This is artistism. Please be ashamed of partaking in this vile trend.
If I’m enjoying something as art, that puts me into a different category, but when purchasing a game for fun, or music as background noise, or a decorative painting I am in a totally different mindset than when I am engaging with those same things with a mind towards their artistic qualities.
The intentionality of the viewer matters, and the author, IMO, fails to recognize that a lot of people, myself included, often come to games with the intentionality of playing a game, not necessarily judging its artistic qualities. We sometimes do, but I think it would be bad faith to argue that we all are always appreciating every “artistic quality” of a work all the time - I know I’ve enjoyed a bad game, movie, show, or song more than once.
The first mistake is selling art to non-artists. The general population buys games for entertainment, and similar to any art (music, movies, paintings) for entertainment, it is rarely the most artistic that is selected.
> The shoddy SFIV received a higher art score than one of the best looking games to date, and I believe it’s all due to a pixel tax.
The second mistake is believing IGN, or the general consumer, is evaluating the art when they explicitly state “graphics”.
There’s a place for pixel art - even for ascii art (<3 df), but you have to be ready to not be loved by people that aren’t interested in “art,” but entertainment.