I guess 1080p is where I would have difficulty telling the difference if the graphics was better than that, unless I was looking vary carefully

Well, yeah. But what's the problem you seem to have with it. The OP acknowledges that it's just an opinion, and even asks what other people think. The TC isn't trying to force their views on others.

For me personally the gamecube and original Xbox games (ps2 was honestly too weak) were the last significant changes to graphics (which perfected 3D game design). After that it just seems like a little more icing on the cake, to the point where the cake is now mostly frosting. 

When most of the new games tried to capitalize its technical advances in gray/brown/dark realistic graphics rather than gameplay elements, making many games seems too similiar to each other, visually speaking.
I remember seeing different games at display in a certain shop, in different monitors, but they felt like they were the same game (in that case, those games where GTA V, The Last of Us, Uncharted).

It feels boring to me. I don´t feel that I´m really playing new games if the visuals are too similar. I prefer games that combines inventive/fun gameplay ideas with an artistic approach to graphics. Colors, art style, design give a game a lot more personality than grey/brown ultra-realistic graphics.

When consoles have +32GB ram and AAA devs like Naughty Dog on it

and we get stuff like this in gameplay

and there's going to be a point where even that is gonna look ancient

until then, no, the point has not been reached

Is that even viable from a budget standpoint? We're already seeing the downsides to increasingly huge budgets so imagine what it will be like if people expect everything to look like that 

People do realize that the law of diminishing returns doesn't mean the point where games no longer look better right?

I'm a bit weird when it comes to graphics, maybe it's just my eyes that are strange, but I really don't dig these photo realistic graphics , I think they are just cramming the screen with a ton of details to the point where my eyes just stop caring. In earlier generations they couldn't make something remotely photo realistic, so they gave their games a style, a personality.

When I compare a game like Medal of Honor Underground (PS1, 2000) to Medal of Honor (PC, 2010):

I can honestly say I think Underground looks better.  It looks distinct, it has personality, I would always be able to recognise the game by the look. Medal of Honor (2010) just looks boring to me, it could be any modern FPS. I almost feel sick looking at such an ugly tedious game. Maybe I should have a doctor examine my eyes...

Of course there are also games that take advantage of modern hardware to make a look that's unique and pleasing (like Journey for instance), but oddly enough the better the hardware we get the more bland looking games we get, in my opinion. It isn't the hardware's fault of course, but game developers, and the expectations that are put on them.

Yeah, I got that feeling too. Not to mention this isn't about only graphics vs. hardware needed to run it, but the workforce hours spent doing so; and the return from sales.

Besides, it totally sidelines the discussion about the artistic value of different kinds of graphics and the freedom developers have on those. That's a reason every painter isn't Bouguereau. All this orgasm coming from "but look at how cool does this look" makes me think of 19th century poets obsessed with alexandrines and meaninglessly discussing how to attain the perfection of form.

Uncharted 2 was the last time a game's graphics made my jaw hit the floor.

There have certainly been beautiful looking games since then, but for me there's sense that the rate of improvement has slowed considerably.

That might be the best graphics ingame Ive ever seen.... that is crazy.