I honestly have no idea which people you're talking about because I haven't seen them. I'm not saying they don't exist because I'm sure they do, but they don't seem that common to me. I'm pretty sure my point is still valid as long as you pick the 'correct' resolution after which the human eye won't notice the difference anymore in practical applications. I'm also pretty sure we're very close to that point already, if not already at it.

You're somewhat right about 3D games scaling better, but it doesn't hide ageing completely either. And 3D games often have the disadvantage of aiming for realism, where you might not initally see what could be improved, but wait 5-10 years and the games you thought looked good enough to not require improvement will look outdated simply because you're used to so much better. Then those games that once seemed great will fall close to the uncanny valley despite their initial amaze factor.

Now look at these 4 images, there are some who might know what game is wich image but most dont, even if they are fans of shooter they will still not be able to tell. They might be able to tell by maps, locations they visited and unique guns, but they all look the same. And a game that looks like every other game is not a memorable game.

Well The Order's art style is beautiful too. It's not just graphics. When did art style suddenly mean "something that's beautiful, but not realistic?"

2D games become outdated too. Look at the recent Grim Fandango remaster. The 3D polygon models got an upgrade, the 2D backgrounds are locked in 4:3 letterbox and look very crude although the art style is still fantastic.
All 2D platformers nowadays are woefully incompatible with VR, the same if 2.35:1 tv ever becomes popular. (Sure we'll go to 8k 16:9 first, then we'll get 21:9 tvs)

If art style was all that mattered, Ori and the blind forest wouldn't require a GeForce 240 in the minimum specs. Or the monkey islands games wouldn't have gotten a makeover, nor Oddworld Abe's Oddysee. Actually 3D games fare better compared to that as the God of war, Ratchet and Clank and Ico / SoTC remasters didn't need to have all the artwork redone for their remasters.

3D games have room to grow when technology progresses. 2D games are pretty much set in stone.

This was the Ori and the blind forest of my time

Yes that's actual size.

Or actually I need to go a bit further back

That's the same year as Wolfenstein 3D btw, which did get a very enyoable remaster. Flashback did not.

Art style and technical prowess are not mutually exclusive.  In fact, most graphically advanced games worth talking about have good artistic direction.  The reason art direction is more important is because without it, you have something generic.  That's a stone cold fact.  Look at those games you're referring to and you will see a carefully directed artistic style.  Few games make it thatjust copy paste reality at the highest fidelity achievable.  

Graphics are meant to serve aesthetics.

The whole question makes no sense, what people call "graphics" is usually a merger of technological prowess and percieved beauty (this is what it used to be anyway).

Now technology will always give the artists more freedom, they can always simulate the old limited stuff if they feel like it (hence all the low resolution/reduced colors game we see)... You can make a PS4 port of any PS1 game you want, make it look exactly like or better than the original if you want, but you can never release Bloobborne AS IS on a PS1.

I would go as far as saying that if the latest Mario Kart games were released on the PS4 or PC you could have the game run at a better resolution, maybe throw in some AA and 60fps split screen! with the same "Art Style".

On the other hand if you took Infamous:SS and tried to build an xbox 360 version, well you would end up with something barely recognisable (maybe just as fun, but compromised too).

So in essence, both are not comparable, at best the art style is built around the limitations of the intended hardware and it makes it shine (like many Wii U games by example) .. the artists have to do with the hardware they work with. if can be in video games, painting, photography, cinema.

I just though of something, this is the same as asking if a movie's cast sexyness was as important as the quality of the acting they make.... ggreat actors are great, they may or may not be sexy, one does not change the other... but for a lot of people, if they have to sit in a theater for two hours staring at people, they prefer to look at the sexy ones...