games

As per a couple of other comments in this thread, I think this Returnal screenshot is a good example of how to execute well on a solution to problem that should ideally be handled at a more core design level. Granted, game design is very hard, but in a perfect world you wouldn't need to come up with a visual indicator for "you can interact with this" because the game design allows you to interact with things that look like you ought to be able to interact with them, even if the developers don't necessarily intend for you to interact with them. The visual cue should be that you can see the thing, not that it's highlighted so that it can be discerned from the stuff that also looks like you might be able to interact with it but can't.

One of the things I absolutely love about Larian's games, as an example, is that they make it very clear what parts of the environment are accessible, and then give the players tools to engage with the environment as they like. There's an intended path, or maybe a handful of potential intended paths, but it's fair game if you use the tools to bypass the intended path, or solve a problem in an unintended way. Ledge-indicators, even when they're properly-executed visual cues that fit the art style, are still a potential signal of lazy design that relies too heavily on the game controlling how the player experiences the game.

It should be said that "lazy design" refers to the decisions made about how to make the game, not to the effort put in by the development teams, who are usually busting their asses under very intense conditions that generally also arise from bad design decisions.