It's not contingent on technical advancement though. Artistic finesse is just as important, if not more so. Those games that focus solely on being a technical showcase tend to age very poorly and lose their sense of immersion very quickly.

There are 16-bit console and DOS games out there that look just as good today and are just as immersive today as they did and were back then. Why else would indie games strive to imitate them?

I don't need to be immersed in order to enjoy the fun of the game. Minecraft is all pixelated looking, and it feels like a game made with upgraded SNES graphics on a PSX console, but does that make it any less fun or less enjoyable? And if immersion is an issue, you might as well be immersed in building the blocky world of Minecraft, no matter how pixelated it is. Same goes for tons of other pixel games. You can feel the urgency of situations, the speed you're running at, the relief from getting past this bottomless pit, etc, and you can feel all of these in Genesis and NES games by the way.

It's not the consoles holding it back, it's the publishers/developers that treat PC customers as 3rd rate citizens and don't bother to remove framelimiters and such and optimize a game for more powerful hardware is what's holding it back. So yes I do understand where the complaint originates from. You will love SweetFX, it has a mode to convert all 3D video output into ASCII. :^)

Perhaps, but the thing with games is, once you "get into them" and into the flow of gameplay, you stop noticing the visuals as much (or that's how it is for me). After that you're focused on the gameplay and/or story.

For me what matters more than graphical fidelity is artistic style. If a game has that "modern cartoon/webcomic" style that you see on so many mobile games I just can't play it.

This is not a totally new thing, maybe just more commonplace than before (as there are less and less PC-only or PC-first AAA titles). I recall seeing that phenomenon already e.g. in the PS1 and PS2 eras, many PC titles (which were also released on said consoles) got a graphical push on the PCs from PS1 era to the PS2 era, and so on. Naturally the same happened also when PS3 and XBox 360 arrived. I think it is ok that console generations hold back the "graphics race" on PC somewhat, because that means we have to upgrade our PCs less often to play the latest games (even in max details).

What I think is not ok is if it the PC port is a shoddy port and not at all optimized, e.g. performs much worse you'd expect for the visuals it gives. But this is a different issue I guess. Wasn't the recent and yet-to-be-released-to-PC Batman game like this, they had to recall and redo it? If I recall right, weren't people reporting the PC version, even running in max details, was lacking many PS4-specific graphics effects?

No, please no. Don't focus on graphics even more. The focus on graphics is way too strong already and the only good thing that consoles have ever done for the PC market is to slow down the hardwar/graphics spiral. I am quite happy that my comparatively old PC can run current games and I don't want the time back where one was forced to upgrade the PC for every new major release.

Consoles do have an unfortunate effect on PC games: that is control and savegame system. Far too often the control is optimized for controllers - but I would prefer a good keyboard and mouse control. And I just hate automated checkpoint systems. Let me save my game when I want to save it and don't increase the difficulty of your games artificially by badly chosen checkpoints and bad controls.

Short version: screw graphics! Focus on gameplay and story instead!

I'm half upset with the progress because I think that all the investments into expensive graphics hardware on PC are kind of wasted because it's the algorithms that count more towards the graphics quality than the sheer texture size as you recognized correctly and so the lower capabilities of consoles will always make ports on PC less efficient than they could be, given the pure hardware and people working towards optimizing for PC. So I think devs should definitely push the PC hardware more.

But then I'm more interested in game play and graphics is only secondary to me. A steady progress is still not the worst. Consoles could be even worse than they are now.

Basically the lesson is this: Never buy a PC which is much more expensive than a console because chances are high, your games aren't optimized for your hardware anyway and you will not get any adequate return for your investment compared to what you could get if devs were indeed developing and optimizing only for high end PCs.

Hopefully consoles progress fast in the future.

Can you paste in here some f* ASCII art, need a laugh.

Seriously though, you are quite right. In a few games graphics are a main part, principally the first person games and maybe P&C adventures games. One most others however its is less relevant. I mean look how popular things like ToME, Nethack, Roguelikes, pretty basic graphics, lots of depth.

OP:

Currently graphics have got so "real-like" its no longer fun. All I can see is foliage everywhere, lens flare, weird shaders. Take Risen which I am playing now, can't see 2 feet in front for foliage, and there's an annoying lightning effect as well. Not to mention getting stuck in the geometry ever 5mins.

Personally I am quite happy with the not realistic style of Serious Sam for instance, I can see the Bstards coming form a long way away.

As for Console->PC ports, well two words for you: Dark Souls. Sums it up. What a pile of arse, graphics are dreadful - it really should be a capital offense to release this stuff. Its not just an individual game of course, there are console-like features creeping into games all over, the auto aiming for instance. Take risen, I have my shield up and move towards an enemy, however he backs off and leaves me surrounded by others, but hang on, I am still locked onto him. In Oblivion, you point in the direction you want to face. Very annoying, and don't get me started on time driven events, checkpoint saving, controls that make no sense on M&K setup etc. (and no, I own all consoles up to PS3/XB360, so do not hate consoles!).

You can't directly compare the prices of PCs and consoles because the console manufacturers make money also from the game sales (take a cut for each game sold for the console). ASUS or MSI or Lenovo or HP get zilch for Electronic Arts or Ubisoft or CDPR selling their games for their hardware, hence they have to have bigger margins than console manufacturers for their hardware sales.

Well, as I say, how many people actually invest in top-end hardware like that? Not many. More detailed textures, models, shaders and particle effects require more time and thus more money and usually exclude the much more numerous low-end users, meaning that catering to the high end not only costs more money but also limits your potential income. It's not just consoles that you're competing against, but low-end PC users.

And don't underestimate the difficulty in creating a scalable engine - it's no mean feat, especially when technological advancements such as multi-core architectures come to be.

The alternative would be no PC release at all - it's that simple. And I can guarantee you, the PC master race would be up in arms, conjuring up all kinds of conspiracy theories if that came to pass (see Destiny).

The reality is that while developers can rarely pass on a console release (for platform exclusivity, the fee that developers receive is usually calculated as compensation for their losses from potential sales on the other platform), PC gaming is basically pocket change for most of them. That's why PC exclusives like Pillars of Eternity need to be made on a relatively tight budget.

It's simple economics - if porting a game to PC in such a way that it scales well costs more than it's likely to earn, they cut back on development costs. From Software took a risk with Dark Souls that paid off (which meant in turn that the PC got a somewhat better port of Dark Souls 2), but for most studios, the investment rarely breaks even.

Since the bar is not PS3 / XB 360 anymore it can be expected to spiral up for a year or two. I think ppl will be fine with getting a good 1151 (or DDR4 AMD Pendant) PC which should be in a good pricerange in the next few months & can settle with it till the next gen of consoles comes out.

Artificial system requirement increases & sloppy programming in titles exluded of course.

I think costs are holding back the graphics, not consoles. Gamers need to realize that these developers don't have unlimited funding, even if backed by a big publisher like EA or Ubisoft. There's an economic limit to how much effort they can put in making a game look pretty. Blaming consoles is an easy excuse for lack of reasoning.

With limited funding and with graphics the main priority get ready for:
a) shorter games
b) delayed PC releases

But wait...I think this is already happening.

The priority should rightfully be on having solid mechanics, how luxurious the game looks should be a second priority. Games that look pretty but play poorly had the wrong priority in my opinion.

However most gamers today only want pretty games to play, and conveniently only care about content when their favourite critic or reviewer complains about it, only then does it become an issue...albeit short-lived.

So I think content should always trump graphics.
I mean, you can make Skyrim or Dragon Age as pretty as you like but I'm still not going to enjoy those games.

As long as there's no major screen tearing every minute or so I don't care that much about graphics. Sure like everybody else I'm impressed when a game looks pretty but it has never been a deciding factor for when I actually buy a game.

When I play triple-A games on my PC I always have to lower the settings anyway.
'Yes' I could upgrade my PC but I'd much rather spend that money on games, that's my priority.

In any case I'm quite happy with the bigger games I've bought on PC, games like Project Cars, Assetto Corsa, Dirt Rally and similar. Although I don't think they would be considered triple-A since they are not mainstream games.

IMO, this endless pixel war has some negative effects. Developers just create beautiful-looking games which most of them have average, generic, shallow and boring gameplay and story. You see a game trailer and its graphics attract you. You buy that game. But after playing for several hours, you feel it's a waste of money. You may enjoy its top graphics, but that game will become one of the least favorite games in your library.

A delicate subject. I recall before the release of the new generation, a rush of statements came out from analysts, publishers, and gaming pundits claiming the consoles would be more powerful than a modern PC. They might as well have claimed to be immortals from the planet Zeist. Then of course when consoles didn't live up to their performance hype, a bunch of people were lined up to feed us drivel about framerate and lie to cover up other lies. Why they desperately compared themselves in areas the PC specialized in, rather than focus on the strengths of consoles, I have no idea.

Funnily enough though, many of the PC’s best games aren't graphical powerhouses at all. The open market is its secret weapon, potentially giving everyone a chance to achieve greatness, with Microsoft buying Minecraft for $2.5 billion. The biggest game in the world would never have been greenlighted on an Xbox 360 in 2009.