>>187334 >There seems to be a misconception that graphics don't matter, because NES games are fun. I really don't get that. Yes, NES games are fun but they're just that: fun.
In reality, a LOT of those old games also had pretty damn good graphics back in the day. The first Super Mario may look crude today, but to a wee lad like myself back in the 85 who was stuck with atari (and my bro's commodore 64) graphics, that thing looked unbelivably cool and it sure is one of the reasons why the game attracted my attention. Graphics have always mattered, it really isn't a modern trend.
>>187487 Right. And the 80s/90s are probably the only time you could really make a distinction between graphics and art direction. Games like Final Fantasy or Legend of Zelda had great concept/official art, but the graphics at the time couldn't even begin to express it. These days, though, there's no need for that distinction: even our handhelds are capable of amazing detail, so there's no excuse for graphics not to match the concept art except, perhaps, in very little details.
Take Child of Light, for instance. In one of the "Making of" interviews, someone (producer? art director?) said that the concept art wasn't meant to be some ideal, but to actually be within the game. Transistor seems much the same.
However, I can understand someone liking the graphics but not the art direction. Wind Waker is a good example of this: the animation and graphics are awesome, but the choice of cel-shading turned a lot of people off.
>>187486 The difference between graphics and art direction is the difference between some "Real is Brown" shooter and Okami, or Katamari Damacy. It's saying that a game might have lower polycounts or lower res textures, but still look better than a game with more because of the artistry involved in using what they have.