totally agree with the first point here, gameplay and graphics should go hand in hand. it should be the most basic thing that devs think about when planning the game.
But if were all totally honest, gta4 wasnt graphically beautiful or stunning as some games. it was good for a sandbox game, but i think gameplay was precedent over graphics for gta4.
without sounding like a fanboy.... are you seriously saying mgs4 lacked "true gameplay"?? there was certainly ALOT of replay value in that game, so i could sit here all day and argue against that statement tbh
but yeh there wasn't anythin groundbreakingly different in mgs4 compared to others in the series, just the drebin points system for guns, octocamo, metal gear mk2, controling metal gear rex
lol the "it's not the same as cod4 controls" that everyone mentions when kz2 is brought up
again... games are a subjective medium, and everyone is ofcourse entitled to their opinion of a game, but when tlking about kz2/mgs4/crisis... "enjoyable" they are to the vast majority of gamers out there.
thats just my side of the debate here
Games are a subjective medium and alot (millions++) of people would disagree that kz2, crisis and mgs4 are "terrible games". but as i said, games are subjective and if you think they are terrible, then they just arent your type of game.