You are saying the same thig i am saying, just giving it a  different name. Everything you listed out there, has nothing to do with a game running at 1080p/720p or at 30/60fps using MSAA, TSAA or FXAA...etc. Take oblivion as it was made, using the same textures and models, and make it with new hardware in mind and you will get it to have more of everything you just described. The game could still look exactly the same, but have better animation, ai, particles, destructibility, draw distance, characters on screen...etc. 

All these things have to do with performance, and i have no problem with that, this is why newer and better hardware is needed. The more powerful the hardware, the more designers can do with games. Graphics are all about art style and presentation, a games performance is something completely different. Graphics deals with texture quality and variety, resolution, colors and presentation while perfomance deals with how the game actual plays of which a consistent framerate ties into (not 30/60fps, more importantly just consistent) level design, ai, control response...etc. My problem is that graphics now seem to be all anyone talks about, two years can go by and all most devs will show is trailer after trailer of their game... where as what is ost important is how that game plays.

Won't work with me for several reasons.

First, I have a 40" TV that I'm not sitting very far away from. If I lean in I'm starting to see individual pixels.

Second, I'm very sensible for graphics. I'm able to discern 720p from 1080p without having a direct comparison.

I didn't mind the graphics at the start (first 2-3 years) of last generation. They were still fresh and better than what I saw before. Before that I never owned a gaming PC. Then mid gen I got my first real gaming rig and saw what really was possible. I played on PC for quite a while. When I returned to my PS3 it was just awful. I couldn't even look at my favorite games anymore. I hated how FFXIII-3 looked and performed, how TLOU looked like ass. All those giant pixels and aliasing. I literally couldn't play Darksiders because of no AA. I got headaches from Star Ocean because of the graphics. I lost interest in Dragon's Dogma because of the lacking graphics.

That's why nobody can tell me that graphics don't matter. Better graphics might not further the gameplay fun but what they do is stop distracting you from it.

TLOU and FFXIII still ended up being my favorite games of last gen but I just hated how they were bogged down due to limited power of the console. I shouldn't be hating fun games. Graphics should be the least important thing in a game but they only are if they're good enough to not distract from the experience. PS4 is already weak but seeing X1 and WiiU not even managing the bare minimum is just appalling.

It didn't matter so much in the old days as scaling isn't really a problem with CRT TVs. If all else if equal I rather play in native 1080p on an LCD display / projector than any upscaled resolution. Easier than swapping out the 1080p tv for a 720p tv for some games. Plus I haven't found a 900p tv yet.

For reviews, sadly there isn't much to talk about game play nowadays. It's all familiar done it before stuff, the setting and how it looks are the biggest changes. There is only one way to change that, stop buying generic AAA action/rpg/shooter hybrid and buy indies with experimental game play instead.
Or admit to yourself that a new lick of paint and more detailed explosions is what you really want. Titanfall, The order 1886, Sunset overdrive, Watch dogs, all hyped to the moon. Game play is nothing what we haven't seen before.

I'll go ahead and give you the buzzword to kill all buzzwords:

"Next Gen"

i get where you are coming from, believe me.. I am a graphics person myself. Thogh i wouldn't go as far as not play a game because it doesn't look as good as I think it could. I also know that those that have sen just how good games can look like, simply cannot unsee it and their brains will kinda just see whats wrong with a picture without even trying. 

I am not saying that graphics aren't important. or that resolutions arent important. or even that framerates aren't importnat. I am saying that the industry focus on those things are too much. so much so that all anyone seems to talk about these days are hwta framerate, res, textures, AA implementation...etc a game has as opposed to the actual gameplay and content. Its the equivalent of talking about what kinda camera, special effects, framerate, colour tone a movie is made with as opposed to actually talking about the story/presentation of the movie which at its core is the most important thing in a movie. 

You write well.

Since gaming is focused on the 90% dumb mainstreamers now not the 10% real gamers its just normal for this thing to happen. If 90% of your userbase just cares about visuals its obvious that your focus is raw power.

The problem is that japanese devs thought they had to do the same and make games for mainstreamers and their franchises fucked up thank god that seems to change with e.g SquareEnix and their Bravely Default success and hardcore games like DarkSouls etc.

Graphics are important but when the game design potential of a game is not hindered by the power of a system (because we lack gameplay innovation etc NOT power) then new hardware is irrelevant. Just look at Xenoblade and how its a much better RPG than say FF13 etc. Sure Xenoblade could have looked better but looking better is not more important than being a better game and since Xenoblade is the better game in most cases most of the PS360/PC games just waste the power of the hardware they are running on.

We need better devs and publishers and lower budget titles that allow for risky games. stuff like Minecraft, DarkSouls, No Mans Sky etc. Not more power and rising budgets that will just end up in even less risky/unconventional games because of dumb shareholders wanting short term profit and publishers and devs playing it save.

You remember how long surround sound exists? And how long it took the visual aspect of movies to be on par with the audio aspect? (well its still not really on par but 1080p 3d is as close as it gets.)

In gaming the visual aspect is becoming better and better but the gameplay/innovation aspect is stuck in monaural sound most of the time. When both are on par and a system is at its limits because you simply CANNOT make a better game because of the hardware (not because of the human limitation of creativity or whatever) then bring out a new system.

Aliasing does stand out to me these days. In games like Mario Kart 8 and the W101 it stood out although when engaged in the game I was too busy to care. 720p with anti-aliasing, however, would be totally fine.

60 FPS matters. Locked 30 would do with many games. However for fast moving games, and platform games with little characters bouncing about, it's important. Things look and feel far more solid at higher framerates. A gamer might not be able to recognise a difference between locked 30 or 60 fps. That's because when asked they don't know what to look for to recognise the difference. I believe they would still sense the difference on some level, and it could impact there enjoyment, even if they weren't fully cognitively aware of it or realise it's a graphical or fps issue.

1. The problem with the japanese devs wasn't really just a westernization of their dev process especially with square. It was that they lot touch of what gamers actually want. Yes, gamers like graphics, but it doesn't mean that they suddenly stopped loving what made your games great to begin with. FF started its journey to FF13 from FF10. It didnt start overnight. And nothing stoped them from making bravely default of Hd consoles, they just seemed to forget that that was the kinda RPG gamers actually wanted from them. Western devs took that power and expanded the world and scope of their games. Same stuff, just bigger and better and shinier, with a couple of new features bolted on. The japs just threw their games outta the window and tried to make western games instead.
2. High production values does not always mean high budgets. And for the most part, when you see games that claim to have a bugdet of around $100M or more, just know that more than half of that is being used for marketing. I have always believed and still do, that good games sell themselves. If your game is really good, you don't need to market the hell outta it. I tend to avoid games that has a lot of marketing, cause I have come to notice that such games are usually lacking somewhere.

I think this conversation will be the defining conversation of our generation of video games, and, unfortunately, I think it's an irreconcilable conversation. The ideas and points of view on each side of this debate are so philosophically different that I see no way to make them compatible.

I see one side where game design is king, and graphics, physics, lighting, and AI are tools to give depth and texture to the game. And I see a second side where power is king, and graphics, physics, lighting, and AI are the tools with which to birth a game. In other words, is a game defined by its ideas or by its performance?