Because if they were really hardcore they'd have a gaming PC?

Most PC gamers are like you, sacrifice anything to get a leg up on the competition.

I think that's because PC gamers have had multipler online a lot longer.

That and your giving the choice to scale on PC.

I'd bet if givin the choice, most competitive people would lower Killzone 2's graphical specs if it meant there shot got out of the bullet a few frames earlier... and a lot of these peoples prefrences would be quite changed.

Not.... really.

Most PC players are of the "framerate first" variety.

Doing everything you can to give yourself any advantage you can get.

A lot of PC first gamers would reduce Crisis to Wolfenstein 3-D graphics if they thought it would give them a framerate advantage.

My two cents...

I think part of the reason is that the industry still has a lot of maturing to do.  I think that once we hit the point where games can be photo-realistic, the race for better graphics will be pretty much over, and we can focus on other things.  Until we get there though, it seems to me like a lot of the video game critics are exactly the ones calling for better and better graphics.  As you point out they are more like your average "summer blockbuster moviegoer" than Roger Ebert.

As for the gamers, I think that many of those people out there claiming to be "hardcore" are actually quite casual.  It used to be that those people who only played Madden and Halo were seen as casual players in the gamer community.  Now they are considered "hardcore".  I don't agree with that new definition.  If I only ever saw two movies, I wouldn't know much about movies and would be a casual moviegoer.

@ Topic

Yes, I think that graphics should have some impact on the score, but not much.  Over time, graphics have aged much worse than other parts of games.  If you base too much of a review on how the game looks, that review is going to be obsolete in just a few years.

Yes they should, but it shouldn't be a primary facet of the score. Being lazy and shoveling out ugly games should not be tolerated and the scores should show that. Of course gameplay matters far more and that too should be reflected in the scores.

There's a far cry distinction between computer game graphics and movie special FX.

Movie special effects (in live action) can enhance the surrealism, and at least deserve a write up when properly executed.  Nevertheless, do you believe that a movie such as Transformers, which relies on heavy CGI - would have been as well received/enjoyable if the graphics were poor?

They are hardly a superficial or superfluous concern in regards to games, as they are on screen all the time.  There's also more technical parameters they must optimise for as the graphics are realtime, which takes great talent in tweaking settings which again should be rewarded.

It would be the end of technical advancements and future progression if the industry were to 'grow up'.

@Kaz

I don't get the PC thing. :(

Why does 1 or 2 frames even matter?

There are very few games which look amazing but are actually truly awful games. You kind of know how much work has gone into a game by how good it looks. It's the first insight into the production values and time spent on the game.

That is important to the average moviegoer, but not as much to critics.  Transformers got a 61 on Metacritic, and a 57 on Rotten Tomatoes (another review aggregating site).

You're right, the majority of people do care about graphics.

Yeah that was a bad example - that was graphics sacrificing story...or lack there of.

I shudder to think of what it would have receieved without the eye-popping visuals though, which would have been at the foundation of the few good reviews.