20 years ago I was saying this about video games. However, when I go back and look at video games from 20 years ago, I now see why they kept pushing things forward. Graphics were serviceable, but they're so much better now. That said, the game (or movie) still needs to be the most important thing. When a studio tries to lean on graphics as the selling point, it always ends up poorly.

True, I was trying to play starcitizen and after a bit all that was in my head was that this would be a much better game if they had simplified the graphics and instead invested that time spent into systems. Hell I think this any time I play a so called triple A game.

And even with great graphics why are they always so sterile. Where are my dynamic damage models, deformable terrain, procedural content. One tiny thing that bothered me more than it should have was Doom(2016). Great gameplay but the way the monster corpses disappear just upsets me "How can I be knee deep in the dead if there are no dead?" I mean the original doom and quake kept the corpses around. But now 20 years later they can't?.

>That said, the game (or movie) still needs to be the most important thing. When a studio tries to lean on graphics as the selling point, it always ends up poorly.

Counterpoint: Avatar. I have never heard someone say they loved that movie because of the amazing story. They like it because it's very, very, very pretty to look at.