Agreed. The most impressive thing to me this gen hasn't been the mocap in Uncharted 4 or the particle effects in Infamous: Second Son. It was the Nemesis system in Shadow of Mordor. That's something that 1) couldn't have been done 15 years ago and 2) actually enhances gameplay.

@OP: I don't agree with you 100%, but I sympathize with your ideas. The march forward into higher resolution and glossier graphics hasn't produced superior games. In fact, one could argue the opposite. That the time, energy, and resources dedicated to making games look better has made publishers less likely to take risks and, in terms of gameplay, cater to the lowest common denominator.

Would I be fine if gaming development froze in 2003? Personally, yes. I believe that games were best in the years between 1991 and 2005. But I am open to new technologies. If I was stuck in 2003 I would never experience the tactile joy of Wii Sports or the Nemesis system I mentioned earlier. There IS utility in advanced graphics, physics, AI, etc. But I think the industry needs to slow down, and spend money within its means.

I have to kinda agree actually. Graphics are important to a game, but even more so is art style and game play. A crappy game with awesome graphics can only be enjoyed so much, while a game with either great gameplay or story with crappy graphics will be more enjoyable than the opposite. Just look at the new Zelda; graphically it's lacking compared to Horizon, GoW, For Honor, the Division or what have you, but I've seen a lot more new things in Zelda that excites me (that's not to say that the mentioned games will be bad or isn't doing anything new).

Graphics are an important part of the industry. Not more than gameplay, pacing or level design, but anyone saying they don't matter at all isn't really looking beyond there own interests.

Graphics can make characters and environment feel more real and believable and can make the game world more immersive. Kratos in God of War 3 feels more real than in 1 or 2 and that improves the immersion. The set pieces and scale of the game is also more epic due in part to graphics improvement.

Drake also feels more human in Uncharted 4 than he did in 2 or 3. That definitely improves the immersion.

GTA V's world feels a lot more immersive on PS4 than it did on PS3. More foliage, better lighting, more varied fauna, resolution and framerate all improve the experience.

Graphics aren't the be all end all of games, far from it, but gamers are quite thankless for all the improvements in video game immersion that have come due to the industry pushing the graphics. Deep within many people who say they don't care about graphics actually do and you know that when they are disappointed in a game due to the graphics not being upto their expectations, most recently with the GT Sport pre E3 trailer. Also GT 5 and 6, graphics seemed to be the main sore point of these games where they were heavily criticised for it despite having some of the best in class physics and gameplay.

This. People need to realize that there are games that simply might become far more enjoyable, if it has a great looking graphical backbone. Sorry, but MGS5 wouldent have been as good as it is if it would have looked like MGS1, and thats a fact. Why do we need to always bash something that is integral part of the industry? Good graphics are not the evil stepchild of the industry. They are a great tool in trully talented developers hands.

There is nothing wrong with the drive to have better graphics technology. A better technology lowers costs and skills barriers to attain a certain level of graphic quality.
The problem is the aim of most publishers to use flashy graphics as a marketing gimmick to 'wow' customers and sell games. That is detrimental to the industry.
Improved graphics are good as long they help to improve the immersion and to add depht to the experience.

That's totally subjective where you draw the arbitrary line of "good enough".

Yeah, good graphics take up a lot of resources. But you are forgetting that these resources to spend for games would be smaller, if graphic standards were frozen on 2003 levels. A lot of people wouldn't be interested in these games and wouldn't spend money for video games.

Ockham's razor: if better graphics wouldn't broaden the audience and improve sales in general, the publishers wouldn't invest in that area.

I never said that graphics have no impact in a game's enjoyment. I simply state that this value is PURELY RELATIVE.

Take the example of television. As long as you remain with the same model at home (and don't look around too much), you are fully able to enjoy the content shown for as many years as you want to. If, suddenly, after a decade or so, you decide to purchase the newest product on the market, you would be, at first, amazed with the quality of the image. After a week or two, however, you will not even register anything special about the image quality. Going back to your old model, the shows suddenly become unwatchable - your eyes having adjusted to a higher standard. And the problem is, the negative effect lasts longer than the positive one, thamks to an innate cognitive bias that we possess.

Publishers invest in graphics, because it has a double effect - temporarily improving what the consumer thinks of their product, and making it more difficult for the consumer to appreciate the competition.

However, for the consumer, on a long term, the overall effect of ever improving graphics is nill (or even negative, because, as stated beforehand, we perceive underperformance more than overperformance).

Yes. The striving for graphical fidelity has basically crippled the industry. Compared to 2003, the industry is small and dying, there are no games, and the few games that are released are horrible.

Dude, listen to yourself.

While better graphics aren't bad, they can be. Graphics are a marketing tool and these days, the marketing people dictate AAA game development from beginning to end. So if we have a level in a game that is expected to have a lot of moving objects and action, is expected to be locked in at a particular framerate, and is expected to push polygons to a new level, that may not always work. So what gets sacrificed? Are they going to sacrifice graphics in order to maintain the framerate and intense gameplay? Chances are, they'll nerf the gameplay in order to make more room for the graphics. Sometimes, they'll let the framerate suffer as well. Screenshots and videos sell games. Gameplay has to be experienced.

The irony in all this is while graphics can be used as a good marketing tool, they don't keep the player engaged. After a few days or few weeks, they graphics lose that initial wow factor and it is the gameplay that has to keep the player engaged. That has become the backwards thinking of today's industry. Of course with the industry being more America-driven than years ago, it should come as no surprise that companies are more concerned about quarterly sales rather than long term goals. This is why we might se the same Nintendo on store shelves for almost a decade while a lot of other companies may not have their game in stock after 2 years.

Sp I think that better graphics aren't bad but they are being abused and the games suffer because of it.

I didn't say that.

I just think that it could have been better, we could have seen more improvement, people could be enjoying modern games more than they currently do.

There is no question that many things have improved - as is to be expected, by any means, with massive teams and further experience aquired.