EDIT: on second thought, i better edit my thoughts probably and then post.

but basically, the details don't end to tech - but also extent to the actual art performance itself.

lot of old art actually consists of ton of details... and not all details are logical or fit to the overal narrative
= lot of dumb topic -talk is really about how lot of art, media and vaporware... is in large part about how many of details within the media piece itself doesn't fit the overall narrative of the whole piece, but the effect might still be magical in the brain.

Example: lot of modern movies, videogames, etc have this kind of double-standard these days:

Standard 1. all the sceneries, events, details, all have and must follow the logic of the media piece =at all times=
hence three things:

A. mindless, autistical focus on wikipedia-level of inter-logicalities of the art piece [vs.] the actual magical, emotional effect of said art piece.

B. since most of art is at basest intentions and levels very crude shakespearean soap opera (often filtered through the male-female dynamics and drama) and are on level of basic social emotions...
the end result is boring mindless soap opera, often bringing nothing new to table. The roles are clear, the end-results predictable, the thought and dialogue filtered through this "social reality".
 
C. Minimization of "odd" or "out of place" moments, with the maximalism on "meaningfullness" of scenes and words. Kind of reinforcing the top-most point here, but think of it as lack of "dumb topicness" or raw sensory power to experience... or the "loudnessing" (music term)of the experience, making peaks lower and lower ends higher.
Example: Think of J.J. Abrahams movies, kind of example of modern movies - every line and meaning of a scenery or set is predictable in it's meaning. All actors spout out the lines but do not have raw surprise or energy to it. No odd look from actor, or out of place reactions from actors. No surprising change of dynamics or an spectrum of subtleties.

Standard 2. there is no details, no political agendas, no subtleties and dynamics when handing art.
don't be a party pooper - don't obsess to details.

yet just compare:
modern 5-o'clock shadow or full-beard handsome alpha-males ... shouting sternly empty, non-thought but condifent, non-intense platitudes (who obviously goes to gym to boot lol).
[VS.]
non-bearded, semi-normal if probably good looking regular man (who don't actively go to gym btw, almost nobody does in the film)... who actually expresses emotions and reactions on face... and *GASP* might even express UNCERTAINTY and intensity or focus in it's face??

i'm in particulary thinking here Star Wars final confrontation from original trilogy between luke and darth vader [VS.] the new trilogy's confrontation between obi-wan and anakin.
I feel it's a pretty good examples, since you can see the new trilogy -type of 2010's acting elsewhere in movies as well,
eg. lord of the rings movies or in modern superhero movies.

A simple example of Standard 2's just plain bullshit attitude in videogames would be the comparison between original Deus Ex and modern sequels.
for example, an actually realistic portrayal of real-life work-life social dynamics, or the way people were written there or rather BEHAVE towards hero over the span of the game. just watch longplays and see for yourself, i'm not gonna dissect that one over.

Bottom-line: art is actually complex... really complex. who would have thought?? AND: the more complex and detailed it gets, the MORE you need to focus on all details, not less... "no WAY!!!" screams the reader.

so... next time you feel too-cool-for-school to "obsess" over these "details" and love to point this out - please read the whole +200 page dumb topic in reference to refresh what we are talking about for past 4 years or so. kindest regards, bonzi buddy.

also, I'm gonna disagree with that old man, in that old tech (the equipment or lack of details) don't always realize into good shit, you need your own discretion:
- Battleship Potemkin is still pretty boring, while some Walt Disney's adolescent - era cartoons made by others than his group have shockingly sharp, hella good and realized animation for it's time... you don't see that kind of shit often even to this day. point is: still good, still have something attractive in it, even if they ended to end-result by complete accident.
- bela bartok's atonal, modernist compositions are shit, yet his piano piece Op 18 Etude's is THE shit, really good fucking poop, diarrhea made of gold and nectar. 
- classical compositions from modernist era or later in general can be pretty boring, but oh boy, what if you put exact MIDI replicas of some of them through NES soundfonts from fruity loops? you are tripping at maximum +67% efficiency, n=1, subject had an orgasm and started speaking in tongues which is +2% better than previous result, placebo resulted in the termination of study executors so actual study is written by surviving assistants...
 
- a side note, not about techical equipment per say: star wars 70's technique of filming people muttering quietly in distance and walking for minutes without anything happening and without music (beginning of star wars 1 and 3)... against a backdrop of startling environment... works great in star wars movies, but not so hotly in say godard's films or other 70's films probably starring jack nicholson or robert redford lol.
 
and so forth and so forth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDEQyK5ZH-E
 
at first I forgot the music was Colin Stetson and I thought it was Burning Star Core so I had a weird feeling I made this but had amnesia, or it was stolen from my brain or recnstructed via algorithms that scanned our old saltw posts