I can honestly say that. Most people prefer HL1 before HL2 for example, but that is because HL1 was much better in relation to all the other games that were out then. HL2 is actually the better game in every way.

The thing is, people get nostalgic. I, for instance, still think Transport Tycoon Deluxe and Red Alert are among the best games ever made, because I was like 10 years old when I played them.

Most good games out today are much better then the good games of yesterday, but people who have

experienced several generations can't see this, because they still measure old games by old standards.

On the other hand, one thing you did not mention was 3rd party support. Historically, the systems that go into the generation with the heaviest 3rd party support tend to do well -- in fact, they (almost?) always win. In this case, that's not happening. But I do think it provides Sony with some breathing room: it's clear that developer support is already shifting dramatically away from the Playstation 3 and towards the Wii, but it's not as if major 3rd party titles such as Final Fantasy XIII and MGS4 were simply canceled, with the millions of dollars already spent wasted. The first batch of major third party titles is still planned for the system, and this provides Sony with some extra breathing room that, historically, consoles have not had when their dominance was wavering. For example, the N64 started out with poor 3rd party support from the very beginning (for good reason, I might add).

I have an honest question that I ask whenever these "graphics matter" threads come up.

Do you honestly feel that the PS2 era actually saw a better group of games than, say, the SNES era? The NES era? The N64/PS1 era? Do you really feel you were actually having more fun last generation than you were, say, 10 years ago? 15? For my own sake, my answer is: absolutely not. In fact, if anything, I might say the opposite.

Unless you can honestly answer: "Yes, I think last generation's games were superlatively more fun than all the generations that came before it," this should answer the question -- no, better graphics don't make games more fun.

Or, you can take a different approach to the topic. If you look at "Top 100 Video Games ever made" lists, (or top 10, or what have you) the bests games are generally spread out fairly evenly amongst the generations: there are often about as many NES games as there are Genesis/SNES games as there PS1/N64 games as there PS2/GC/Xbox games. It's obviously never going to be divided perfectly, but you'll find a healthy showing from all the generations. This is powerful evidence that graphics don't matter much, if at all.

Another simple, easy question: if games haven't gotten much more fun -- again, if they have at all -- but graphics are now hundreds of times more complex than they were 20 years ago, does that suggest graphics play an important role in the fun factor?