While better graphics aren't bad, they can be. Graphics are a marketing tool and these days, the marketing people dictate AAA game development from beginning to end. So if we have a level in a game that is expected to have a lot of moving objects and action, is expected to be locked in at a particular framerate, and is expected to push polygons to a new level, that may not always work. So what gets sacrificed? Are they going to sacrifice graphics in order to maintain the framerate and intense gameplay? Chances are, they'll nerf the gameplay in order to make more room for the graphics. Sometimes, they'll let the framerate suffer as well. Screenshots and videos sell games. Gameplay has to be experienced.
The irony in all this is while graphics can be used as a good marketing tool, they don't keep the player engaged. After a few days or few weeks, they graphics lose that initial wow factor and it is the gameplay that has to keep the player engaged. That has become the backwards thinking of today's industry. Of course with the industry being more America-driven than years ago, it should come as no surprise that companies are more concerned about quarterly sales rather than long term goals. This is why we might se the same Nintendo on store shelves for almost a decade while a lot of other companies may not have their game in stock after 2 years.
Sp I think that better graphics aren't bad but they are being abused and the games suffer because of it.
Check out my art blog: http://jon-erich-art.blogspot.com
