, it looks phong shaded.