[jquery]

You don't need expensive hardware to do better than glossy pastels, at least for desktop gaming. I don't know what the requirements are for VR, but even turning modern games down to low/medium settings can still look pretty stunning if you haven't gamed in a while.

This reminds me of higher-res Mii's from the Wii, which was dated tech even at the time.

That said, the most important thing people should be asking is: is it fun? Because if you aren't gonna go super realistic then you had better nail the gameplay (Nintendo or Blizzard style).

[dmix]

What if it's targeted at kids/teens/young people and is lightweight "casual" playing experience? Wouldn't this look be preferred?

Sometimes ultra-realism takes the fun nature out of things.

Simpsons and South Park could easily use high tech graphics but the simple nature of it all is what makes it appealing . Same with Minecraft or even Zelda.

It's also easy to build expansive worlds with breakable objects that don't require tons of physics and special effects to make something like a box exploding look realistic.

[BlueTemplar]

Then we're going to have a problem, as VR is clearly counter-indicated for children because it messes up with eye development...

[puranjay]

The Nintendo Switch is by no means powerful hardware. But Breath of the Wild looks beautiful on it because of the art style.

I really don't think VR needs to wait half a decade for hardware to catch up. Existing systems can create beautiful experiences with the right artistic decisions

[jquery]

I 100% agree. I'd say Breath of the Wild looks incomparably better than this artstyle though. Something about this artstyle feels so... sterile? Maybe I'm just out of touch with what kids are playing these days, although as another commentator said, VR is counter-indicated for children.