I agree with spemanig, the production values are pathetic and it shows in the graphics, barren level/background designs, attention to detail and Nintendo are going to charge $60 for this ?

Downsizing a AAA franchise to be relegated to a B tier effort such as Star Fox Zero is a total spit in the face. When your a fan of a big time franchise, you want quality, not budget!

I know Nintendo can do better than this and that especially goes for the graphics ...

No i haven't played it. I seen enough videos to tell me the game is a step backwards. Essentially they gone back in time to please a few hardcore starfox fans rather than expand and try to grow the franchise. On rails in 2016 is laughable. 

Assault's city looks lower poly to me.

That's debateable. Many PS3/360 games lauded for their graphics are relatively low poly and used shaders like normal mapping to fake geometric detail.

Ultimately these are the facts:

Gamecube cannot do HD

Gamecube cannot do programmable pixel shaders.

Since Zero is both HD and uses programmable pixel shaders, it is factually not Gamecube graphics.

One is of course free to feel that it looks like shit, but when people say it has Gamecube graphics, that's a factual inaccuracy that I will call out.

Pikmin 3 says hi.

Again, no on has ever claimed that it's literally gamecube graphics. No one who says any game looks like a game from a game of an older era means it literally. No one is saying that SF0 has a 480p resolution. It looks like a gamecube game, though. With an HD spit shine. Well it doesn't look like Assault in HD, so it looks even worse.

Assault's isn't, though.

Looks a lot better than the reveal with improved lighting and Fx. Details don't hold in certain sections (specifically where Bloom/shiny surfaces aren't prominent) and lacks geometry in environments but it looks nice.

I feel that the ongoing hyperbole surrounding this game's graphics is getting a bit old. It's fine to think it looks poor by Wii U standards,  I actually kind of agree, but the repeated cries of "Gamecube graphics" are annoying because they're untrue. Let's keep things in perspective; it looks like a low end PS3/360 game. Clearly beyond what 6th gen systems could produce, yet below average for its system.

And can you prove that?

Nintendo should've hired Monolith Soft to make particle systems for SF0. Some sparkles, snowflakes, lens flare effects, other flying shit in outta space would improve whole picture. Divine Roost in Xeno X as example:

At least there is no motion blur and chromatic aberrations in this game.

I don't mind motion blur, but goddamn I hate chromatic aberration, I don't know why devs put that ugly shit in their games.

Do the graphics look ugly? No, I think they do a good job immersing you in the game's atmosphere. The problem appears when I look at Bayonetta 2, Mario Kart 8, Xenoblade Chronicles X or even Wind Waker HD. I feel like Nintendo/Platinum could have done something better than this and I feel a bit disappointed for that. But it was their decision to go for a two screen gameplay and sacrifice visuals in order to acomplish their "dream" of making you feel that you're flying an Arwing. That was their goal, that is what they are selling to people. They are not selling amazing graphics. They're selling a new experience. It's up to each one of us to decide if that experience is worth it or not, but I think it's silly to critizise the game's graphics so much for not being something that it was never meant to be.