I don't think I've ever seen anyone refer to Star Fox as 'unplayable' because of the graphics.

Anyway, could you try and tone down the bolded part a bit? Regardless to how you feel about the topic, there's really no need for sweeping 'look at all these people i'm better than' style insults. By all means express your dissatifaction, but "repellent and disgusting"? That's pushing it.

(This isn't a moderation, just a reminder to not let your emotions make you say something that could result in one).

Yeah, i think people often forget that 'realism' is just a broad style term, similar to something like 'cartoony'. Everything under its umbrella share obvious similarities, but the end results can look wildly different.

Nobody is dissing the gameplay, some people were angry because of the whole tilting the GamePad to aim but that thing died the day when Nintendo revealed that players can turn that off.

But the bad graphics are just inexcusable for a AAA game. We are not talking about art style, this game has shitty graphics from a technical point of view.

2015 and we have a game with Gamecube textures.

Still one of the dumbest things Miyamoto has said. I too remember when I was playing Assassin's Creed and thought it was Uncharted.

Eh, i don't personally think it's 'inexcusable'. If a game can still be good in the absence of something, then at least in the context of that specific game, i don't really consider that thing an absolute necessity. That said it is quite disappointing, and i do think everyone has the right to criticize them for it. Something not being a necessity doesn't make it irrelevant.

Well said. The game has every chance to become a fun game. However that shouldn't permit a weak effort in graphics. We've seen what Nintendo and platinum can do on the wii u. It isn't hard to believe that they could produce a better looking starfox

Right. So how does the "lots of games look similar nowadays so we made this look shit to distinguish it" work for all of the other Nintendo games that look better than this?

They most certainly did. It's actually the 7th gen where 60fps became a lot less common for prettier graphics. 60fps should be standard. Worry about everything else afterwards.

3rd and 4th gen 60fps was pretty much as standard.

5th gen, the systems weren't really powerful enough for 60fps though it was always an ambition (and often a bullet point on the box when achieved). Namco even re-did Ridge Racer 1 at 60fps on the PS1. It's a great example of how much difference just the frame rate makes.

6th gen 60fps became a lot more common on home console games.

7th gen it tailed off. 8th gen it's finally starting to return again. Particularly from Nintendo, though even on the weaker Wii hardware they focussed on 60fps.

I don't believe I ever heard anyone ever mention 60fps. I never saw it on any game box either and all the magazines back then called it slowdown and never once mentioned FPS unless it was for first person shooter. So yeah there was no way games like MGS, medal of honour' RE and GoldenEye were 60fps and no one moaned. 

I said in the 5th gen it was desirable but  the hardware made it difficult.

6th gen sequels of 5th gen games were generally 60fps. TimeSplitters, Quake 3, Metal Gear Solid 2, Gran Turismo 3, Jak and Daxter, are all 60fps on PS2. Ninja Gaiden, Jet Set Radio Future, Medal of Honor: Frontline was 60fps on Xbox, Goldeneye was 60fps when "remade" on Wii/PS3/360. Starfox Adventures, Mario Kart DD etc all towed the 60fps line (even in 4 player split screen on GameCube). Many of the big name franchises were 60fps when possible.

A good chunk of the Dreamcast's catalogue was 60fps too. The 7th gen was when it really became uncommon again. However, I don't think it's a coincidence that Call of Duty became the big console FPS franchise. Although people can't always "see" 60fps. You can most definitely feel it, and it's what makes the game feel more responsive than any 30fps FPS title.

http://uk.ign.com/articles/1997/11/22/f-zero-x-marks-the-spot