Wow, so in your opinion, all the work that went into the story, the battle system, the abundant hours of content, the voice acting, and soundtrack (all of which have been highly praised) were only done to "disguise the low investment in graphics". Just... wow. I would argue that Square put more care into some of those aspects than they do their "AAA" flagship Final Fantasy series. I have often found the voice acting and dialogue in particular in Final Fantasy games to be so atrocious and off-putting as to make me not want to play the game regardless of how "pretty" the graphics look. Some people appreciate the total sum of a game's parts. I'd much rather the money I spend go to a total enjoyable package, rather than a game that took a lot of effort pushing graphics to disguise a low investment in the actual game itself.
Did you purpousely misinterpreted the defense of "art direction" that is used for cartoon looks that need low investment in graphics and transported to everything else?
But still, get the size of the team and time to develop compared to let's say Final Fantasy and see how both compare. You'll certainly see which had more work done.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"