Okay, so remember the saying "You shouldn't judge a book by it's cover?" Well, it's pretty much the same thing for video games- you shouldn't judge a game by it's graphics and reviews.
Yes, the term that you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover does also apply to the games. You should never just look at a game and say it's good or horrible. You'll have to play it for yourself all the way through and then judge it (not to say you can't say things like "I like it so far" or "So far I don't think it's that great").
However, graphics are a part of the game. You see, games today are like a combo of art in various styles, classical music compositions, cinematics, storyline, and gameplay; in other words, factors of visual art, classical music, movies, books, and regular games. Some matter more than others (for instance, gameplay is the biggest factor you should consider when rating a game) but you can't just brush off some of the other parts of the game and say they don't matter.
Graphics shouldn't exactly be the highest priority parts of games to some people, but they should be considered when rating a game. For instance, if they released a Zelda game with Atari or Odeyssey graphics then no matter how good the other elements are, it would still be an absolute abomination.
Skyward Sword could be the best Zelda game ever and you wouldn't even want to bother and pick it up? That's just sad, graphics don't really matter and don't affect the game, take Wind Waker for instance. It has cel-shaded graphics and it's considered one of the best Legend of Zelda games. Sure it looks "kiddy" from the graphics, but Link stabbing the Master Sword into Ganon's head? That game should've been rated T!
You see, a lot of people would say WW had great graphics. It's just a misunderstanding on the part of most who've never played it that it's the Zelda equivalent of an episode of Dora the Explorer and they don't want to touch it because they think it's Dora the Explorer material. Obviously, if you play it or watch someone play it, you'll realize that it's not much more kiddy than OoT or ALttP as an example and actually contains some stuff that's actually kinda dark and a little bit of T rated material (Link shoving the MS into Ganny's head).
So, really it's got great graphics, even by today's standards, but it's really more of a matter of how well people like it or not.
It's just sad that you diss a game because of it's graphics. For all we know, this game could top all of the Legend of Zelda games. This could be the best game in history and just saying it has bad graphics is just sad. Giving up what could be the greatest game in history is sad and a "true gamer" wouldn't just diss a game and not play it because of the graphics.
Yes, it is sad that people just diss games by graphics alone and even if the graphics aren't the greatest, there can be redeeming qualities that allow you to like it anyways.
Although, your use of the word "true gamer" is really very debatable. Some may argue that a true gamer is a gamer who plays games, is unbiased in his/her opinions of them, and considers all factors when rating them while others may argue that true gamers only play top of the line games like OoT or SMG as examples. The word true gamer can be interpretted in so many ways that using the word pretty much defeats the whole purpose of any arguement you're trying to make.
Anyways, I do agree though that it's extremely unfair to rate a game based on graphics alone.
