When clips of Project Shadowglass first began circulating online, many viewers assumed the visuals were either AI-generated, pre-rendered, or somehow not running in real time. The game’s unusual combination of fully explorable 3D environments and highly stable low-resolution pixel art created an aesthetic that felt simultaneously nostalgic and technically impossible.

Described by its developer as something closer to “walking inside a piece of 2D pixel art,” Project Shadowglass blends retro immersive sim influences like Ultima Underworld, System Shock, The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall, and Thief: The Dark Project with modern rendering experimentation inside Godot.

In this interview, developer Dominick John discusses the technical and artistic challenges behind the project’s “Pixerly” aesthetic, why open-source rendering access in Godot proved essential, and how balancing retro limitations with modern expectations has become a central part of the game’s visual philosophy.

Project Shadowglass has drawn significant attention for its “true 3D pixel art” look. How would you define this visual style from both an artistic and technical perspective?

Dominick John, Lead Developer: It's been tough to define. "3D pixel art" does the job, but it's a bit vague. Minecraft's voxels and Octopath Traveler's HD-2D could fit that category, but they use cubes and billboards. Others are simply low-res or use an orthographic camera without any depth. Project Shadowglass has a stable 3D perspective camera, so it's more like walking inside a piece of 2D pixel art.

There's already an art style called "Painterly" that mimics the look of being inside a painting. In that same spirit, maybe something like "Pixerly" could more accurately describe the visuals. Take a 2D retro game, magically leap into the screen, and everywhere you look should appear like 2D pixel art. That's the goal, at least!

Many people initially assumed the visuals were AI-generated or not real-time. How has that reaction shaped how you present and communicate the project publicly?

Dominick John: The 'Is it real?' debate basically turned every early clip I posted into evidence. I showed off unfinished areas, flailed the camera around, and posted video replies to comments. At one point I even filmed my screen loading up the project and me hitting play. Those were wild times, I had lots of fun. But nowadays it's less about having to prove the game is real, and more about making sure that it's good.

What inspired the art style? It seems like you've translated an “impossible” look into a real, playable game.

Dominick John: It’s mainly inspired by the pre-graphics-card era of games: System Shock, Ultima Underworld, Daggerfall. All those charming retro RPG intro screens and point-and-click backgrounds. The games in the late 80s and mid 90s tried everything to look 3D with the chunky blocks and low color counts available at the time. Maybe it's just nostalgia, but for me there's a specific lost feeling in that retro style that I've long been obsessed with expanding upon. There are old prototypes of me chasing this pseudo-3D style since the 2010s, trying out all sorts of methods. Those “impossible” viral AI-generated videos weren't an inspiration so much as a final push to finish what I started.

From a rendering standpoint, how does your 3D pixel art technology work under the hood compared to traditional 2D pixel art or voxel-based approaches? Can you give us any insights into how you've created this style?

Dominick John: It's more like conventional 3D than people assume. It doesn't use voxels, and authored 2D pixel pushing is optional. The heavy lifting comes from a set of custom shaders and rendering code. No single technique gives the overall effect; instead, it’s many of them working together.

Some are more obvious, like point-filtering and LUTs, but those are just the surface layers of deeper pixel stabilization work. Honestly, I'm dying to give the full technical breakdown on all this someday. But Shadowglass is still in active development, the pipeline is changing right under me, and every spare hour outside my 9-5 is going into the game itself. I'd rather wait and do it justice than rush an outdated explanation. In the meantime, it's a happy side effect that I get to add a brief bit of magic and mystery to the all-knowing internet.

What tools, engine features, or custom tech were necessary to achieve full 360-degree movement while maintaining a consistent pixel aesthetic?

Dominick John: For me, it was the Godot engine, hands down. Being fully open-source with no strings or price tag meant I could tweak the renderer's code however I needed, without building my own from scratch. Everything you're seeing was assembled and optimized within Godot. Outside of the usual suspects (Blender, Affinity, Aseprite, etc), no other fancy tools or tech were needed.

The style evokes nostalgia for classic immersive sims like Thief and Deus Ex, while still feeling modern. How did you balance retro inspiration with contemporary expectations?

Dominick John: The retro vs modern balance is something I'm still working on every day. This hybrid style is somewhat uncharted territory, so it's been trial and error and intuition.

For example, you can see I'm constantly trying out new looks for the sun. I'm always debating how much glow and god rays fit the vibe, if at all. I'm finding it's about identifying what past limitations were aesthetic strengths, and then seeing what advancements make sense within them. Fewer colors means more cohesion and readability for big pixelated objects, but maybe fog can stay full spectrum for a subtle atmosphere.

Fewer animation frames look great on far-away objects, but up close, they need more since they cover more distance on screen. It's hilarious to think the past few decades of tech have been all about trying to hide these limitations, and indie devs like me are here dressing them up and putting them on stage.

Why do you think this particular aesthetic has resonated so strongly with players and developers alike?

Dominick John: If I had to guess, it's that sweet spot of being familiar, but new. I often see comments like "this is what I thought games would look like as a kid". Over decades, we've watched hyper-realism slowly take over gaming, and it's created a big void for art styles that work with our imaginations instead of replacing them.

To me, pixel art has always felt like the video game version of 'reading the book' vs 'watching the movie'. Game worlds don't need to look realistic for you to inhabit them, and that's what makes them uniquely special. In this age of AI-assisted 4K realism, I think we all just want some of our imagination in the room with us again.

How does this visual approach impact your production pipeline, especially when it comes to asset creation, lighting, and maintaining consistency across environments?

Dominick John: It speeds things up in certain ways and slows them down in others. There's less fine detail to worry about, but in low-res, you need to constantly consider readability at every angle.

Characters and objects sometimes have to look very different far away than they do up close, otherwise they can read as pixelated noise instead of coherent forms. That means multiple versions of assets. Consistency no longer means what you think it means. Palette restrictions, hard shadows, toon lighting, and stepped animation can all drastically help or hurt the look.

Lighting and atmosphere seem especially important in selling the illusion of depth and realism in the pixel style. What does your lighting workflow look like in-engine?

Dominick John: Lighting is the biggest challenge, because a sense of depth doesn't come easy in low-fi 2D. Shadowglass is a stealth-focused immersive sim too, so the dynamic lighting and shadows need to look right AND play right. Once you've worked out where every light needs to go (both for gameplay and composition), the in-engine workflow itself is pretty basic. The real work is all in the details.

For example, in a limited palette, the wrong ambient levels can destroy key details, like the lines in the brick. Default light attenuation curves can muddy where shadows begin. Directional light pointing toward the camera flattens out depth if you don't have a secondary light to preserve form. My history as a 2D pixel artist has helped because I can immediately see what's off or missing. So overall, it's a pretty standard workflow, sandwiched between thoughtful planning and a ton of nuance.

Looking ahead, do you see this 3D pixel art approach as something that could become more widely adopted across the industry, similar to trends like HD-2D, or is it more of a specialized niche?

Dominick John: I hope so, because I want to play them! I imagine at first it'll stay with indies until it proves it can carry a full game. Even if new projects don't run with it, older games would be a natural home. Pixerly remakes and remasters of retro pixel games could be incredible (please give me Ultima VII or Final Fantasy 6!).

LucasArts and Sierra point-and-clicks would also be amazing to replay in this style. The real beauty of this approach is that you can add modern freedoms without sacrificing the original look.

Finally, do you have any behind-the-scenes assets, work-in-progress insights, or any other visuals, GIFs, or videos to share of the development process?

Dominick John: Sure, I have some direct wireframe comparisons (in the video above) from Shadowglass that show the 3D geometry underneath next to the final result.

I also have some clips of the different visual approaches I've gone through over the years (in the video below) from my portfolio that led me here. I'll have much more to share as development continues!

Dominick John, Lead Developer at Starhelm Studios on Project Shadowglass

Interview conducted by David Jagneaux