: Bioshock Infinite proves you wrong. The game was shit, but look at how much
: fun it was to just walk around in the world it created. Every single
: review mentions this. A world only possible because of cutting edge
: graphics technology. What, you think Columbia would have been nearly as
: awe inspiring if it looked like Quake 1?

Did you read my post? Of course it wouldn't have been. But look at games from 10 years ago and compare them to games today. Do you honestly think that people will look at game screenshots 10 years from now and be blown away by a similar quantum jump in fidelity? Sure you can pack in nicer textures, have more particles on screen, render at larger resolutions, have five thousand more polygons on each and every widget on each and every character, but the difference between a character comprised of 300 polygons and one composed of 900 is a lot greater than one composed of 20,000 and 60,000.

The future of games simply cannot be "look how much more crap we can throw on screen", just ask the people trying to push 4K televisions. Things like more dynamic AI, deeper role-playing systems and more expansive worlds are a much better investment, not to mention just creating good gameplay. It wouldn't have mattered if we had Bioshock Infinite's graphic fidelity applied to the first game; I would still have found its gameplay tedious and its narrative without steam.