>>56303177>THAT'S the Uncanny Valley.The uncanny valley was just cope from 3D artists to try and explain why awful early CGI looked so bad. Worse still, it seems to come less from artists who knew what they were talking about and more from journalists just trying to make up something to feel smart about, with bad artists gladly willing to support the braindead conclusions since it gave them an easy excuse for why their work was terrible.
The real answer is that 3D art was incredibly hard in the early days, with every aspect of the technology being rough, experimental, under-developed, and underpowered. Shitty 3D was shitty 3D, and the more complex something was the more difficult it was to make it look good, but instead of it being that simple, apparently there had to be a psychological condition that made people think more realistic 3D models looked like corpses.
This even extended beyond 3D art and into other emerging fields like robotics, with people forgetting that paintings/statues/etc. have existed for centuries. The less abstract and the more complex the art is, regardless of what it is, the more difficult it is to make it look good. When you add further levels of complexity, making it look good just becomes that much harder. Making a statue look good is relatively easy; but making an articulated and motorized statue is much harder, and many sacrifices are made in regards to aesthetics.
There is no survival mechanism at play. Shitty designs are just shitty, and no amount of "I based my design on this aspect of realism" is going to excuse a shitty design when there's many aspects of realism that also look good. You don't earn points by using terrible sources when writing a paper, so you shouldn't earn any points using terrible sources for a design.
The "Uncanny Valley" is just a persistent meme that comes up whenever shitty "realistic" designs appear, but is suspiciously absent when good designs are being discussed.
