here's the fundamental problem I have.
We've hit the proverbial glass ceiling in terms of graphics, and we did so late last generation. Yes, things can and will be improved graphically, but do new graphics alone constitute a need for new hardware when software solutions continue to outpace pure hardware might. Not only that, can we really applaud new graphics when they're becoming an increasing burden on gameplay and enjoyment from games. Does a round pipe really improve the game over a pipe with 24 sides and normal mapped to look round? Does making a game look marginally better at the cost of clear communication to a player really constitute a better experience, an experience worthy of new hardware. Is that new chromatic aberration effect, and new motion-blurring/dof or lens-flares, actually adding to immersive qualities in games? (hint, we dont see these effects anywhere but in cinema which gaming should not be aspiring to). Instead we just get a growing list of complaints, with enemies who look painted into rocks because new textures and better models have all but eliminated spatial recognition and enemy visibility. Or is it really so much more fun to play multiplayer games now that characters in grass texture outfits can go prone in tall grass and disappear almost entirely?
Instead games like dead rising and assassins creed display clear changes in game-mechanics which occurred directly to the increase in technical power from the xbox and ps2 generation to the 360 and ps3 generation. These games utilize the hardware to produce better graphics, but also simulate crowds which directly influence gameplay in meaningful ways. GTA is another game that benefits from the hardware by offering more novel introductions to the sandbox mechanic. Games like forza were able to produce larger and more robust physics calculations, and better livery and decal editing so those graphics could actually show you're custom paint job (while producing an economy around the system, fostering community), skyrim provided larger domains to roam and explore within.
If we tolerate stagnation in game-design at the cost of better graphics we're only producing an ecosystem where innovation and design suffers. Making more of the same is not making growth for the game market, and it's not producing experiences that help the medium branch out and develop. Halo was an amazing and innovative game in 2001, if we start expecting more of the same and an increase in graphics, then there will be no new halo, no new gta.
If we look at the most competent and highest played games, graphics are clearly not at the forefront of the developers interests, infact, many of those developers are willing to sacrifice graphics for the sole benefit of the game. Games like halo 4 on the otherhand, which place an emphasis on graphics over gameplay of previous installements, show that graphics do not ensure longevity and instead marginalized and shrunk their user-base. Games like lol, tf2, diablo, minecraft, and dota 2, which are on the lower extreme of the technical innovation side, show us that gameplay is what keeps gamers playing.
If we're willing to passively accept new iterations of the same games with fresh paints of coat then we're sabotaging our own, and the industries, interests. Inflating development costs were already the result of many studio closures and buyouts, and we'll probably see a new set of developers leave us as next generation development continues to ramp up because we, the gamers in general, are more interested in the most expensive and short-sighted elements of our favorite medium.
so a better question is why should we care about a last gen game with better graphics?