So your right in thinking he's sad because of that statement? When the only thing thats different is his opinion is different than yours. 

I think it's sad that someone cant except people like different things. And think they are sad because they are not the same. 0.0

So you don't think RE5 looks good?...Furthermore are you saying that RE5 had qualities which were superior to RE4 other than pretty graphics? Hence graphics didnt make the game?

Im a little confused...

dunno what happened to my comment?? lool anyways I wanted to say I'm upset with the poster thanks for throwing us all into the same category to me a masterpiece ifocuses first on story, explorability and gameplay anthing else is just sugar coating, that is why I buy games like 3d dot heroes completely rewarding but yet has retro graphics, you don't just have to own a wii to experience fun games, fun games are present on all platforms if you are willing to look hard enough

Graphics can help, but not as much as you're saying.

Everything stated in the OP is true.  This is why I only play on the Magnavox Odyssey.  The games on the Atari 2600 and and Odyssey 2 were way too concerned with trying to make humans in the shape of humans and all of that.  Just give me a white block and that's all I need.  Anything more than that is just covering up the fact that you're playing a crappy game.  

What's wrong with some aesthetic pleasure?

I get a lot of slack from a few PC nerds on this site (Selnor) when I mention my pc...but I have to do it here to prove a point.

I am playing Mario Gallaxy 2 at 1080p with 8XAA on my PC. Looks absolutely incredible... and I think you are right in saying that since I am more eager to play it due to the fact that its gorgeus. But overall the adition of visuals to that game is maybe 10% more enjoyment.So it really isn't a total dealbreaker...

I think that a game should not be looked at as inferior if gameplay is coherent and exceptional, but visuals are a little lacking...Halo 3 for example. Still the best FPS this gen for me.

Selnor, if someone were to say the moon is made of salsa and would plummet to earth when Tostitos goes out of business, you would say don't fault them is because that's what they think.

Even though they are factually wrong, it's their opinion that it's made of salsa, right?

Preferring a graphical leap (which is not what a game is meant to be about) than a major innovation in gameplay (which is what makes the game fun) is in fact sad. I can garner mass information from this site that will say an innovation in gameplay is much more important than an innovation in graphics. He is fundamentally wrong for believing that Graphics>Gameplay.

let me get this straight are you actually against having games with good graphics?... i understand where u are coming frm when u say gameplay is important but graphical progression is a good thing. also if good graphics werent a key part of gaming we wouldnt have such powerful systems as we do now and we would have still been playing something like the original nintendo

Do you know what the word subjective means? it means basically that it comes from one persons individual opinion, you are forgetting that gaming is not objective.

Thus it is fine if Ilike graphics as a key element towards fun in gaming, and you do not. There is nothing sad about it except for the fact that you can't admidt that its ok for people to apreciate graphics more than anything else.

My Satan post #666!!!