Graphics sell games, sometimes. (Score 1)

I'd love to say that as a long term gamer, the graphics are just a minor element in the overall expereince. However, when I played the C & C retrospective, I found god old Red Alert (classic) to be nigh on unplayable with the primitive sprites. Where games like Darwinia survive on play alone, BAD graphics can DESTROY a game. Also "Good graphics" are relative. Just because something is overworked, highly detailed and colorful doesn't make it "good". I'll take a 90's "Wipeout" over the last DOOM - the doom graphics were elaborate, but I found them to be pretty insular and just left a bad taste in my mouth. It's impossible to watch the GOW III trailers without thinking, "Flipping wow I want to play the game just to see that!" However I would like to ask the question the other way: considering how expensive and time consuming the graphics element of a game is, why can't producers spend a fifth of the resources they dump into graphics on game play? Honestly, I don't think there is a FPS scenario left that will get me off my ass and make me want to spend $60 on the game. Isn't there other gameable aspects to life that are worth exploration -- how about a meter maid game? a religion sim? Dinosaur wars? really -- gaming has gotten glossier, but it has also gotten WAY too safe; "Hey lets put out tiger woods 10 because people are stupid!" I think graphics have progressed where game design has regressed because the financial pressures run that way. Its safer to make a high-gloss racer that plays well on TV then a Darwinia that is just darn fun but doesn't have that "gotta have it" TV commercial appeal. Graphics are mechanistic and carry over value from game to game. Game play is by definition only valuable when it is unique and new concepts are risky, a phrase that investors are not really interested in.