I think it's fair to say there is more than one way to create a visual identity.
Not every game needs to be 1080p (obviously a contentious point at the moment) and adhere to a rule of clinical crispness. These guys are clearly not chasing after that. Mostly on this forum when people say 'photorealistic' it's a misnomer, but here it is not. They are looking to make their game look as if it were captured through a camera lense - mirroring the faults that we've become accustomed to or even enjoy in films.
I will always comfortably refer to Shadow of the Colossus, when talking about IQ and artistic decisions. The HD rerelease of the game offers a superb performance boost, but in it's transition to HD lost some of it's visual identity. It's a great game to use as an example here. Details like colossi fur, no longer look soft as they should revealing instead an SD attempt at parallax mapping, every model's pointy edges are harshly exposed, the horse's tail no longer seems to move organically purely because you can see how it's made up of 4 or 5 physics objects at the new resolution.
People questioning this have the right to. But I personally have a huge amount of faith in a developer that is acutely aware of their visual output and how their assets and renderer function together to make an image, as opposed to one ticking off a myriad useless terminologies on their technical checklist - without employing them to any great effect.