>>92348397I purposefully did not look for something more recent because it still looks like abject fucking garbage and nothing you say will change anyone's mind. The image I posted is iconic because it's the height of hubris for a tech billionaire who thought he could buy his way into making something good.
All of it, regardless of what is posted, even if I got an insider preview, looks amateurish and stupid. They look like misshapen gumby characters. He put more money in this than any video game made in the last 20 years and it still looks embarrassing.
That's my whole point. None of it has ever paid off and even your "HOW ABOUT LOOKING FOR SOMETHING MORE RECENT" still look barely more passable than
>>92346871I think the shading is better but the proportions are still alien and lizard-like.
