If the content is similar, graphics become a differentiating factor. There are many WWII, sci-fi or postapocalyptic shooters in the market place. Is it just a coincidence that the best looking games usually sell the most? Of course those games also get backed up by the biggest ad campaigns, but that's how it works. Games with big development budgets naturally will have great graphics and since they are supposed to sell a lot to make a profit, they also get a lot of marketing.

Those GTA games were sidestories released on the PSP and later on on the PS2 as the fourth and fifth iteration on Sony's home console, respectively. I don't think they are the best example for your argument, but I agree that content does indeed play an important role for the sales of a game.

So a FPS needs good multiplayer, graphics, content and marketing. Goldeneye will have at the very least the content covered, so much is clear.

well I dont think so and yes I hate useless change bcuz mario galaxy could be played with a gc controller easily (exept for the mini games )and most of the Nintendo wii games can or could be played with a classic controller too

so MOTION in controls are far from bein the future, killeryoshi

It's in the trailer.

Crysis is irrelevant, because it's a PC game. The PC gaming market works very different, it's declining since years which resulted in the 360 becoming the lead platform instead of the PC for many games. Additionally the system requirements for Crysis certainly didn't affect its sales positively. In the end it's really not comparable to console FPS.

Graphics are a result of effort. The misconception that denies the Wii the support is that the hardware isn't capable of 360/PS3 graphics and therefore those games won't sell, another one is that the audience isn't interested in such games. In reality, it's a matter of effort. Without effort, a game will probably fail. People see halfassed Wii games and decide to not buy them which means underwhelming sales. Then you have games in which effort is put into (most notably Nintendo games) and people don't mind buying them even if they don't have 360/PS3 like graphics.

Gamers have an idea what a system is capable of (nobody expects PS2 level graphics from the DS for example) and if they perceive a game to be lacking in terms of graphics they think twice before making a purchase. Yes, graphics do sell games even though they are not the main reason why a game sells. But graphics are an indicator how much effort was put into a game. (Don't forget that art direction is the most important aspect of graphics, I don't want to write a seperate post defending bestselling games with low polygon counts and few to none special effects.)

With the amount of games that get released each year, the extra mile is indeed mandatory. I hope Activision doesn't think they stand out from the crowd just due the famous name of their game.

If a company releases a trailer, what other than its graphics do we have to go by at this point? None. But if the game is going to be good, Activision won't have a problem with letting people play the game very soon.