For those who don't like downgrades, how do you feel about something like this?
http://blog.fullbrig.ht/post/141034859552/tacoma-is-coming-spring-2017

Summary: The game, originally scheduled for late 2016, has been pushed back to 2017 to give the developers more time to polish the game.

this^

Far from one of the most essential, otherwise we wouldn't have games in which the graphics are pixelated and without any of these fancy effects even in pixels, right? Plus when was the last time a game ever gave hints through graphics?

Don't let me say Minecraft. Oh wait, I already did that. The graphics are, to sum it up nicely, fitting for a SNES game if it could render that much an environment, and not the fest of light, shadows, reflections, motion blur, bloom, ambient occlusion, anti-aliasing, post FX, post processing and all of these fancy buzzwords. Yet the game is much deeper and more fun than say, a game focused solely on presenting graphics.

I haven't seen much games make use of the reflections. In fact, as far as I'm aware, first person mode in GTA V doesn't render a car's side mirror's reflections. The last time I played a game where reflections is how I advanced is Magrunner: Dark Pulse.

Not sure, but whatever the case is, I have yet to see a game in which the graphics are needed.

What's more important is the art style. The graphics is only a tool to express the art style, and never the end goal.

I ... Think we have a bit of a miscommunication here. By "Graphics" I don't mean all the newest effects and generally visual fidelity, when I say "graphics", I mean just that - visual presentation of a game on your screen, no matter how seemingly modern it might look

Let's just say that yesterday, I spent like 20 minutes admiring details of how gorgeous Cliver Barker's Undying looks.

And even then, that's not the end goal of a game. The end goal of a game, is to be a fun and interactive experience. Graphics is a means to achieve that, but never the end goal, by representing the game, and we've seen many variations of how the graphics represent the games: from almost non-existant to near-realistic enough.

However, if you'd like to see the graphics as an end goal of sorts, movies got you in, wherein which the end goal is telling a story in the best visual representation possible. That is my view. A 'downgrade' in the visual representation of a game from pre-release to post-release is never a 'scam'.

I realize what you're trying to address here, but for us as consumers? It would be to not buy into the garbage-laden hype machine that everyone, even our own beloved CDPR, use every time a big trade show comes up and they have a game to show off.

On the part of developers? What I'd love to see is for developers and studios to put their money, time and resources into making a polished, well-launched game, with a decent-sized demo available on release for customers to download. No snake oil, no lies, no bullshots or vertical slices, or conjobs fooling people into believing that anything other than a mega machine can get them to 60 FPS on any graphics setting other than "low".

You want publicity? Freely give out review code with no strings attached to trusted YouTubers like Angry Joe, Jim Sterling or TB, or well-respected sites like Destructoid, RPS, or Eurogamer. If you have a truly kick-ass product, and it speaks to the higher standards that gamers have been vocally clamoring for, I truly feel that gamers will rise to the occasion and support a game that gives them what they truly want for their money.

But if all of that fails, and despite your best efforts, your game sinks to the bottom of Steam's endless list of new releases, perhaps games like Watch_Dogs and A:CM are what we as gaming consumers deserve after all.

No, the goal of a game is whatever the people who are making it decide their goal is.

Well, that's a shitty view. A view by which there is exactly one purpose for an entire medium as complex as film or video games which, on top of that, can be summarized in a single sentence is destined to be brutally wrong.

I buy a game to have fun playing it. I don't buy a (non-musical) movie to listen to the soundtrack and only that. I don't buy a game just for the graphics. I buy a game to have fun playing it, and I buy a movie to watch an interesting story.

Unfortunately it's the way it is, like it or not. You're doing it wrong if the games you buy are solely and only for the soundtrack. It may be the only great point in an otherwise mediocre game, but you don't buy a game for the soundtrack and only that. The entire medium can be summarized in one sentence: that sentence is the core of the medium, and therefore, the whole focus and the selling point of the medium.

Case in point: Depression Quest, which was not designed to be a fun game.

"Fun and interactive experience" doesn't mean anything. The reason games get called 'fun' is because they often present an enjoyable combination of visuals, sound, music, interactivity and narrative. None of these building blocks are inherently more or less important than the other ones. And as dtgreene correctly pointed out, not all games strive to be fun.

What makes a game is being interactive. Movies are combinations, of visuals, sound, music and narrative. Music? Sounds and music, and visuals for the video version, and lyrics can be omitted or included. Stories? Narrative and language, as well as the scope of allowing imagination to kick in.

Games? Interactivity is the core, with sound, visuals, music and narrative coming later. We all started with Pong. Graphics? White pixels on a black background. Sound and music? Nearly none. Story? You're playing a game against a friend. Yet you are playing against a friend or a computer, in which the goal is score the most points. It's a simplistic example, but this a game with a lack of almost everything else, but keeping the core of the medium.

As for games which don't strive to be fun, they are more exceptions than a regular trend.

So are Visual Novels games in your opinion?

Yes, that's why I said games are a combination of visuals, sound, music, interactivity and narrative. Various games place various emphasis on various parts of the experience. Some games are less interactive yet try to present more compelling narrative and visual experience. Other games are more focused on interactivity and every other aspect is neglected (but not non-existent - even narrative is present in vast majority of games, in one way or another) There's no such thing as a game which is interactive and nothing else - quite simply because how would that work?

Interesting question, I'd say. That I cannot decide, because while they put themselves under the games moniker, their genre effectively reads Visual NOVELS.

However, since they may have a little bit of interactivity by putting up choices complete with multiple endings and whatnot, I'll think I'll leave them hanging under 'games'.

But then I'd ask a question here. What is a game, or to be more exact, what is a video game? We all know board games such as Monopoly or Chess. We also know of games such as hide and seek. But it seems we need to define the boundaries of a 'video game.'

Exactly, though if you stated a Visual Novel is not a game at what point does it become one.
999 would surely be a games as it has escape the room sequences inbetween the VN stuff.
Does it need a certain amount of interactivity?
Does a Visual novel need 4+ choices to be a game.
Etc.