The only shift I've seen in consoles is went from nebulous (Blast processing! FX Chip!) terms we frankly barely understood as kids to concrete 60fps/1080p metrics which became noticeable to me about 7-8 years ago.

Graphics have been a selling point of games for a long time because it is the easiest thing to convey, especially in an advertisement.

I felt almost the opposite tbh. Because the storytelling of the game was really bad imo. Gameplay wasn't stellar for sure. That's why I thought the game was mediocre in any way but graphics. They should have focused more in storytelling and gameplay, instead of graphics. But it's obvious that each one of us enjoy games differently, and that's fun because if that wasn't the case, gaming forums would be boring as hell XD.

Yep, all about this game was odd. They made a truly beautiful game, with really good graphics, that I'm sure it was a hard work to do it. But I don't really understand why the developers haven't noticed that the gameplay was lacking. Because it's really lacking XD. It would be waay better than the game looked worse but the gameplay was improved imo.

It all started with the marketing campaign of Sega for the Genesis. They featured the 16bit graphics of the Genesis versus the NES. Yup, the Genesis started out as a NES competitor. Nintendo actually fell for this and went into graphics race with its competitors. Since then, except for their handhelds Nintendo had the most powerful console in each generation until the Gamecube. It was only until the Wii that they reassessed this strategy and took a different path with the Wii. So Sony and Microsoft are stuck in a graphics race that have been abandoned by the two companies that started it. That's why the marketing of PS4 and Xbox One games are not so different from the marketing tactic harnessed by Sega almost three decades ago. This is despite the fact that game graphics have already hit a sensory threshold similar to the sound fidelity threshold peaking at 16bit sound. Because of this it isn't enough to just show trailers or screenshots of games. Marketers need to show side-by-side comparisons just to nitpick the minute differences in graphics. Having said all that, I believe there was a time that pushing graphics added significant value in video games but that is not the case now. The problem now is that because of the focus on game graphics in the past decades development in gameplay has been left behind. This was also not helped by the fact that game production budgets have skyrocketed to unsustainable levels because of the push for high fidelity graphics. A consequence of this is the closure of more that 150 game studios since 2006. That is why Nintendo has scaled down on graphics to focus more on gameplay and encourage more games to be made leading to more innovations in game design.

High fidelity graphics can aid in game immersion but is not immersive in itself. A twenty year old game can just as easily suck you into its world just as well as a game in this generation of gaming consoles. Even if a game has the most photo realistic game world but the game is not engaging the player it will fail to pull a gamer into its world. It would be no different to game engine graphics demos.

Graphics have been used as a selling point since forever.

What's interesting is that those with the financial power to stockpile as many triangles as possible have pushed said method (and restricted to achieve realistic looking graphics, I must add) as the one and only legitimate way to achive good graphics. And they were successful. That's why the graphics of games like Rayman Legends, Muramasa or Mario Galaxy get dissed for having 2D graphics, or a low poly count, or being cartoony. Who cares if they look good? This is about graphics!

For the love of god! They are both important. Graphics help out a great deal with immersion and more powerful systems can lead to more gameplay possibilities. Better AI, more enemies on screen and all types of things. The power of a system is important.

Just curious, what did I have to say to get the other 3.5%?

since when did bad graphics means good gameplay?

Graphics have mattered since the Genesis vs SNES. You people really don't know gaming history. That was how the console wars started. Funny because every Nintendo fan I knew talked about graphics until the Wii? I wonder why?

Maybe you're wrong?  That would seem the case if literally everyone else differs from your opinion.  Stamping your feet won't change anyone else's opinion.