Developers are saying, "our game is going to look as real as real life", and gamers argue over which system is the most powerful and has the better graphics (which, based on numbers alone, is obviously the PC, though it has other disadvantages). Meanwhile, I can't find myself giving a crap, partly because I grew up on 8-bit games, partly because I can't see shit. Seriously, put a Wii U game next to your recent PC game of choice, and I'm honestly going to be hard-pressed to see anything. I find the difference between this generation and the last to be much smaller than it's ever been, which gives logical sense to consoles lasting longer and longer as time goes by, as well as transitional releases (for example a game coming out on both PS3 and PS4) becoming commonplace early in each generation. Back in the day you didn't see games come out on both SNES and N64, it was one or the other. (Cue list of exceptions I'd never heard anything about.)
But my point is, graphics are so good nowadays that even what some people call unplayable (GTA4 is especially guilty of this) wouldn't make me care in the slightest. Some who are particularly dedicated to photorealistic gamers, usually the anti-Nintendo crowd, like to make the strawman argument that graphics are more important than gameplay because, well, would you like to play a game with wireframes? I can make this argument go both ways, though. Would you rather play Super Mario 64 with wireframes, or Desert Bus with next-gen graphics? If you can pull the "no graphics" card, I'm allowed to pull the "no gameplay" card. And you know what the best part is? Since I can't really see the difference between each system, I'm far more wowed by games that feature great artistic design, something Nintendo is particularly good at - so yes, in my opinion Nintendo tends to produce the games with the best graphics, despite the Wii U's anemic horsepower.
Which side are you on? Are you like me, or do you really care about having life-like experiences in games?