To be fair, I don't think anybody is undermining the effort/ingenuity some of these technical artists/engineers have. Its moreso the overwhelming focus of AAA game studios on this over gameplay.

These artists/engineers have accomplished absolutely amazing things and really pushed the limits. But somewhat ironically... gameplay/story is still king when it comes to 'games.

I will say, when a game does blend the two, they are usually highly applauded, it just rarely happens nowadays that a game has both very good graphics, and very good gameplay.

You're not being fair, you're making excuses. I was responding to a post that literally said "better graphics make a game worse."

Bad writing and bad mechanics can absolutely ruin a game far beyond the ability of art to compensate -- but it's both absurd and cruel to blame this on art.

I don't think you are representing the original fairly, they said

"often ... because they're at the expense of everything else,"

Which seems plausible although "often" may be harsh. Too high a proportion of your budget on art is rarely going to end up somewhere good, unless the art is the main point. There does seem to be a bit of a AAA arms race here, which isn't necessarily a net gain.

I think you're forgetting what actually makes a game at its core. What separates the medium from others are roughly these things: interaction, objectives, mechanics, feedback, challenge.

The art department can make the feedback better, the objectives clearer, the interaction easier, but fundamentally you can have a game without any art at all (see dwarf fortress, zork, etc.) and have it be a game, whereas a bunch of art assets by themselves don't a game make.

Nowadays it's all about marketing material and lying to people, so having good game art is prerequisite for great prerendered trailers that will drive preorders. But when you allocate all your budget to art, you don't end up with a game, you end up with false promises.

I think it is odd too. Why do people care?

It seems like the reasonable response to a product you dont like is to not buy it and then ignore it. Why do people get fixated, angry, and shit on products they dont like.

It's not odd, it's the result of false marketing and frankly very much the direct fault of publishers. They spend an untold amount on promotional campaigns showing prerendered footage, gameplay running on workstations with unrealistic specs, and buy endorsements. All together that makes people invested and makes them expect too much. It's very easy to feel lied to and betrayed when the final result doesn't even closely live up to the promises. It's even worse for sequels, as they inevitably get compared to the original by its fans.

If the promotion wasn't false advertising there would be no backlash and people would act rationally, as you say. Nobody hates on something they've never seen before unless somebody tells them to expect more than they'll get.

Thanks for adding some clarity. I can understand a complain about false advertising. I thought a major part of the complaint was game development focusing on graphics opposed to gameplay, which makes less sense to me.

I still don't get buying a game primarily for the graphics without looking at representative gameplay. I thought it was generally understood that promos and ads would show the best.