Wow, what an embarassing bunch of Captain Obvious Superfriends we have here.
It's just a guess, but you probably won't get the discussion back on the topic of graphics (rather than the "dev time should be spend on X" derail) this way.
That said, I agree with you. The current screenies look boxy and lifeless compared to the early concept screenies. I don't think it's the art style as such, it looks more like it's a matter of practicality. The concept screenies were probably mock-ups of what SD wanted the game to look like, but the reality of infinite zoom, tiles, modability and how much various objects have to scale to be recognisable from any zoom level, probably necessitated the difference.
I hope it will change. I doubt it, but I really hope so. The art direction lends itself really well to map-seamlessness &.. I dunno what to call it, visual flow? - The mock-ups definitely had that. They were very evocative, really. The current shots are pretty much the opposite.
Ideally the composition should be such that any screen capture would make an interesting still image. The mock-ups manage that (but then, I assume that's exactly what they were), but I haven't seen anything current that would.
And as for the grognards: I really couldn't care if it's PixelArt, Crysis or something else entirely. As long as the visuals support the interface, the art direction is evocative, consistent and supports the gameplay, and neither visuals nor interface falls apart when windowed or in various resolutions, I'll be perfectly happy with it. Sometimes a single guy can manage that in a month. Sometimes a triple-A game with a multi-million dollar budget, piles of artists & years of development time can't manage it at all. I'm not suggesting text adventures & ASCII games aren't fun, but Elemental is neither. So let's try to offer the kind of feedback that'll make the graphics support the game in the best possible way, yeah?