Not being as colourful as MK8 doesn't mean they are colourless. Also, you act as if colour is everything when it comes to graphics...well sorry, it isn't.

Here are a few pics which are far from boring depictions of reality:

It's really ironic seeing some people criticize people who dislike cartoony/colorful games then seeing them do the same thing to realistic games calling them grey/brown/boring.

Those are boring depictions of reality. I kindof think it's stupid of you to compare realistic racers to something like Mario Kart... 

I don't compare Watch_Dogs to your average hacker because your average hacker can do much worse. 

Mario Kart is significantly better looking than those games in esthetics, just because it doesn't agree with your ideal art style doesn't make it that authors or that persons opinion wrong like you are trying to prove by posting these photos. Graphics aren't all about what is super realistic. 

I think you are getting it the wrong way, calm down maybe & read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

You say: "Who are you to decide what makes a game beautiful and what doesn't", my answer I don't decide anything, beauty in absolut is subjective. In a game, lots of factors help a game being visually attractive, my point is not all of these factors are technical! Technique is a tool a way to render what you want to depict on the screen. My point, today "hardlycore" only think in quantifiable way, the computer performance & that's very, very narrow minded!

You say: " Some people find technically advanced games beautiful. Some people think that higher resolution makes games more beautiful",  I do too, find some technically advanced games beautiful. One does not exclude the other, again technique is a tool, a way of doing things, but not a goal in itself, that's for engineers who design processors, they are the ones whose job is to craft power tools for game makers.

You say: " It's quite hypocritical of you to name call and critisize people who view video game beauty differently than you do when you yourself are saying that people who have 0 tolerance for what is not the kind of games they like bother you.", not quite, I don't call on people for their choices, but the criteria or lack of it, that leads to these choices, what drives me crazy is blinsided/hive mentality, the "we are right because we are right look at the tech & processing power" so empty argument. They are the ones bothered that game is visualy valued by other factors than polycount & shader effects! Don't try & reverse this fallacy.

I've worked in this industry (I make plane simulators for Airbus & EADS) for over 15 years, while it is not comercial videogames, it's quite the same stuff from a technical point of view. In my field we thrive on tech advancements, I started working on fridge sized Silicon Graphics Unix based computers because that was where power was. I've been gaming since the Game&Watch days, done it all, Nintendo, Sega, NEC, NeoGeo, PC, Atari... so let me tell you quite clearly that there is more to game developping than processing power & technical prowess!

You want to say that I might react in a passionate way when I read clueless "hardlycore" parroting marketing crap from A or B company, fine, sue me! I'm passionate about gaming but I admit it as I said: "it infuriates me when I read narrow minded ill-logic, but in the end, what's left is sadness", all I wish for is for the videogaming comunity to be more mature, less narrow minded & not fall for the brainwashing crap the most of gaming companies/media vomit on you!

Think out of the box & by yourself! Peace out!

Because there is a violent, stupid & very alive dogma that only "grey/brown/boring" realistic games are valid & "true" valid adult games. Nintendo are for the kiddies right? I play anything from CS, Battlefield, Flight Simulator, rFactor, Soulcalibur, Mariokart, Zelda, King of Fighters, Gran Turismo, Half Life, Tetris, Chrono Trigger & the list goes on, don't bullshit me saying that only graphically realistic games are worth playing & better than those wich aren't!!!

There are multiple angles from wich any subject has to be scrutinized, the only argument that ignorant "hardlycore" gamers bring is " the realistic graphic mature game I defend is better because it has more polycount, shaders etc.  & looks more realistic than A, B or C game".

Trying to  reduce a game to its technical aspects is quite an insult to gamers & people who make games (despite both the said gaming & game-making comunities being plagged with that kind of persons).

Didnt Infamous Second Son come out this year?, that was pretty colourful as well I seem to remember

that is just one person opinion like you have yours and i have mine.

so your opinian is right and his is wrong right?

SMH

I think it is in terms of visuals but not technical graphics.

Looks to me don't only signify graphics or artstyle but also gameplay and performance; and MK8 could be the best looking GOTY.