It has been going on forever. I agree with you. It is nothing new and nothing wrong with it. 

I do realize that it is nothing new.

And as said, technology improving for the sake of gameplay (better physics, bigger, fuller worlds with more NPCs) is not something I consider to be wastefull.

The issue I adress would be polygons/pixels constantly increasing. I don't mind anything that actually has an impact on how the player interacts with the environnment (Let's say, having decent draw-distances.) However, as stated before, all modern triple-A titles could be played just fine in 480 p, with a third of the polygons that they have currently. It would look bad, to us, but only because our eyes have gotten used to seeing more.

Why I find this to be detrimental is explained in the original post

The issue with arguments like this is that their solution requires people to live in a relative void. Even if graphics tech had halted, it wouldn't have stopped people's graphics standards increasing. With every game someone plays, the relative pool of knowledge by which they will judge the next game they play grows. If something stays static as that pool grows, they'll just judge it harsher. They'll focus more and more on the things they want to be better (a fairly good recent example of this would be AI). Eventually someone, whether it be the established industry or an outsider immune to the stagnation agreement, would capitalise on people's dissatisfaction. Thus begins progress again.

The fact is, regardless to individual people's opinions on graphics, the collective market wants progress. It doesn't want to be content, it wants to be continually impressed. It wants games to get bigger, for worlds to look and feel more alive, for their TVs and monitors to feel more and more like windows into other worlds, rather than just coloured squares on a screen. They want the wheel to keep spinning.

You could certainly make the argument that graphics specifically needs to progress slower. I'd disagree (at least right now), but it's at least an argument I can see the merit in. What you're describing in the OT though, while I'm sure made from a position of good intentions, isn't viable. For better or worse, people just don't work like that.

Graphics haven't improved at the rate that they used to. Going from a late NES release to a SNES launch title was like night and day. The same is true for SNES to N64, and N64 to GC. When you look at a late XBO release and compare it to a XB360 launch title that change simply isn't there anymore. The same goes for when you go from a late PS3 game to a launch PS4 game. Just look at the PS3 and PS4 versions of DS2. There isn't a very big change there.

We are rapidly approaching the point where graphics just can't improve anymore. What people don't understand is that you have to pay artists in order to get better graphics. To get that small improvement from a PS3 title to a PS4 title, you need to have your artists working twice as many hours. Just to get graphics at a PS3 level you need to hire the top 20% of artists in the industry. To get graphics at a PS4 level you need to hire the top 5% of artists in the industry. Most of the people who have gotten to that level of artistic talent, when it comes to 3D modeling, have done so at the expense of their own personal lives. Oftentimes these artists are shallow, unimaginative people, because they have led dull drab lives. The end result is a dull drab art direction, presented at 4k quality, with huge textures, and two hundred thousand polygon scenes.

Biggest pile of BS i've read in a while here.

Especially the bolded part.

Graphics advancements: detrimental to the industry since 1972.

By all means. Enlighten me. Have you ever done any 3d modeling? Have you ever had to make a texture, or do any unwrapping? I doubt it. You just play games, and expect them to get made with the highest graphics quality possible. 

Actually the blame goes directly to you the gamer. When a game comes out and it does not look like the top graphic game on the market, it gets torched on all the forums before anyone has even played it. Gamers refuse to take risk or even purchase games if the graphics are not up to current standards even if the game gets great reviews. This happens all the time and its the reason that developers have to keep up with the Jones or lose sales. Hell, just on this forum itself you see many post champion the graphics of games without ever playing them and being more forgiving for a graphical showpiece game then one that isn't. If you want to blame developers for chasing the graphical glory, first look at the audience that demand it first.

I actually think you're completely right in your assessment. The push for higher and higher graphical fidelity has been detrimental to (console) gaming as a whole... but I'm still happy that games continue to look better and grander than before. I can't help it!

The push for ever-increasing visual fidelity allows for a world to become more believable, to become more immersive, it augments the game.

Graphics is just as important to me as Gameplay as they both lend credence to each other.

And I cannot wait for the 4k era to begin.