I forget the exact comparisons but doesn't a title cost around 3 times more on 360/PS3 than a Wii equivalent? If so that surely means that roughly 2 thirds of a 360/PS3 game's budget is being spent on visuals, as lets face it, it's the main thing seperating the platform's games! Now I know that to a lot of gamers higher poly counts, hi-res textures and light blooming up the yazoo is important but to the point where it swallows the majority of a game's budget? Really??

Take Heavenly Sword for example. It supposedly had around a 20 million dollar budget and yet it was over, well, too quickly. To those that bought the title wouldn't you have rather had a game with more meat to it with extra levels, more varied enemies, etc. even if it meant that the main character's hair didn't move like a shampoo commercial on steroids? Before anybody asks, no I've not played the game, but the sentiments seem to be shared by the majority of critics so I'm taking their word for it.

There are countless other games which I think also suffer from too much makeup and too little substance. MotorStrom, which I have played looks great but as a game is hugely inferior to tonnes of racing games on PS2 which I'm assuming cost a fraction of mula to make. Lair, again pretty pictures but where's the game to justify that huge investment? By the way I realise I've only mentioned PS3 games but they just happen to be good examples of what I'm talking about and have been most publicised for their shortcomings.

I'm not saying that graphical advances should stop however I do think that developers should start to think about using these unpresedentedly high dev budgets for more than just bells and whistles. Just think what a game with KilleZone2's budget could achieve if it settled for reasonable graphics and spent the majority of the resources on the actual game!!

Anyway that's my 2 cents on the issue. If I've got any of the figures wrong or have somehow misunderstood the development process to the point where my argument falls apart  let me know, I don't pretend to know everything and don't mind being set straight! 

ANYTIME a new console is released, you always try to push hardware asap, it's how progress is made lol. Now if the PS3 and 360 weren't competeing for who's got the more powerfull e-peen, then you'd see a much faster drop-off. But new hardware brings new goals.

i guess most of the wii devs didn't get that memo

yes. graphics are important for a lot of genre's, but many seem to be forgetting about gameplay. See LIAR.

Graphics are the first thing people notice when they're playing a game. They're the initial impression, and the most shallow, easy way to determine if a game is "good". High quality content doesn't sell as well nor is it as sexy as high end graphics.

The more complex answer has to do with the ways in which game development evolves through the scope of a single game. As you develop a game that (almost inevitable) ends up going over budget and running late, you can't just start putting poor art assets into the game. You have to be consistent, even if you're only making a mediocre game. The easiest way to cut development time is to cut content. Make the game short, limit the scope of what people can do and how many enemies there are, the types of weapons, etc.

While graphics do consume a lot of developer resources, don't automatically assume that they're the only thing doubling and tripling the budget of new games. Physics engines, lighting engines, sound improvements, quality voice acting, and other advancements also consume a lot of resources.

Which is why I believe we'll see more and more devs rely on middleware as time progresses. Companies like Epic, id, and Valve will provide developers with the tools they need to skip a lot of that engine work and move right into the graphics and gameplay elements.

since gaming is partially a visual artform, it most definitely is important.

Yes, the majority of 3rd paty dev's on Wii have made cashing in on ill thought out waggle a priority which obviously I don't agree with either but that is for a another thread.

Well back on topic, when people think gen gaps it's sadly usually pointed at graphics, the "next gen console" always seems to imply which one has the prettiest output. I mean what it the wii had WORSE graphical output then the Gamecube? Still unique in its own right for sure, but I don't think anyone would consider it a next generation nintendo platform. They consider it something in its own class lol.

Personally I think so but I am pretty much the opposite of a graphics whore, a retro gamer I guess. (Actually a retro PC gamer would be more accurate XD)

Graphics are nice but usually entirely unnecessarily focused on, while certain genres of games should look good enough to be captivating they don't need to have every little thing perfect.