Sorry, how come Minecraft is one of the most popular games of all times? It is not about physics per se, but it isn't about graphics either. In Minecrafts case it is about changing the game world as you see fit. I think the saying that people mostly care about graphics is wrong, it may be for some players or some games, but the industry made it into basically the only differentiating factor, so there is nothing else. But every time a game achieves to bring something else into play it is very successful. So yeah, game devs need to start making more of that stuff, because obviously there is a market for that.

Those aren't the people I'm talking about. The amount of people I've seen say stuff like its all been done before and is nothing special is ridiculous.

I have a series x and ps5, so that has nothing to do with me.

People my main point was the industry mainly cares about pushing graphics instead of physics. look we are still using physics from the havoc engine something that was made during ps2 generation.look at all the AAA games and most of the budget is clearly going into the graphics. you guys mention a few games out of hundreds that put graphics first. someone mentioned sports games, really? we are talking about game developers trying to push game physics to a new level like they been doing for graphics for decades.

I said many times nintendo does not. they are the only ones that don't care about pushing graphics  it's much easier for them to creative things and they also don't go for realistic graphics which is why it works for them but everyone else for the most part is pushing graphics over physics.

When you say "industry" you really start to muddy up whatever point you're trying to make.  The industry of big wigs pushing for more sales?  The industry of developers trying to justify their budgets?  The industry of reviewers and analysts trying to create or perpetuate a narrative?  Whatever your particular interpretation of industry in this case, I think the point that you're missing, especially around these parts, is that this core group of gamers oftentimes gravitates toward better gameplay experiences, with the graphics being the nice shiny bow on the package.  You're not wrong that there are plenty of gamers who gravitate towards the most jaw dropping graphical experience they can find, and the developers are being rewarded handsomely for their efforts with their day one dollars.

But look to one of the best selling systems of all time, the Nintendo Switch, with an ecosystem that has generated one of the best software totals of all time, and you'll see that the Nintendo style of doing things is quite profitable as well and that your point is just one part of a larger whole.  You're not wrong in chasing that graphical dragon, but you are wrong to suggest that folks who don't worry about that as much don't know what a compelling experience looks (and plays) like.

At the end of the day, we all get from a game what we want to get from a game.  If it bothers you that other folks keep enjoying "subpar" graphical experiences so much, then keep doing what you're doing.  Maybe one day you'll be able to convince one of them to take up your cause with you.

I understand gamers will mostly will choose gameplay over graphics i'm not denying that. when i say industry i'm saying every  other AAA developer except Nintendo. clearly they think pushing graphics is the best/easiest way they think they can get gamers excited/hyped about there games. other wise we would be seeing more games doing crazy things with physics instead of just the havoc engine from 20 years ago.

Games aren't just graphics vs. physics, though.  There are so many more game systems at play from skill trees to resource management to dialogue structures.  The list goes on and on. You seem to have a very narrow focus on what a good game is (I've seen your list) and it seems you're trying to convince everyone that your way is the right way and the way that all developers are going.  Please don't insult their teams so much as to say that all they are focused on is a shiny package.  They deserve better than that for all the work they do.

I'm not trying to insult the work at all. The talk is here why is physics haven't really advanced all the much  in AAA space. if you put crazy physics it will come at the price of the graphics and developers choose not too for the most part.

Why are you trying to suggest that games using the Havok engine aren't pushing physics when TotK literally uses the Havok engine and you're praising that game for pushing physics?

it's a comparison between graphics and physics. A engine still being used 20 years ago just shows how little advancements we made using physics in comparison with graphics. Zelda main praise is it does so many things along with so many physics calculations with out breaking the game that it really impressive if zelda went  for high end graphics i don't think the game could exist.