What I got from this is that to defend the lazyness on SF0 we come again to the "gameplay is first, gameplay is the only thing, graphics come at least" argument.
But then we have praise and threads dedicated to the great graphics of some certain Wii U games.
I don't think that's the case. When the graphics are outstanding, it's normal to talk and make threads about it. It's also normal to have an argument about the opposite (we're having that argument right now :P). It's part of the gaming world. But in both cases, gameplay comes first. It's the core of any game imo. There's some examples about graphic masterpieces that don't stand as games, and there are a lot of examples of the opposite, this is always the case with games. Why do I use this "gameplay is first" argument in this particular discusion? Because when games don't look that good, people is fast to dismiss the game, forgetting that the game could still be good if the gameplay is solid and fun. This doesn't need to be stated in a game which looks brilliant, because everybody would be pleased for a start, so it's pointless. Though you could use the same sentence in a game which looks brilliant to remind people that a game is more than meets the eye, which, sometimes, needs to be stated.
We know that, graphics don't make a good game. So I only ask for patience, try the game and see if the gameplay is really solid and fun. If it fails in both aspects, then it's not worth it of course. But until I have the controller in my hands and I properly play the game, I won't give a solid opinion about it. My impressions based on YT videos is that it looks fun, but I'll see about that.