I'm gonna make this extremely simple to understand, Amir0x. You get the response you get not because of what you say, but because how you say it. It's been that way forever. Very rarely does anyone actually argue with (or necessarily even disagree with) the specific arguments you are making. It's the language. People bristle at it, feel attacked by it, and feel the need to attack back. It's antagonistic at a fundamental level, and it has virtually NOTHING to do with the opinion, and everything to do with the words used to compose it. (This isn't in response to your previous post specifically, though.)
On topic, obviously Pikmin 3 shows its Wii roots. The environmental skeleton is extremely low-poly, and you can see it in every rock and tree trunk. There is a ton of polish on top of that, though. The lighting and shadows are exceptional, the foliage is very well made, and the new enemy models are smooth, shiny, and effect-laden.
It is trivial for me to understand how someone could be more impressed by Pikmin 3 than Banjo Kazooie, since as a PACKAGE it is more visually pleasing.
This Banjo shot, for example, is positively vile. And features some low-res ground textures that I'd say are
worse than Pikmin 3's, actually. While you can likely isolate plenty of places where Banjo succeeds on a purely technical level, though, it's basically irrelevant if it doesn't come together.
And Pikmin 3 comes together. It is a cohesive and beautiful aesthetic that manages to transcend its technical roots. For this reason, many do not use words like "mediocre" without context to describe it, and bristle when others do. It's a matter of priorities, does a person look at the visuals as a whole, or focus more on the individual components? To each their own, but when you go through Pikmin with a laundry list of complaints about every technical aspect, you will receive disagreements not from people who don't think those aspects exist, but rather who do not draw the same conclusions from them that you do.