Guide for graphics whores. Open source, so suggestions of course welcome.

[Played_Out]

I believe that graphics whores are a viable target, so I appreciate the effort, but there are several points that could use some work:

In #4 you seem to imply that better graphics do not improve a game, but that swinging your arms does, which would be an even more tenuous argument.

Crysis did not have dismal sales; it topped the PC charts for some time and sold above expectations. It deserved to do dismal sales, however, because it was utterly generic and the gameplay was piss-poor. Also, sales are not a reflection of quality, so your whole point is essentially moot.

The "uncanny valley" doesn't exist. That is to say, it is only a non-scientific theory that has become popular in reference to computer-generated representations of the human form. Personally, I think the theory has some merit, but it is certainly not a truism. In any case, it is not an impediment to photo-realism, only to near-photo-realistic representations of the human form. It's also worth noting that, in the absence of a bridge, you will need to descend into a valley in order to emerge on the other side.

Also, on point #3 from your blog, "Beauty is in the details, not the art", I would say that, arguably, the details are the art, but that would be the subject of a much more complex debate on the nature of aesthetics. Perhaps a more salient point is the fact that Renaissance artists did have better tools and techniques than in previous centuries, and more importantly that the Renaissance only happened due to the patronage of the Medici family and other financial backers. You state that "The cost of graphics is skyrocketing", but like "great graphics", great art almost invariably requires financing, and being a visionary is useless if you don't have the means to achieve your vision. Finally, I would suggest that using the Renaissance as an example is a bad idea anyway, as one of the key factors of Renaissance art was the pursuit of greater realism. Perhaps you realised this and that is why you excised it from this revised version?

Also, you make a reference to using a straw man argument, when your entire piece is essentially a string of straw man arguments. I will reiterate that I think graphics whores are deserving of scorn, but you would have been better off just saying "gameplay is more important than graphics" and leaving it at that. Frankly, I would be more interested in knowing why so many Wii owners think having better graphics detracts from gameplay, as is frequently implied in the "gameplay vs. graphics" (read: "Wii vs. PS360") arguments that resurface from time to time.

@ FJ-Warez
Killzone 2 and Gears of War look great, just as Viva Pinata, SMG and LBP do, but I have never once heard anyone claim that a game looks good because of it's use of greys and browns. On the other hand, I have heard countless people repeating ad nauseam that certain games look "bland" due to a muted palette. Also, your point about CPU vs. RAM/GPU is a valid one, but a faster CPU can alleviate the requirements for RAM/GPU in a variety of ways (streaming, pre-processing vertex operations etc. etc.)

@ twesterm
Straw man. I've certainly not heard anyone claim LBP is "hardcore", just that it looks great due to it's innovative mechanics and excellent art design. Why not just say "the PS3 is shit and the Wii rocks! Huzzah!"? That's clearly what you meant. I know it would be trolling, but don't mods have diplomatic immunity or something? Then again, that didn't help the bad guy in Lethal Weapon...