that's fair. I just think they need to stop trying to "blame" us per se. it is common place to hear "gameplay matters most" when we know it is graphics that usually sell a game, hence Horizon etc. General perception is based on graphics, i just think they need to realize that cutting edge graphics are not expected of every game so to say "graphical expectations are a blame is lazy, especially when we're seeing those in the indie space make phenomenal games without that AAA graphical budget
Cutting-edge graphics aren't required for every game, but they are often expected for the sorts of games usually being referred to in these conversations (AAA, single-player games). You can make a game with a lower budget, and less graphical aspirations (like say Super Lucky's Tale or Gravity Rush 2), but it'll almost invariably be considered a different tier of game entirely, and then when a Horizon or God of War is brought up, they won't generally be accepted as examples of single-player offerings on a competing platform. Something like Ryse or The Order 1886 will be though, even if received more negatively overall, because they look the part.
Horizon has great gameplay and story...not sure what you are getting at. It was the gameplay and concept, not graphics why people were excited for Horizon.
Nobody new basically anything about Horizon's story, and very little about its gameplay during its E3 reveal (in fact, the gameplay being received so well come review time took most by surprise). The initial hype was very much driven by its graphics, and how it was considered the best looking game ever at the time. Same with the small E3 2016's short Spiderman announce trailer that shows precisely zero actual gameplay.
It's not so much that graphics sell a game. Good graphics are basically an expectation. Failing to have impressive graphics can very much "unsell" a game though. Look at the difference in excitement for Shenmue III from it being announced, to when recent trailers showed the graphics not looking too hot. You immediately had a bunch of backers expressing their regret at kickstarting it, based on the graphics alone.
Graphics don't usually "Sell" a game at all. All gams look great in 2017, what sells is a well rounded game with appeal. Graphics are just the cherry and helps , nothing more. I mean switch is selling well..it isn;t for it's raphics, same with minecraft, PUBG, etc..
Nintendo in general is the exception of the industry, and it helps that their typical style of game requires less in terms of hardware grunt to shine (throw a Wii U game through Dolphin, and in many cases they would get by today). More importantly though, outside of NSMB and Wii Sports, Nintendo's most successful games typically represent the graphical pinnacles of their consoles, and in the Switches case are basically the best graphics portable games in existence.
Minecraft, PUBG, League of Legends, Counter-Strike, Hearthstone, and the vast majority of other games you could mention with less of a focus on graphics typically fall into the service-based games that aren't held to the same graphical standard that most single-player games are.
