I don't know. Graphics aren't everything, 60fps isn't important, 1080p isn't paramount. Some seem to think so.But these are the times and technology has made it possible to achieve such things.

Graphics at most can hinder the experience to an extent, but gameplay is really the glue that holds everything together. Then followed by the story, then graphics.

Xenoblade Chronicles is one of the best games I've played from last gen and it was in crappy standard definition.

Why do we like hot girls?

Because theyre HOT!

I'm sure all 3 consoles have enough power to wow us with the graphics.. I would love to see art direction story and gameplay..

I would love this gen to bring in some great art imagination.. Sunset overdrive looks like it has great art direction if the game turns out good I hope it goes into a darker tone gradually..

I also want to see some crazy scary looking stuff, I really want this gen to be more creative

I hate when people ask questions like this if you don't care about graphic why the hell would you spend your hard earn money on a next gen systems just stick to the xbox 360 or ps3 or better yet go get a nes, gameplay is important also but I would hate to spend my money on a system after 8 years on a ps3 and 360 to find out it looks the same on my next gen system

We/I care about graphics because it makes the games more believable. If a game has shitty graphics, it can have the best game play in the world and I wouldn't be very interested in the title. There are of course a few exceptions out there like Minecraft but for the most part I want a game that looks good and runs smooth. 60 FPS is almost a must for most games in my opinion.

It's actually not even a "graphics" fixation. It's simply a resolution fixation. Resolution is just one aspect of graphics, and by itself it's the least important aspect (esp since all games will be scaled to display at 1080p (not always native...but still...).

If games actually looked bad..this would be an issue, but so far this gen there hasn't even been a single game that looks even remotely bad.

@ghost...fair enough...I haven't played that game I admit, but from what I hear that's a game issue...not a gen console issue.

We does not include everyone, if anything I think Graphics are holding games back if anything else.

Look at a modern game now in days it has at least 5 times the development team being involved in art or graphic design versus actual programming which is usually lead by 5 people.

Besides it doesn't matter if we're talking consoles if we have to include high end PC's as well which will trump for the best visual experience.

As a gamer from Atari 2600/Apple II days to now, graphics have ALWAYS been a major part of the equation.

Gameplay is the bigger concern, but graphics is a major part as well. Art style, sound, dialogue (if any), etc.

Just like in a movie, any part of the production that lags behind, or uses inferior techniques, will bring down the enjoyment of the game.

We buy new hardware because we want a bigger, better experience.

The sad thing is now people have idiotically been convinced there isn't much more coming. Which is funny, because if know the history of tech or anything really, people always overestimate their current place and underestimate what can happen in the future.

That's why one of the heads of IBM, the people who made computers, said in the 50's...rough quote...why would anyone ever need a computer in their home?

These past few years we've heard all sorts of nonsense. The eye can't see above 30 FPS...wrong more like 600-1000 FPS. 1080p doesn't look different and we won't see big differences in the future. Wrong. 4k, 8k, 16k, and beyond. Not to mention holographic television, which not only will be a true spatial 3D, but all the resolutions (or however we classify it) and it's subsequent improvement.

Our tech here in 2014 is crap compared to where we as a species is going, if we don't kill ourselves on Wall Street's and it's benefactors, that we are far closer tech wise to the stone age then being near our limit.

Graphics have always been an important part of video games, and always will be. One of many important factors and yes, when people are buying consoles or video cards or CPU's, or phones, or whatever....they want to know they are getting their money's worth.

Because whether a game will or will not utilize the power is one thing, but when buying a tech product, everyone should realize the more power that is available to developers from that piece of tech, with certain limiting factors (like the lack of ease in using the Cell processor), the more you ARE getting for your money, and thus the better deal if evenly priced.

If you can something that is more powerful for the same price or cheaper, and no limiting factors dampen that power, then yes, you made the better buy. Sure there is some subjectivity, like certain preferences one company may hold over the other. But nonetheless, you would still be making the poorer buy if you pay more or the same for less power. In the end that still may be the best choice for you personally, but preference doesn't change power and price.

We were promised 1080p LAST generation.

Some people may not understand this, but PC gamers were playing in high definition in the 1990's. Not just high definition, but in higher resolution on PC gamers in 1998 then the Xbox One sometimes outputs in 2014.

People also don't understand the difference in some things.

Back in the day, an Apple II and Commodore 64 took forever to load up games. There were great games, but the loading sucked.

Arcades and consoles, were lightning fast. Popping a NES cartridge in and turning it on and WHAM a game is up was simply amazing.

While PC's have the raw power, consoles always had ease of use, and quickness in the time it takes to load up a game.

But even beyond this, sometimes PC's and consoles weren't too far apart in terms of power.

The 360 and PS3 were pretty darn powerful, and while a good PC could be 50-150 percent more powerful, these numbers are still ball park figures. In some ways the 360 and PS3 were revolutionary. You couldn't get a 3 core CPU, let alone a Cell CPU in a PC. Some aspects of their GPU's weren't implemented in PC graphic cards for a couple years after it came out.

There were a multitude of reasons why this generation is disappointing power wise and why developers went cheaper and less powerful this round.

8 year window. Go back through time and you never saw a 8 year window.

People were expecting a big leap, and we didn't get it. This is the sort of leap people were expecting if it was a 4-5 year cycle, not 8.

Console makers don't want to run the risk of unreliable consoles, they pushed it a bit too far last time and Microsoft completely screwed the pooch on RRoD and many other issues they had. Faulty hard drives. Disc scratching, etc. They took a billion dollar charge, and that literally equates to $10-11 of revenue from every console sold by Microsoft went to offset that.

Another reason is we're in a great depression. Actually something far worse then the great depression. We're nowhere near the apex, actually still at the beginning of it 6+ years on. It actually started in 2007, people just didn't notice it until late 2008.

Nothing has been fixed, as the cause of the crisis hasn't been tackled. We need a return to Glass-Stegall, abandoning it, is what caused our global financial meltdown. Or more specifically all the little frauds that were illegal under Glass-Steagall were implemented or re-implemented after it's repeal led us to this point.

Lots of other factors come into play as well, but that's not the point, the main point is, even if like 99percent of people you don't know what is causing this, businesses know or suspect that things are going to get worse. Thus they didn't want to release a really powerful console for $600 if no one could buy it, and since a far bigger crash is on the way, they didn't want a high priced console to be screwed if it happened around, just before, or a year or two after launch.

Forget the unemployment numbers, fewer people work now in the US then since the 1970's percentage wise, and we as a society have had falling wages for about 15 years. Hell if you measure things other then nominal inflation, we haven't had growth since the 1960's. In Europe the unemployment rates are astronomical.

That's why the consoles are weaker. Businesses couldn't trust to put out a stronger console because all the aspects revolving around their target market are completely horrible and they couldn't risk it. Unemployed people can't pay $800 for a console. Thanks to printing money for fraud resulting in dollar and other currency devaluation, that's what a console would need to cost in order to be where we expected them to be power wise.

The power is there that's why you have 3-4-5-6 TFlops graphic cards out there. A GTX 670 only cost $399 in 2012 and has ~2.4-2.5 TFlops in it. 1 1/2 years earlier, same price or $100 less....and it wasn't the high end. Pc's and consoles, if they desired, can use multiple GPU's.

Right now, if you have the money, you can literally make a PC that can utilize 4 Titan Z's with 8+TFlops per card. That's OVER 32 TFlops.

But that's not even king. ATI's R9 295x2 has 11.5 TFlops per card, and you can have 4 of those together.

That's 46 TFlops available right now for PC gamers, if they have enough money, and that's a big if.

When Maxwell 20nm comes out at the end of the year, if not delayed, we're likely to have a 4-5 TFlop card at or around the $399-499 level. Especially since Nvidia has already said this next round will be cheaper.

So of course people expected more, you have stuff right now that is literally 35x as powerful as an Xbox One. Right now. Not at the end of the generation, I'll call that now. If by 2020 we haven't gotten new consoles, there will be some PC's that are literally 500x more powerful then an Xbox One. hell it might be in the four digits. That's not percentage, that's times as powerful. Right now a PC can have 3,500 percent more power then an Xbox 1. Or a relatively modest rig can have 3-5x the power or 300-500 percent more power. Again, a GTX 670 for $399 back in May 2012 is 2x the power of an Xbox One or 200 percent.

I also personally think they want faster console generations, and that realization probably helped them in justifying less power. It also makes Xbox's decision to include a Kinect really baffling. It flies in the face of everything, and the reality is, if you know the above, their decision is even more tone deaf then the public ever really realized.

Now that we're able to have a sensible conversation about this, I would comment that Media, PR and Hyperbole have as much, if not more to do with visual expectation this gen, than any other gen before it.

Both MS and Sony boasted about ultra powerful systems, billions of transistors, and the best system for games is....? Also, whenever a game is announced, the likes of IGN, Gamespot and other Youtube Channels focus their reports on "It's not 1080p on Xbox, is 1080p on PS4" and vice versa. This spreads like a virus among the fan-brigade on N4G.

So we should quit fighting each other and look at the real problem, which is Over-hyping, Under-delivering and False/Mixed Messaging.

Gee maybe because as a species, vision is typically our most used and dominant sense.

And graphics can help improve the gameplay. So why must we have either incredible graphics and shit gameplay or vice versa exactly.

Umm story being important, yeah for a rpg or a game that actually gives a shit about it's story like uncharted or last of us ect... Otherwise it is just there to explain why you killing like a madman.

I expect a visual medium to advance with every significant upgrade in technology. Ah the precious gameplay, it hasn't really changed much since the introduction of 3d worlds and maybe destructible environments and sandbox/open world games.

Mario still plays like a mario, and metal gear solid still plays the same. The only substantial difference is in the graphics department. If we weren't so fixated on graphics, gaming would have peaked at the n64/ps1 era.

I recall a gamer bemoaning the current state of the industry, by saying games nowadays are the same old games just with a shiny new coat of paint at the expense of gameplay.

Sorry but the gameplay has been more or less the same for 3 generations, it's just been hidden under each gens advancement in graphics to make it seem like there has been significant advances in gameplay.

15+ yrs ago i played many of the same types of games on pc vs consoles nowadays, sorry gameplay is king people. But the gameplay really has not changed that much over time, graphics have changed greatly however.