True, true... :)

And of course, i haven't tried all the sci-fi games ever created, especially on the PC scene, so the possibility to miss some real gems is quite high... but i hope you get what i was tryin' to say anyway...  :)

Once graphical development hits the wall, then it will happen. We are close to it. Graphics are close to their peak. I give it one more generation. Then you can watch as the costs drop and profits soar and you can then realize that the hardcore took gaming to the precipice of visuals in the shortest amount of time and everything was awesome.

Without the hardcore, we'd be playing SMG on an N64.

^ I believe you give the "hardcore" more credit than they're really worth.

I don't know about that cheapening in the future, or in a minimum the scale you expect.

Its a simple sum: more detail > more time/people > more money.

New efficient techniques and schared databases can help bring down costs but not by that much. The amount of people for any game is still rising, and that is the biggest cost.

Your point about the hardcore driving the industry is rather off. They want a small gaming industry depending on a small group which is very risky.

Don't forget the 'so called hardcore' are obsessed with having an other opinion or liking then the mainstream. If their liking or wishes become mainstream they will adopt just another way to differ from the mainstream. If not graphics, then perhaps gameplay or whatever. They wish to be unique, not the mainstream. So to say they mean the best with the industry is rather odd.

Any industry can only grow or sustain itself in the long run when it appeals a mainstream audience. That's what the nes did, and the wii also. 

I think that's a fairly disingenuous comment to make, and one that has been made before "well if no-one cares about graphics, we would be stuck on the NES (or whatever lower console of choice you can think of)" The key issue is that graphics were the only way of differentiating consoles before. Technical capabilities. Now consoles can do more (and that isn't just about motion control. For all three competitors, this has been the Interface Revolution. It's easier to set consoles apart.)

Do you remember what happened when the 360 came out. Do you remember fightnight. OMFG that game really blew everything away. 360 jumped from last place last gen, to second place this gen because of factors like that.

Secondly, I'm not saying that quote. I'm saying that technology gets cheaper as it is developed more and more. This entire past has been a race to graphical dominance. It was only this generation that a peripheral finally found it's place as an alternative. It's been 20+ years and no peripheral has been quite as accepted as the wiimote. My point, which I firmly believe in, is that we are nearing the graphical threshold very soon. Next gen might even be the last to see any big graphical leaps. Because quite honestly, the things we've seen from gears of war, and heavy rain, killzone 2 and SMG have been so beautifully done that it challenges the mind to see what areas can really be improved. At that point, development costs will start coming down. Powerful engines will become the new market, and you will see a refreshing of the innovative. Control styles, features, and exclusives will become the dominant differences.

Remember that Intel held back processor development due to a lack of competitor. The only reason we are at quad cores and looking at 16 cores is because of AMD challenging them. In the same respect, the only reason we are at the level of graphic ability that we see on consoles nowadays is because of that competition, and that competition exists because of the demand.

@stephano

What's this you're talking about with the industry wanting a small group? do you have proof of this? Why in the world would an industru want a smaller group?

And what is this about the hardcore not liking the mainstream? There are plenty of hardcore gamers on the wii. And me myself, whom I would describe as a hardcore gamers likes a lot of mainstream games. I like katamari, I like SMG, I like wii sports, I like wii fit, I like sports games, I like Metal Gear, I like Street Fighter, and I like Ninja Turtles. Hardcore isn't about not liking the mainstream. You seem to be confused here, or you seem to have drawn the incorrect conclusion. I'm guessing that because you've noticed that a lot of HC gamers don't like the wii, that they go out of their way not to like the mainstream. I think you're using that idea as an excuse to say "hey these mainstream games are just fine, it's the HC guys who have some kind of elitist issue with them". You don't need to use that kind of thinking sir. The mainstream games are fine. They are great games, and that's why they have become mainstream.

But you have to realize that the wii is simply not conducive to the HC gamer lifestyle. A HC gamers plays games a lot. Myself, I play VGs at least 3 hours a day. That's quite a bit. On a weekend, I'll play sometimes 10 hours straight. If a game doesn't have the substance to endure long periods of play, then it isn't going to work for me. Sure I love wii sports, but I can't play it for much more than 1 hour because the game mechanics are too simple. You may argue that looking around for treasure is also meaningless, but to me and lots of others it is just as rewarding. And at least to me, that's why I play games. Because they help me remove myself from daily stress and I feel good playing them. HC is nothing about elitism.

Is it really a wonder to you that HC gamers tend to like all the same games? Usually they are 90+ ranked games. Can you really call that elitism, just because a game has a great score? We like what we like. It's not our fault that the mainstream hasn't gotten into games like God of War or Persona. I think we would love for those games to be mainstream and lauded and talked about by everyone. You think I like that GoW is so expensive to make and yet it only sells 1-2 million?

I agree in your point about the costs of technology, though i fail to see the need for this breakneck race to the top in graphics, especially when it's hurting so much of the industry. And you can certainly see the faults in those games you mentioned, despite how amazing they look, there's always a new plateau to get to.

Plus, i don't think there'll be a big graphical jump next gen. Nintendo will jump to something somewhat beyond PS360 capabilities (say, 2x or so. At least in terms of memory, if not in raw processor speed), and Sony and Microsoft will make similar moves. They'll be hesitant to break the bank again if they've learned anything (Sony certainly has. Not sure about Microsoft).

I agree, the race was a little crazy. MS really upped the ante though. Graphics became a huge factor because MS really wanted to steal the show.
But yeah, next gen is going to focus more on other strengths aside from graphical power. There will be some improvements, and the N HD will get better than ps360 (that i also agree with). But in the end, gaming is here to stay and both sides have something to contribute. Both the HC, the core, and the expanded audience

The graphics race is a joke that is killing the industry. Most devs who go down that path will end up being owned by EA, and it's their own fault for not liking money.

When people look back at past generations, they will remember the control revolutions and new gameplay/genre elements, not just a graphical leapfrog game. People will play Mario 64 longer than GTA4, as one introduced new gameplay elements and looked ugly while the other looked really pretty while taking them away.

The revolutions were things like the D-Pad replacing the joystick, the analog control stick replacing the D-Pad, shoulder buttons, multi-touch or analog triggers/shoulder buttons, rumble, touchscreen control, microphone control, dance pad controls, guitar controls, motion sensing, IR control, and camera control. Not X pixels, Y pixels, Z pixels. New control methods actually changed gaming. Graphics never changed anything. They just... got shinier.

People will remember Pac-Man forever, because anybody could play it. It had no buttons.
People will remember Wii Sports forever, because anybody could play it. It had no buttons.
In 50 years people will remember Doom, GoldenEye, Half-Life, CounterStrike, and Halo, and not 8237502987525 shooters, each shinier than the last.

And hopefully I'll be forgetting most of this garbage and only remember the Golden Age of Katamari, Mario Galaxy, and Portal. Fresh gameplay ideas. Everything else is trash.

::gets off soapbox, goes back to sleep::

@Ghost
Yeah, yeah. Gameplay is king and queen, graphics and processing power are useless. Where have I heard that before?

Meanwhile, Portal requires calculations for physics around the portals that probably could not be performed on old consoles' CPUs. Shadow of the Colossus could not have been done on the PS1, because of its graphics limitations. Katamari would not have worked in 2D.

Frankly, I can't see how the ability to have proper physics, 3D graphics, advanced AI, enough graphic power to have expressive human beings emoting interactively are any lesser tools to good gaming than the introduction of shoulder buttons. They are tools, they can be used or not, contribute to the costs of a game or not. Wii controls were not necessary for SMG, and advanced graphics and physics engine are not necessary in all PS3 and 360 games. They are simply available.

Maybe you should remove your pacman-tinted glasses ;)

(Note that I replaced SMG with SotC in your list of "not trash" to have something actually bringing fresh gameplay ideas, on par with the other two. No, variable gravity effects of SMG are not in the same league: it's a great game, but hardly original in its mechanics)