To be clear, I’m glad I watched the video due to seeing it on Bluesky where there *was* a proper description of it.

The core audience (subscribers) probably click on the video regardless of the title. For everyone else, you and I who never click on vague/clickbait titles are probably outnumbered by people who do click on clickbait titles (more so than on informative titles even).

Thanks, glad you think so :)

But more generally, what exactly is the thought behind this shading?

You'd think they have a butterfly logo to make it look like a butterfly, but the shading makes it look thick and soft like a marshmallow; nothing like the thin butterfly wings. It's "3d just to be 3d" with zero thought behind it.

I have nothing against 3D designs per se; it's the cheap 2D emboss effect that looks so amateurish. The shading is all wrong in the gaps between the wings because it's done by just offsetting and blurring the shape rather than calculating lighting of a 3D shape.

Lots of takes in the replies and quote posts of this one
bsky.app/profile/bone...

bsky.app/profile/hell...

I’m pretty late to noticing because I don’t update my apps regularly, but anyway, it looks like I’m not the only one.
bsky.app/profile/erra...

I was referring to the blog post, not the Bluesky post. As far as I can tell, the blog post doesn't mention anywhere (nor show unambiguously) that the scooter is in fact blue and not green.

I found this image on the Godot website, so I assume the scooter is blue. That does make a good case for the spectral rendering. It's just odd this context is not provided in the post, as it was quite critical context for me to understand what was going on.

Unless the scooter is actually blue, and it's the RGB image that makes it seem a different color than it is? A reference image under more natural light would help avoid this confusion.

I don't understand the spectral image. Why does the green scooter look blue-gray? In the real world, if I look on a green surface under incandescent light, it still looks green. And on photos too (our eyes can compensate). But in this spectral image, my eyes can't compensate. Something feels off.

Won't you only ever know the answer in retrospect?

I mean you can approach a probabilistic answer, but that won't answer how the dice will land for you.

Well yes, but the word "instead" sounds like it should use the same logic since "in stead" and "in place" is the same thing.

However, the nuance here is that IMO the understood usage in practice is not the same. This cannot be inferred from just the words themselves.

I kind of agree, but I also think that just like many gamers like these popular genres, many indie developers do too and want to make their own take on it out of passion as much as any other project.

Plus, I think lots of indies make experimental stuff, but we hear more about what gets popular.

But just to clarify, it appears that although the expected option can often also be the preferred one, it doesn't necessarily have to be.

By the way, I also remember noticing the first time I used "in lieu of". It's a funny feeling whenever you notice a word or phrase going from your passive vocabulary to your active one. :)

It seems the gist of the replies is that it's

"we're using [alternative] in lieu of [expected]"

To this I'll add that I think "instead of" doesn't have to imply one option is any more expected than the other. E.g. "First I wanted it in blue, but eventually I settled on red instead".

The pattern looks nice, it’s just moving far too slow for water caustics. It’s caused by the waves, so should move at the same speed as those to look natural. Currently it makes me think more of luminescent algae or something.