Almost each game got it's own artstyle (except for some FPS), some are realistic some are not. Take Driveclub and Pcars for example even though they both TRY to look realistic and pretty much succeed in their own way (Pcars a bit to sterile, Driveclub a bit to romantic at times), they are still pretty much distinctive.

So the difference in art style is what makes the game unique and defers it from other comparable games with just looking at a single screenshot. Whether that shot is realistic or sell shaded doesn't make that much of a difference for it's definition of art since one will be more pleasing to the eyes than others which comes down to personal taste and the amount of effort put into it which is mainly influenced by the raw graphical prowess.

The order has the victorian London as decor and a 1950's filmlook and looks very different form uncharted and the last of us, which also looks different. Even though they are all cinematic games.

If the resolution of the sprites is high enough, human eye won't be able to see the difference unless the screen is huge and the viewing distance is short. I don't see anyone realistically playing Ori under such circumstances. Essentially that means Ori's graphics won't be outdated for any practical applications.

You're also forgetting that almost every 3D game too uses textures. Those textures will become outdated by the same logic.

This is what people said with every generation yet every 2D games resolution became outdated with every generation, 3D poligon models and enverioment are less effected because they are scaleble

The difference between them is that I can't tell the difference between Halo, call of duty, Ryse, and virtually all ps/xbox/pc games, but I can certainly (to my pleasure) tell the difference between Skyward Sword, paper Mario, Starfox, and Metroid. I'm not saying the other games don't look good (graphically) but there is absolutely nothing unique about their art style. Borderlands is an example of a non Nintendo game that actually has a unique art style, team fortress as well.

First: people also argue against artstyle by belittling it as 'cartoony', 'kiddy' or 'dated graphic'.

Second: I don't think anything is wrong with liking graphically enhanced games. People do that a lot, look at the praise Uncharted gets. The Order got a lot of critic, because nearly everythign except graohics is wrong. That doesn't mean good graphics are bad in an otherwise also good game.

And to the question: a game can be considered good for a lot of reasons. Most of them are subjective. So games with good raw graphics or games with artstyle can both be good or can be bad games. Artstyle or graohcis alone aren't enough to consider a game good or bad, but they can influence the impression the game makes. Aslo there might be games that have neither good graphics or artstyle but still are considered good. Visuals are just one of many things that might make a game good. there is not much sense in it, to focus too much on only one aspect. People on forums usually do, because they think with screenshots and counting of pixels they can proof objectively the quality of a game, but afterall it's pretty much useless.

Well, actually, the games I have the best memories about from my youth are Monkey Island, Indiana Jones, Day of the Tentacle, the original UFO, Descent (the first) and Pinball Dreams/Fantasy. Of these, the Pinball games there the ones that impressed through technological marvel back then, if memory serves right. All of them are playable and fun until today.

I have the capacity to appreciate both, and games with "raw graphical" power are not exactly void of a great artistic styles.

Generally I think it's perception. 

Many things are starting to look more realistic now no matter the art style. 

It's undeniable that the Order is a good looking game, but like you said, there is questions as to if it will continue to be held to that esteem over time versus something like Mario 64 or Donkey Kong country. 

Something I found rather interesting iis that many people are looking for realism, but what is realism? Is it a character that looks real but is using some super sci-fi gun in a sci-fi world? Or is it something like Kirby and the rainbow curse? Despite what some might think of the game, it looks like real clay in a very claynimation style. That is something that is extremely real and looks like you could grab it tangibly and create your own clay art. It looks life like, albeit not actually living as it's clay. So what is real? Is there a point where art style and realistic collide?

I like yyour question, I'm not sure if there will be a difinitive answer, but it's fun to ponder.

I think your not getting his point, he dosent say its not dificult to do all that, but that creativivty is more dificult. All you are saying can be copy from a realistic game or from an engine that already provides that since they are mostly free now, and even if its still dificult  to come up with, something that looks amazing from scratch is harder, having imagination is harder since it looks like most devs completly lack it theese days and are rehashing previous concepts. Take COD, they do look great every year, but every year it looks the same and takes away impact, even Advance warfare given this futuristic seting still looks the same as ghost's modern age setting cuz a real man will look like a real man no matter where you put him and they are doing the same in both game, shoot others with machineguns.

It will look good, but a new concept like terraway, kirby, ori, zelda, mario wont be blown away the next year, or the one after by a slightly upscaled game.

What you and him are describing sound more like Design decisions as opposed to actual "creativity" or lack thereof. I don't believe that Call of Duty looks like Battlefield or that Battlefield looks like Metro. I think most shooters are very different, more different than people want to give them credit for. Regardless of Design the Modelling and Graphics Programming aspect of game development is still more demanding in photo-realistic titles than with stylized games. With stylized games you have to be consistent, apart from that you aren't explicitly bound to any other laws or restrictions. Anatomy, Physics and Scale can easily go out the window. That's not usually the case with photo realistic titles. Making all that work is definitely challenging, and seeing its results in action is a treat to the eyes. For a 2007 game this holds up really well and took real skill