Hitman: Absolution has some amazing crowds, at least 200 NPCs on screen at once.

Well to some extent it's going to take more graphical horsepower to accommodate larger model counts. There are AI, Skeletal transformations, extra collision checks ,and sometimes physics that are involved too that aren't always graphic card related (some are or can be) but more models mean more polys to crunch. So from that point of view perhaps you do support advancement.

That's the second time you've brought that game up. Its making me want to try it.

Ah yes. That level is fantastic, and I believe Blood Money has some big crowd scenes as well? Very impressive for the perspective they use.
Obviously, but that ventures into more technical aspects than what people primarily think of as graphics. In truth, collision detection as a whole needs a bit of a redux as well, since even the most detailed collision systems (IE, Mount and Blade) fail mostly in part due to the range of movement at your fingertips. I think overdoing it can really slow a game down, but doing it right (Arma 2, and - even as I'm loathe to admit it - RAGE) can create a depth to combat. And of course, there's the notion of pathing, which is simply something I'm unqualified to even rant about.

This is hardly a big deal for design. They can easily separate the gamepad players who wish to play with others using the pad, similar thing was done for the Killzone gun I think. However, would you believe it that I have played online fps games on PC with a pad and come out fine K\D wise?

You have also likely played against people using M&K on console and never known about it.

http://hexus.net/gaming/news/ps3/10275-unique-ps3-fragfx-controller-coming-uk/

Games that really punish gamepad users are Counterstrike style shooters.

I think it's pretty great looking. Big crowds, some larger environments, very realistic. The character models can be iffy and there's a lot of depth of field to hide distant textures, but it's very detailed. Max Payne 3 was similar but without the crowds.

That's fine, if they choose to make a slower progress because of cost that's acceptable, it's not ideal if they choose to push graphics and leave the rest of the game aspects at be. It's still a difference between 'let's take it slow with graphics, it's already good enough' than 'let's stop, it's already looking almost life like..'

What would be cool if some brilliant coders could make a huge, expanding engine that's not too hard to code on, automatic mod support, cross-platform etc.. like Unity has become, sort of, but with a larger limit when it comes to how a game could look like game corporations wouldn't need to make an in-house engine for every game saving time and money in the process. It should also be open source, perhaps not the assets of the engine but the engine itself so engines like UE3 have at least some competition.

Modern shooters play fine with a pad because they were designed to, no shock there. I think what old PC guys like me complain about is we miss real PC shooters like Quake which were designed around mouse aim.

Yeah I know, in a way they still make them but nobody plays; Nexuiz was released not that long ago but I don't know how many players are on it. UT3 died fairly quickly I think, and Quake is just stuck with Quake Live. I'm not sure what the problem is, maybe back when Quake\UT were around the playerbase was centered around just two games, now FPS players are spread across so many different titles.

There's a number of free projects out there too, Xonotic (original Nexuiz successor), Warsow (never tried it but it looks fun), Quake Live is free, Zandronum has an active Doom playerbase too but there are a lot of different game-modes and mods out right now for Doom. Apart from Doom not much activity though, Xonotic was empty basically when I loaded it up. I specced a few Quake 1 games though lol.

Some of the free to play games might fit the bill for multiplayer, Tribes Ascend and the like, but as a singleplayer guy my options are pretty limited. Thankfully I'm super hardcore guy and like most modern shooters despite their shortcomings.

I'll do even better: IMHO the original Serious Sam (not HD) still looks very attractive even today, even though all the environments are barren desert. The last time I played it (and the second encounter) was last year, I haven't even seen the HD remakes.

However, the PS2 version of Serious Sam looks quite bad to me, and plays bad too.

Wow, I must say, that does look gorgeous. Wasn't all that crazy about the "lens flare" thingie, as cool as it sort of is, but the enviroment is just beautiful. Was kind of along the lines of agreeing with the OP until I saw this. Is it something I would "have" to have? Is it something I would run out and upgrade my console or computer so I could buy and play this right away? No to both, but I can't in all honesty, say that I would prefer to see graphics stagnate, because I really have no desire or need to see them improve any longer. Key word here is "need". No, like the OP, I don't need to have these type of graphical upgrades to play, but in all honesty, I am not saddened that tech is pushing forward, as it truly is amazing to see these kind advancements being made. Being the type who never had to have the best tech "right now", I am content to keep playing my backlog (which will keep me busy for quite some time on the pc as well as the console) until such time as I am ready to dip into the new generation

I've never really cared about graphics, anything beyond, let's say Fallout:NV is pointless to me. Because of this, I'd obviously like the development of graphics to stop because then developers might pay a bit more attention to the story of their game.

The percepted market for K&M input is far to small to bother with seperating the community and there is a diference when the use of K&M is unofficially implemented through some emulation device or when it is implemented officially.

I've played with and been involved with computer graphics since you could see each line being drawn individually in any colour you like as long as its only one at a time (white, orange or green - depending what monitor you bought). I love to see how the technology progresses and computer games (and film) are excellent for showing that off. So, no, I don't want them to stop.

Occasionally I become a bit jaded and take it all for granted and have to remind myself just how far things have come. GOG was actually a wake up call for me, in that respect, when I found it - not just how good all those old games are without the eyey candy, but a reminder of how far things have progressed and how quickly.

Is it neceassary for a great game? No, of course not.
Would some games be improved if they concentrated more on the game and less on the technology? Yes, of course.

But pushing the technological boundaries are what computer games have been about since day one. At first you had to squeeze every ounce of power out of the machines and it hurt, then the technology caught up and now tends to drive the software development with only a few games really pushing that boundary in each new generation.

So, I would almost say that I would prefer for them to push a bit harder and get the game back in the driving seat - "we wan't to be able to tell this story in this way and have this game mechanic work - now make the hardware capable".

I agree that developers should shift their focus from graphics to gameplay. I'd also like to see more focus on AI and physics development and implementation.

That being said, there is always room for improvement. I want games to keep looking better and better. I just also want better gameplay, better physics, and options to customize my game the way I want.