If games have always been inferior so many people wouldn't be complaining about how terrible they are now.
That's just a completely baseless assertion. "Rose colored glasses". "Selective memory". "The grass is greener on the other side of the fence." These aren't just amusing idioms that exist within the lexicon of old phrases to randomly toss about, these are concepts with a lot of psychological basis and study gone into 'em. In other words, people remember what's recent better than what's older. It's been over ten years since PC gaming was on top.
That's why everyone just groups all the BS under 'consolization', because even if most people don't understand all the reasons they understand that things are no longer as fun as they were before.
But they ARE as fun as they were before. People complained then, and they complain now. If they're unhappy with the state of video gaming now, that just means they were also unhappy with it ten or fifteen years ago. They probably bought games back then, too, despite their asserted "unhappiness".
Hint: Maybe some people just like to complain. It's a small fraction, but it doesn't need to be large in order to be loud.
Cutting edge games like Crysis no longer exist
Crysis was only "cutting edge" in terms of graphical fidelity, which, as I've pointed out a few times in this thread, is completely irrelevant to making a fun game.
You're saying PC hardware isn't dominant, but at the same time you're saying there is a big gaming market on the PC
Yes. Those two statements aren't mutually exclusive. I've defined the successful areas of the PC market, and they're those that target hardware that's available (in other words, Intel graphics) rather than those that target hardware they'd LIKE to be available (in other words, Crysis). One of those is obviously going to be more successful than the other.
What's the argument about, here? Pushing graphics forward. People are mad that Crysis 2 looks like crap (and apparently plays like crap, but I haven't touched it so I won't comment). What is my retort? Graphics are irrelevant to making a fun game. I gave examples. You can go look them up.
Curiously what's wrong with pushing the baseline forward?
Curiously, what's wrong with strawman arguments like yours? Well, first off, it's become obvious that you're responding to voices in your own head rather than anything I've ever said. The ultimate problem with your statement is that you implicitly assume that "graphics" are the baseline, and that's just sad.
Not only does it help develop society
Yup, new pixel shaders are really going to cure cancer. I'm sure.
Look, I was going to go on, responding to the various points you raised, but now you're just getting ridiculous. "It helps develop society". No, dude, it doesn't. We're talking about games. Cheap, mindless entertainment. One great way to kill a few hours during one's liesure time. It's on the same level as masturbation. It doesn't "help develop society".