As others have said, what does that mean for absolute classics like Ocarina of Time, Pokemon Red & Blue, or Castlevania: Symphony of the Night? Banjo-Kazooie? DOOM? Halo 1?
The graphics to all of those, comparatively, are trash compared to the games of today. Yet, few games today truly reach the same heights as these classics have because the gameplay doesn't do enough to make you come back for more.
For a more recent example, if we're talking about the graphics of a game like The Witcher 3, which is evidently a great game all around (haven't played it, so I can't judge it), if graphics are that important, what does that say about Undertale?
I mean, let's be totally fair here. Dragon Quest XIS has some issues, but it's mainly that there were changes that had to be made compared to the far prettier PS4 version. The Witcher 3 on Switch, from what I have read, has...some issues.
I'm not justifying Game Freak dropping the ball, because I agree with you: There really isn't an excuse for this type of screw up, and then to lie about the reason for cutting is that much worse. I wouldn't even say I'm giving them a pass. Sure, I'm buying the game. But I've become wary of Game Freak, and seeing that, yes, they're more incompetent than we actually thought.
Perhaps, but I would argue the way the game plays is the most important. The art style of Infinite was pretty garbo to begin with, but the redeeming quality, the only one I have heard of anyway, is the gameplay.
I guess my biggest lynchpin to the argument is that if graphics mattered nearly as much as people say, then the classics of the past wouldn't be as highly regarded as they are now, and Indie games wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Japanese poster looks pretty cool too if not a bit simple.
