>>1022973
[citation needed]

>>1022974
look up any tutorial. 90% of them are like this

>>1022975
Not giving any actual example, eh?

>>1022976
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgJaWqIYeKM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0beimTEHVSU
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Xx4NFFgUyW4

The last one exemplifies my point: low-poly has become synonymous with emphasizing the faces, when it used to be the case that the polycount was obfuscated with texturework.

I get that they're going for a style, but I just find it so uninspired and asset flip like

>>1022973
interpolated anything on low poly anything always looked like total shit

>>1022973
This "style" has been a thing since 2010. Dated for sure, but hardly what I'd call "zoomer".

>>1022982
What's wrong with /3/ to not have the self-confidence to call a style a style?

>>1022982
That's exactly the right timespan to be a zoomer thing

they have sex, you have not while you sit glued on /3/ btw

>>1022986
Either you sculpt hyperrealistic women with unreasonably large tits layer by layer, or you suck at art.

>>1022982
I remember this being the main style for "How to model in Blender" tutorials when Blender became finally sorta usable for normies after 2.6 and screen recording software was more accessible. So ~2012-2014 is when it really picked up and during/after that we had a ton of indie games with this "aesthetic"

>>1023024
They need to pick up a wrench instead. We need a mass culling.

>>1022986
The quotations were more from condescension rather than anything else. Personally I wouldn't call it a style, since it's literally just untextured low-poly models. It's like calling a normal sidewalk a style.

>>1023030
>it's literally just untextured low-poly models.
OP's picrel might be, I've seen gradient textures applied to it to fake lightning at which point you'd have to still uv unwrap the models.
For more complex models if you go and not do that you'd have to add geometry in places where you might otherwise use a texture making it a conscious choice and hence a style.
So it's a style which you don't like, got it.

>>1023059
>For more complex models if you go and not do that you'd have to add geometry in places where you might otherwise use a texture making it a conscious choice and hence a style.
Which is exactly my point.
What you're talking about is something completely unrelated to the OP pic.