Ok... I am starting to think people don't know what Low Fantasy means...
What with a setting that features giants, monsters both mechanical and biological, living gods, magic... And the only qualifier for being "Low fantasy" is that the helmets don't have horns.
Then again Low Fantasy is starting to become a sort of hipster setting in that it is always lauded as superior to fantasy and high fantasy. So stretching of the definition to appeal to the artsy farts without being genuine is predictable.
I think those are what we call jackasses. Low fantasy is essentially 1400's urop with maybe a sprinkle of light magic and one dragon somewhere.
Huh the Wikipedia page on Low Fantasy has changed... It used to be quite different last I read it. (Where it was more about magic)
And the definition is EXTREMELY VAGUE and ill-defined... to the point where honestly you might as well toss it.
But yeah... Banner Saga is definitely not the definition of "Low Fantasy" and a "Low Fantasy approach" doesn't mean a "Realism approach".
Basically there are two qualification for Low Fantasy
1) The Supernatural is supernatural: Dungeons and dragons isn't because the supernatural is a normal part of that world. It must be an imposition on the natural order.
2) The story must be contained within the natural world: So Harry Potter doesn't count at all because he goes to Hogwarts which is essentially another world altogether (which is debatable)
Yes... that is it. and even that definition is ENTIRELY argued... Here is ANOTHER definition
"A Down to earth examination of a fantasy setting focusing on the gritty realism of that setting instead of the mythical"
And EVEN THAT definition is argued... There is ANOTHER definition.
---
But very few definitions actually fit within the "Low fantasy" lable Banner Saga 3 tried to use with not using horned helmets...