The quality of a game is not define by graphics, you know? I don´t pay for graphics, to say that a game is money grab because it doesn´t have top notch graphics is just stupid, Super Mario Maker and Splatoon are fantastic without any fancy graphics, in fact I think Star Fox Zero is more demanding than those games, are thouse money grab games? My ass. Some people in the industry still thinks that the 80% of the budget of game shouldn´t be only for graphics, as it happens nowadays with most of the games, but gamers are  sometimes like the stupidest people in this planet and their priorities are fucking lame.

This game hasn´t had a chance to show its quality at all, everybody has already buried it because it doesn´t look impressive graphic-wise,  because this graphics are completely horrible and unplayable:



Totally umplayable graphics from Atari 2600, how can anybody be interested on a game that look like that! Only fanboys! This is how repelent and disgusting gamers are nowadays, they overhype or ignore games just because how they look, pure superficial manistream shit, "gamers" they call themself.... yeah... 

This wasn't a live interview so there is no footage I know of. This was posted by a lot of news sources.

here is one:

http://nintendoeverything.com/miyamoto-says-star-fox-zeros-style-was-made-with-a-purpose-games-look-the-same-these-days/

Literally he is claiming that most realistic games look the same, and that starfox is different due to its "cartoonish" art style.

Is it really that hard to show humility and say that star fox graphics are influenced by frame rate and performance? This is why I respect Hayashi's response better

Graphics don't make a game, but they do affect it. As does artstyle, music, story, characters, and gameplay. A game is the sum of its parts, and if you start removing graphics, then you end up with a less immersive game. Starfox was made with a ridiculously short time frame and the graphics show it. There is no reason to excuse it with "it's made to not look realistic." No one is even expecting starfox to have ps4 level graphics, but when people commonly compare to a gamecube game (2 generations ago!) then you can tell Nintendo is trying to rush a game for the sake of a release schedule and profit.

That´s what they said about Splatoon for months, a rushed game to fill the schedule, I have been hearing that shit day after day, and then the game came out, and it was freaking brilliant, people take conclusions out of their asses, the fact that they didn´t focus the development on graphics (like with Splatoon or Mario Maker) doesn´t mean that the game is being rushed and is not a proof of any lack of quality. And please, look the photo I posted above because that does not look a like a Game Cube game at all, that is a shitty and annoying hyperbole, this looks like a 2008 game on X360 but with a stable 60fps instead of struggling with 24, people says past gen games look better, but they only think on later games that were struggling to mantain a stable 30fps when this game is displaying a flawless 60fps in 2 screens, wich is way more demanding than it seems, specially for WiiU.

I think the answer that Miyamoto should have given was that the focus of Star Fox Zero is innovation with the gamepad, not so much graphics.  If the two-screen concept really works then the gamer is going to be so busy focusing on the dual screen gameplay that they won't have time to focus on the graphics, anyways.

I honestly found that Mario Kart 8's amazing graphics are largely wasted since the gamer doesn't have time to even notice much of the detail.  That's going to be even more the case in an on-rails shooter like Star Fox Zero where the gamer has not one but two screens to worry about.

I am honestly much more worried about the two-screen concept being awkward or unnatural for the gamer.  

I'd rather have solid 30fps and the best graphics possible on Wii U than 60fps with GameCube graphics.

Look at Zelda, it'll probably (surely) be 30fps in order to run such a beautiful and vivid open world, and I think it's benefiting from that.

An action game like this on this age should be at 60 fps yes or yes. Adventure games can make that sacrifice, but not a quick shooters like Star Fox.

So you don't have a transcript? The link you provided contains no such thing. You claim that "context is everything" so do you have a transcript of said context?

By the way, Miyamoto was quoted as saying "a lot", not "most". There's a difference.

Splatoon's graphics were never bad. People thought it was a rushed game due to quantity of content. And upon release that was still a valid complaint.

Star fox u on the other hand looks nowhere near splatoon. People who compare the game to gamecube level graphics are obviously off. That being said, star fox u looking like a 2008 game in 2015 is a huge dissappointment with regards to graphics. There have been many past games to reach 60 fps without having to compromise graphics, and even if they did compromise graphics, it wouldn't be by an entire generation! Unless of course they wanted to make the game in a short time frame.

Again, graphics don't make or break a game. Neither does story or characters or artstyle. But they do affect the game's immersion. In this case, Nintendo seems to be killing star fox's graphics for gamepad motion control (optional and in many eyes, a gimmick). This also doesn't entitle Miyamoto to say "every other game looks the same, star fox's graphics are meant to look unique"

If possible, yeah, it's better for it to be 60fps, but when you sacrifice the visuals so much... I don't know if it's worth it. After all, I don't mind a solid 30fps on a racing, shooting, hack n slash, etc. It's a tough choice, for sure. However 30fps didn't stopped me enjoying DriveClub more than the latest 60fps instalments of Forza and Gran Turismo, but if it had outdated visuals it would have taken a lot from the game, as it would be less imersive.