AWKWARD ZOMBIE

And read the comments that point out the flawed logic. You can't just point to an article that says "they're doing it wrong" and expect it to explain away the colossal costs.

Trained was a poor word choice on my part. Work flow would have been better.

The PS4 uses x86, if I recall correctly. I think that would be easier for developers to program with than the PS3.

Colossal costs? Do you have data that indicates a steady increase of budgets in the past few years (small time period any way since gaming only recently hit peak popularity)? Personally I think that higher standards of game quality will indeed increase workload and production cost on devs, but I certainly don't believe superior hardware will be the only cause to blame. Independent developers and modders have been able to push out graphics that make AAA console games look like B-listers on effectively no budget at all for a couple of years now. As the article points out, almost all fidelity on console games was downscaled, meaning it was purely hardware restraints limiting visuals. If anything, the more universal architecture of the PS4 may lower production cost since it will be easier to develop for (familiarity) and easier to port/multiplat.

Those that say better hardware will increase production cost without taking into account improved toolkits and efficient resource management are plain ignorant.

Not to mention a lot of modern devs blow their budget on big name voice acting and costly motion cap studios.

This.

Almost every person who has voice in the gaming world says this. Nearly everyone who has ever played a video game will at some point mention this if you ask them. And yet within minutes it keeps being forgotten. If this message is so obvious and prevalent, then why doesn't it ever stick? (That's not entirely rhetorical either - I actually want to know why this isn't adhered to more.)

Best example I can think of is Mario. Mario will never look any better than he does now. Short of minor physics details (like... I don't know... scorching on his glove if he uses a fireball), Mario is never going to be leaps and bounds ahead of what it is now. The Galaxy games did lots of great scenery stuff, and I guess that can be explored. But on a wider scale, Mario games aren't going to make amazing leaps to realism.

But every single Mario game is fun. YMMV on whether individual people agree on certain games, but every game is made very playable, and is polished in all aspects of its gameplay. And yet everyone landblasts Nintendo for "not going the graphics route" ... and every single time, the games still sell. It's like, "When will the rest of the world get the memo?"

tldr; This has always bothered me. Sorry if it seems like a rant.

I don't lambast Nintendo for not going the graphics route, I lambast Nintendo for not going the story route.

Story > Gameplay > Graphics is my order of importance for games. I will forgive a game with bad gameplay if there is a good story, but I will not do the opposite.

I usually figure gameplay comes first for, you know, games.

Video Games are a great medium just because of that. They can be such a better artform than books or movies, but that's not all they should ever try to be. Sometimes it's nice just to sit back and play a game, and not give a fuck about a story.

Deadly Premonition is a good example of this, in my opinion. The gameplay is just average, the graphics are low-grade for the time it was released on the 360, but the story gets really REALLY good around the last third.

But at the same time, gameplay is a pretty important aspect in regards to sequels. Paper Mario: Sticker Star removed partners, leveling up, badges, and even something as simple as targeting individual enemies. This bothered a lot of people as they were expecting a return to form (Paper Mario 64, Paper Mario TTYD) after the departure that was Super Paper Mario rather than Sticker Star's over-simplification.

All in all, I expect the PS4's specs to allow developers a greater degree of freedom in regards of what they can do quality-wise and quantity-wise. It's the devs who have to decide what they do with that, though.

To me, the story is the entire reason I play a game. I want to delve into the world and know it will keep offering up bits of information about it. I want to see a rich and detailed story that is earned through exploration and dialogue. I want the characters to have depth and reasons for what they do; even the villains. I want to see things change as I play my part in the story and be able to think to myself when engaging the villain, "I hate you for (story reasons here) and so I will see you dead on my honor!"

That's what keeps me hooked to a game. Without a story they're on par with Angry Birds: a distraction for ten minutes at best.

Really?

So you consider Super Mario Bros 3 to be beneath you, but fuckin Heavy Rain is some sort of ideal to claw our way up to.

yeah okay

But Heavy Rain has neither

I just chose the first game of the "it's like watching a movie except that you have to putz around like a jackass" genre I could think of.

Quicktime Event: The Game

Well regardless, saying "I will forgive a game with bad gameplay if there is a good story, but I will not do the opposite" is kind of silly, considering everyone has different standards. Look at how popular series like Kirby are. The excuse plot is here to serve the tight and inventive gameplay.
Instead of wishing for every game to meet all of your own expectations, isn't it better to celebrate the many different types of games that let everyone has their fun in the way they like?