My point there was extremely subjective because I do realise it. That means I can evaluate the image with only a quick glance and if it didn't change continue immersing myself in the writing, gameplay or my own mental picture/imagination. With 3D I always have this nagging doubt that I might be missing something because some authors like to offer multiple camera angles while others forward the scene and simultaneously shift the camera. Sure 3D artists could easily emulate standard 2D methods but in my experience they don't.In the end, most of the time we looked at the same exact image for 10 minutes without realizing it
By no means do I believe the artistic side of 3D to be easy with getting lighting, perspective etc. "right" but that is not what I mean. For me the issue is that the more "realistic" the art gets the more I hold it to standards of actual realism and consistency. Spurts of cum just vanishing into the aether or leg-sized dicks going in with no visible bulging are fine with a more cartoony aesthetic but not the more realistic approach. Obviously almost no one draws hyperrealism in 2D nowadays and I see almost no cartoon-style 3D projects let alone them being mentioned in discussions.It's, more or less, the same for 3D.
The difference is that you need to find a reference first, and globally we are stuck between the realistic real time 3D of some AAA hits, and the average plastic doll looking we can see here and there since the middle of the 90s. But once you've found a reference point (The DeLuca Family is a good one, but not the only one), it become easier to discriminate good 3D CG and bad ones.
Actually that might be a major factor in my view of the matter because I find myself judging the mostly RL-esque games on here much harsher than the many cartoony SFM productions which don't have a game or even just a story supporting them.