No, were playing an FPS and when we look down our feet aren't there. ;) 
 
But seriously, by asking for the top of the line, high definition consoles and games did we force developers to neglect stories and spend more time on pretty textures and life-like models. While at the same time forcing publishers to price games at $60. My personal opinion is that by asking for "the most amazing looking shit ever" instead of the next great experience we forced; the cost of making games, the manpower needed to create games, and the sheer amount of sales needed to make those games profitable upwards.  Im not against good looking games, Crysis has a place in this world, but I think its ridiculous that if a game doesn't look great its practically thrown aside by most gamers.  
My biggest problems with the need for incredible looking games is that its pushed the price of games up to $60. This might be the recession talking but thats a lot of money. Its also forced the budgets of games to a ridiculous amount. The budgets themselves I don't have a problem with, but when a budget is so big that if the game doesn't sale a million copies its a failure, and the studios might even be forced to close. Maybe its the fact that so many developers have been laid off and studios closed in the past year getting to me, but either way I honestly believe that if we hadn't pushed the envelop of graphics to their limit games would be cheaper, and less people would have lost their job. 
 
-Ryan

No, were playing an FPS and when we look down our feet aren't there. ;) 
 
But seriously, by asking for the top of the line, high definition consoles and games did we force developers to neglect stories and spend more time on pretty textures and life-like models. While at the same time forcing publishers to price games at $60. My personal opinion is that by asking for "the most amazing looking shit ever" instead of the next great experience we forced; the cost of making games, the manpower needed to create games, and the sheer amount of sales needed to make those games profitable upwards.  Im not against good looking games, Crysis has a place in this world, but I think its ridiculous that if a game doesn't look great its practically thrown aside by most gamers.  
My biggest problems with the need for incredible looking games is that its pushed the price of games up to $60. This might be the recession talking but thats a lot of money. Its also forced the budgets of games to a ridiculous amount. The budgets themselves I don't have a problem with, but when a budget is so big that if the game doesn't sale a million copies its a failure, and the studios might even be forced to close. Maybe its the fact that so many developers have been laid off and studios closed in the past year getting to me, but either way I honestly believe that if we hadn't pushed the envelop of graphics to their limit games would be cheaper, and less people would have lost their job. 
 
-Ryan

If you need a couple bucks to buy a game all you have to do is ask me man.

Games are still made on the cheap, check out XBLA, PSN and other services for downloadable games. People want games to get better in every way shape and form and the people that want to do that are the people making the games not the consumer. If people making games wanted to make pong rehashes and nothing else, that's what we would have but almost everybody wants to make a game better in every way. They want it to look better, sound better, play better. The people making little downloadable games would make multimillion dollar games if they could, however given their usually small team size and limited budget they make everything the best they can with what they have. There are several games that sell very well and don't look the best at all, Sims 3 and World Of Warcraft are the best examples.

You might have a compelling argument if not for placing SIXTY DOLLARS as the magic amount where a game is officially too expensive. Even in the days where budgets were not that big (I'm thinking Super Nintendo but Nintendo 64 prices were up there as well) you had short games with graphics that were simply decent at the time going for around eighty bucks.
 
I see this is on the Modern Warfare 2 forum which is interesting because
 a) I think this game has an above average story, especially in comparison to other military shooters
 b) the value of the multiplayer for most people gives a great price: enjoyment ratio
 
Something better to complain about would be that movies are adding crappy 3D effects and charging four bucks extra to every (already overpriced) ticket.

Less people would have lost jobs perhaps, but only because their would have been less jobs for them to lose  - that's not really much of a benefit.
 
Game prices aren't what they are because publishers have been forced to do it.  They're that because they deem it to be the most profitable price point.  If Activision thought they'd make more money at $70, they'd charge $70 - the budget doesn't really come into it.  In fact, it's quite remarkable how steady game prices have remained in the last 15 - 20 years.  Pick up a copy of Amiga Power from 15 years ago and you'll see the RRP on the games is ~£35, which is actually about £5-10 more than I tend to pay for a brand new PC game today.  In the same time, the cost of a cinema ticket has doubled, fuel prices have doubled, the average wage has doubled, house prices have tripled etc.
 
Gamers have never had it so good when it comes to the affordability of games.

" No, were playing an FPS and when we look down our feet aren't there. ;) "

Why is this on the MW2 forum?

Games are cheap compared to pretty much every other form of entertainment.

I remember when some N64 games would come out at like $70 new. 

Well first of all, there are still games being made today with amazing stories (i.e. Bioshock), and secondly, have you ever thought that maybe developers are motivating themselves to push the envelope of current hardware capabilities in an attempt to make the best product they possibly can?  I mean, if these guys really love their jobs, which I assume most do, who's to say they're not pushing themselves to raise the graphical/ technical bar in their games?

isn't pushing for the best possible product an inevitable outcome of a competitive market?

Stories in gaming are overrated. Heavy Rain had a shitty story with so many plotholes. Bioware seems to be the best in the business but even their stories don't match up to other mediums.