I think as the technical analyst, it's their job to cover stuff like this. Otherwise, how are they any different than say the Gamespot reviewer whose job it is to offer the subjective analysis?
I got a lot of flack for a thread I created on DF's Deathloop analysis where he said something along the lines of 'it isnt trying to push graphics boundries and thats ok because it is pushing game design, art and overall polish.' And I was like I dont come to you for an analysis on game design and art style. Like WTF.
DF needs to figure out what they want to be. And I will be honest, if they want to ditch framerate and resolution analysis and focus only on the tech and how each game looks compared to other games in terms of lighting, character rendering and ray tracing then fine, lets compare Deathloop to Ratchet and ask just why the fuck two next gen only games look a gen apart. Lets discuss just why one game looks significantly better than the other and critique the devs for failing to hit the mark. Let's NOT dismiss mediocre looking games because they are polished and have good gameplay. That's not their job.
If Horizon is being compared with Zelda in game reviews by industry critics then DF should compare Zelda's graphics to Horizon and be critical about it. GT7 comes out next year. If they want to do pixel counting then fine, but for every 2D tree in GT7, I want a rant from Richard, a meltdown from John and a snide remark about lack of ray tracing in gameplay from Alex. Ten Points from Griffyndor. Rate the games. Give every game's graphics a score. So when GOW comes out 8 months after Horizon and looks a gen behind, we can say yes, it falls short of other games on the platform.