Of course, those were people who are still pretty active gamers, and any graphics from the late '90s will look pretty lame by modern standards. Personally, I thought they hold up pretty well considering how old they are, but anyone accustomed to well-marbled Porterhouses naturally turns their nose up at even the best hamburger.

I am no active gamer, so cannot say if this is still the case, but for a long time there was wide gulf between PC gamers seeking strategy and plot vs. console gamers seeking big 'splosions. PCs have every bit as much graphics capability as consoles (over time, more, since they can be upgraded with new technology,) but consoles are optimized for it since they are dedicated gaming platforms and thus do not need to make cost tradeoffs for other things vital to versatile PC functionality. Conversely, consoles historically lacked the processing power and memory to juggle complex scripting, branching plotlines and game customization as well as PCs.

Consequently, people most familiar with one platform were inevitably disappointed by the other, because it rarely had the capability to support high quality in areas they took for granted. Even when the hardware was up the challenge, the software usually was not, because it had to be marketed to other people whose hardware could not run top of the line software. Put it this way: How often do console games list their video and sound requirements? And how big a deal was it when Sony announced that the next PlayStation would allow internet access (though I am not sure how far that extends beyond multiplayer support)?