True enough but the system has to be able to produce great graphics to ensure the better game status. Take Naughty Dog is games for instance without great graphics they would be lesser games.

I didn't want to scare away the three Xbox enthusiasts on the site.

But I don't think it's a bigger stretch at all. I've seen a lot of PS loyalists (and to a lesser extent Xbox loyalists) downplay the potential of Nintendo games because of a perceived graphical inferiority -- we're seeing it every day with these Switch threads. You can't claim that most Nintendo fans are lying to themselves and that few Sony fans do the same. Human nature applies to all denominations.

In any event, I agree that folks care about both graphics and gameplay. I think Nintendo gamers care more than they admit, and I think PS gamers care less than they admit.

Impressive graphics in a game, both technical and artistic, can leave a big lasting impression and really immerse you into the world. It's no different to people enjoying a game's soundtrack, I can't imagine people making the same argument about that.

Graphics and gameplay aren't mutually exclusive either.

I feel like this stupid line of reasoning wouldn't exist if people's egos weren't tied to a games console.

Yeah ... but there's a huge difference between console warrioring and the reality of modern day gaming. Putting nonsense to one side, people want better graphics and better gameplay. Look at any thread of any modern game and regardless of graphics you'll get plenty of discussion about gameplay, and I'm talking about the people who own the console those games are on, not people who don't. This whole 'gameplay over graphics' is a red herring (as someone has already pointed out). To me, Splatoon has great graphics, as does Mario and Zelda. Now 'When did resolution > art style' I could run with quite happily, but even then no one would argue that The Witcher 3, UC4 or God Of War don't have a good artstyle too.

The ultimate aim is to have both.

That's just my take on it, but I've played impressive looking games (FFXV, The Order...) which haven't left a big lasting impression on me. They were mediocre despite of the graphics quality. In my opinion, of course, I accept that a lot of people enjoyed them.

Nevertheless, I've played games with way less graphical power (Undertale, To the Moon, Gunman Clive, Stealth Inc...) which left me with a pleasant impression. Way more positive than those powerhouses. It's obvious that if you combine both aspects in one game, that's a winning. But the foundation is always a good gameplay. If that's lost, the game is unredeemable, no matter what.

Also, I feel that the gaming forum's discusions are way more prominent in what I call the "numbers war" than in the gameplay department. And I feel... that's a bit telling. Just my take on it.

Since video games were invented ,  video games developer were trying to make games playable and understand to play, by creating great visual and finally the final destination to make games easy to look, beautiful to play, and some trying to make realistic. That's the one that push 2D, to 2D photo realistic, to 3D polygon and then 3D shaders until now. It's always part of the games philosophy. Having great graphic is not the final objective, but is one of the way to make the games enjoyable to play, some games need it some games doesn't need to. 

It's funny you say that, because I was about to use FFXV as an example as well. I wasn't really enjoying the game until they just let the narrative take over and there were some amazing moments and set pieces. FFXV was saved for me when gameplay took the back seat (mainly because it was bad).

I'd still agree that gameplay is the foundation though. It wouldn't be bad if it wasn't, it would just be a movie.

The Order is a good example. In fact, with titles like the Order the high-end graphics almost make me more disappointed in the game. I think to myself "you spent all this time and money on textures and lighting and your forgot to make something worth playing."

Some people do play a game for graphics as long as the gameplay isn't broken. It's their preference. But just because someone complains that a game should look better than it does doesn't mean that person is saying that the graphics are more important than gameplay. These are VIDEO games that we are talking about in which GRAPHICS play a major factor.

But they did in America? Goalposts move as technology advances. If you achieve more, people start expect more. I don't think it's an unreasonable thing. The industry wasn't near as public and comparisons weren't made like they were in 2006. When gaming media started covering platform differences and digital foundry uploaded things on Youtube, it drawed attention to it.