I love the concept - but the execution didn't draw me in. And I think that's the important lesson to learn from people complaining about the graphics or art of the game. So what if they don't know the difference between engine-generated graphics and pre-rendered static 3DCG and even pre-rendered animated video? Most people who buy a smartphone aren't able to tell you how the circuitry works - but if they complained hey, the LED screen is too small, I can't buy this, the manufacturer retorting "It's an LCD screen!" is missing the point - that it is too damn small, whatever it is, and thus people are not buying it and recommending it to others.
While there are still people playing Skyrim, which in the lowest settings is of somewhat comparable graphics levels, that's more about the amount of investment, the amount of customization, the sheer volume of mods, and the long history. If some other company launched a brand new game that looked like low-settings Skyrim today, without that history, without the mods, it probably wouldn't do very well. Our expectations of graphics have changed in the years since - and we are used to games like GTA, Red or Dead, and Far Cry as our benchmark.
People will play games with low graphical quality
if the gameplay itself, the playing experience, is novel and entertaining enough. So my advice would be to really focus on that, because it will be a lot more affordable for you to spend time on improving there, than the costs of buying a better game engine, better models, and pushing the minimum spec to run the game up to triple-A title levels.
