3D game graphics in the late 90s had a very distinctive look to them. In recent years, “PS1 graphics” have become quite popular again with indie games, but this overall visual style that tried to make the most of the technical limitations at the time was not limited to just the PlayStation, but common with many PC games as well. Making accurate recreations of the PS1 graphics, including glitches and replicating the image quality of CRT screens, is a fun exercise. But it doesn’t have to be the only way to approach late 90s 3D visuals styles, and having a more broader term to talk about these graphics and art styles would be more helpful. In a discussion about this on Mastodon last year, someone proposed the term Raw 3D, which I think is absolutely perfect. It’s 3D, but about as basic and unadorned as it gets. And it mirrors the architectural style of Brutalism, which refers to raw exposed concrete without any covering or finish, and is also defined by very blocky shapes.

Raw 3D is not simply about making things look primitive and cheaply made, and it’s not just about nostalgia for 40-somethings either. It’s a style that evolved in response to the severe technical limitations of the 90s, with how many polygons computers and game consoles could possibly render, and how much texture files could be loaded at any given time. But it’s also a style that was developed and refined to create the most memorable and evocative visuals within these technological restraints. It became a distinctive art style that still is interesting to work with and can still create fantastic looking visuals, even though the technical limitations that necessitated its development have no longer been restraining 3D artists for decades. And in recent years, I think Raw 3D even has become a distinct art movement that is comparable to Impressionism, Brutalism, and Pixel Art. And probably countless other art styles and movements that are defined by deliberately not using techniques and technologies even though they are available.

After having looked at dozens of games that I would intuitively group into the Raw 3D style, and some games that I thought could be included but just didn’t feel right to me, I  found that there are not really any absolutely mandatory visual elements that are shared by every single one of them. And so I think there’s not really any hard definition that can be applied to what makes a game’s style Raw 3D or not. Some elements are shared by almost all of them, but some cases don’t have them. And other elements are almost never seen in Raw 3D graphics, but a few rare games have them anyway and still feel very much within this style. But as a general thing, I think these are the traits that are typically found in most Raw 3D games and together produce a very recognizable art style.

• Full 3D Graphics: All interactable objects in the environment are 3D objects with a polygon mesh.
  • No 2D Sprites: Except for very thin objects like curtains or fences, for foliage, in place of particle effects, or for very distant objects that players can’t get close to.
  • No Pre-Rendered Backgrounds.
• Low Polygon Counts.
  • No individual fingers on hands.
  • No facial animations.
  • No visibly curved surfaces.
• Texture Mapping: Surfaces of objects have an texture image on them and are not a uniform color.
• Low Texture Resolutions.
• No Texture Filtering: Each pixel on a texture remains visible as a square with sharp edges and are not smoothed out into color gradients.
• No Normal Maps: Shadows from fabric folds or groves are simply darker colors on the texture file and don’t change depending on the direction of light sources.
• No Shiny Surfaces.
• No Bloom.

Classic Raw 3D Games

Neo Raw 3D Games