It's the old graphics vs aesthetics debate.I notice some people are picky when it comes to visuals. Ive seen some say some games look bad or old or the dev hasn't discovered how to use lighting yet etc etc. tbh alot of the time for me it may not be amazing but rarely comes across as below average to me unless it actually does look dated.
Most people don't have the proper distinction and mix up the technical and artistic sides and then fail to consider that advanced technology makes stylizing much harder, but keep arguing that something looks bad because it's stylistically inconsistent and put the fault at the lack of realism when it's too much realism that causes the problem in the first place.
Thus graphics becomes the term under which visuals are discussed even though graphics are supposed to serve aesthetics.
It's why cell shaded games for example are pretty timeless while cutting edge graphics keep falling behind the new hotness.
In terms of this game you have to look no further for a clash than Ruby's just-a-little-too-wide smile in the main menu of chapter 2. Whether that's creepy or just hilarious is in the eye of the beholder.
Overall the visuals are in the odd spot where they are too realistic to be easily stylized, but not crisp enough to be impressive. But that's the eternal curse of amateur game-making because we're about 10 years back in terms of technology and don't have the bandwidth of a whole studio.