Except Microsoft has been trying to swing like king ding-a-ling ever since their console reveal. Honestly, I feel the same way as you do about graphics. If it's fun, and aesthetically pleasing, I don't care about its resolution. I still enjoy the occasional retro session. My 3ds is currently my favorite platform. My TV is HD, but not so high quality as to compel pixel counting whilst gaming. So, full disclosure. I'm even of the opinion that more advanced, polygon counting, lighting effects, high graphics and reaching for photo-realism actually dates material in a way far more detrimental and far more quickly than pixel art, or a highly stylized package (Chrono Trigger is still held as a gold standard while the PS Final Fantasy titles - Tactics aside - ... less so). And you're right, with the PS1, X Box, GC, and Dreamcast, this wasn't a big part of the discussion - everything was pretty experimental. But before that, holy crap at the graphics wars between the SNES and Genesis! And then the Jaguar came out with an abrasive, almost desperate commercial that had a teacher yelling at us about bits when Nintendo developed the FX chip and bagged it all up. It was far and beyond anything that we are seeing this generation.scotth266 said:
But I digress. While I share your sentiment that graphics don't make the game, the problem that I see is the discussion about graphics and power, rather than these two attibutes themselves; with Microsoft really attempting to talk a big game and to throw the first punch early on. Then, when It looked like the PS4 might have an advantage (however slight it may be) under the hood, they boasted the cloud and insisted that all-in-all their power was still superior. Then multiplats came out running better and looking better on the competition - a trend that will evidently continue, and Microsoft started reversing some of that visual/technical superiority talk and doubled down on graphics not being that important and the differences only being slight, and Titanfall, Titanfall, Titanfall, it's exclusive, Titanfall (but really get it on PC. No, really. Get it on PC.). When legitimate questions are raised about when they will consistantly make good on the 1080 - 60 benchmark, they dismiss the question and try to fault the person asking.
So, there is a subtext to all this nit-picky, pixel counting, almost obsessive resolution studying, comparison exersise that has been taking place, particularly in the media and gaming news outlets. That being, the - seemingly - cockiest of the bunch this generation has issued a more expensive, evidently less capable (at least as far as multiplats are concerned) machine, that looks like a broken promise to some people - all the while maintaining this high and mighty attitude. The articles are about the pixel count and frame rate, but the story behind the articles is about the competition taking it to Microsoft at their own game. And with all the attitude at the X Box One division executive offices as having been recently displayed, if the situation was reversed, I think it would be giving them far too much credit to presume they wouldn't be screaming their superiority from the roof tops.
