"The graphics vs gameplay dicothomy"

What? I do NOT write that. And since your entire reply is based on that, it's invalid (unless you replying to someone else, in which case, you should have quoted him/her directly).

I wrote "how great a time you have playing a game" is what makes a game great.

And tech level just makes certain games possible on its own, not great on its own.

Throw in narrative, storytelling, voice acting, plot and anything reserved normally into movies as a third angle connected to the videogame industry also.  So we now have graphics vs gameplay vs movie-like experience.

First, I can't get into every thread where the Wii is bashed as a toy, although I have jumped into some.  There are too many I have spoken my piece on it.  I consider the Wii a valid platform that had done things differently until Microsoft and Sony decided they wanted some.  I think the Wii does have a place for games like Tiger Woods, and other places where motion control fits.  

Second, I jumped into here because I saw boardgames brought up, in what looked like a slam at them.  It just happens to be by someone whose work of interactive fiction is heralded is a landmark title, and with cheerleading that it be the direction the videogame industry should go.  Again, I jumped it because of the board game comment.  I just happen to go with what was said on the surface and figured someone doing interactive fiction would happen to rip on something as being like a boardgame.  And I will stand by what I said once more that the drive to emulate Hollywood will hurt the bottom line of the videogame industry. You need to be less on edge about this, seriously.  You are seeing too much here.  Unlike you, I don't have Heavy Rain in my signature.  It normally isn't on my mind.  Boardgames are far more so though.

The best thing here is to agree to disagree.  I will still speak out whenever boardgames get ripped on, considered I did found a non-profit that promotes a subset of boardgames, that being abstract strategy games.  Want to know why I am sensitive?  It is because I feel they matter, and don't get the level of attention they deserve.

Your sentence was, literally:

"If Cage focused on a game that was hella great to play first and foremost, any art and graphics added onto it would just be gravy."

Which I can read in several ways

a) the "naked gameplay/Malstrom" position: if a game has great basic gameplay then any art and graphics added are just redundant

b) the "good enough" interpretation: if a game has enough tech and visuals to be great than any more art and graphics won't make it more worth

Now, in the context of Cage's work, b) made little sense, because HR was never a self-conscious tech or artsy showcase. It aimed at portraying with some fidelity actors and their actions because it was needed for its very raison d'etre, that is to be an interactive, noir cinematic drama with a basically realistic setting. As such, I can't see which art and graphics you could mantain have been poured over the skeleton as in an afterthought: the visualization and style they chose is as part of the basic experience as the interaction means.

Thus, I went for a), because your comment made more sense in that light.

If your position is not that, a less dismissive rebuttal will be welcome.

EDIT: Okay, glitch means I have to write this over. Anyway I wrote "any art and graphics added onto it would just be gravy". That means more graphics can be included, but as the topping, not the main attraction. So both of your interpretations were off due to that.

RE4 is a good example. It has the graphics, but once the wow factor wears off, the gameplay and design keep me coming back, even when I saw the graphics as less impressive over time. Or Zelda Ocarina of Time. So the graphics were the gravy. Being great to play came first.

I'd say that's what I meant with b), as stretching subjectively the threshold between what is "needed" and what is "bonus" it covers a lot of reasonable ground. But it still doesn't make much sense in the context of HR.

You can not like the game, but it certainly it's not a game without a reason deeply rooted in its mission statements for its visuals. Being its appearance utilitaristic, you can basically dislike the whole package, but it's not a case of topping.

I dislike the story, not the emphasis on visuals. The visuals are actually decent (save for the occasional odd glitch) and would have been fine if the story wasn't so weak and unpolished. That's not utilitaristic. That's artistic, and the story fails on those grounds.