Basically, I am sick off the assumption that graphics help the sale of games to such a large degree, when there hasn't been anything to actually verify that, other than assuming that games that happened to have graphics sold well (colrrelation=causation fallacy), while ignoring games that have great graphics and don't sell so well (Crysis).
Now that might be the case that graphics are a reason people flocked to Modern Warfare, but to just assume it's the case is wrong. It's takikng the customers for granted that they agree with you on the product.
I mean, someone should just poll a representative sample of people who bought games (might have to be somewhat large, since calling random numbers won't lead always to gamers), and why though bought those games, and find out what actually sells them.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs
