This is the core problem, though.
In PC gaming there is a never-ending drive for better graphics. I like great visuals as much as the next person, but when they become the be-all and end-all of gaming, then that is a problem.
Many PC games require some sort of graphical edge to guarantee a hardcore fanbase, and later popular appeal. This technological arms race does not mean that we're getting better games, indeed I believe that the quality of PC gaming is in general going downhill.
Operation Flashpoint, while certainly very competent graphically was never at the cutting edge of visual whizz-bang, but it didn't need to be as the game itself was always what sold it.
Likewise with Armed Assault, the game, as we here know is likely to be fantastic, but the sheer scope of the game is going to mean that the graphical veneer is likely to lack the punch of BF2142, Crysis and the like.
Now when it comes to selling the game, Joe Gamer isn't going to see the massive playing fields, the high level of realism, and the overall wonderful game; they're just going to see that AA isn't quite as shiny as 'shooter X', and pick that up instead.
What we really need is to focus on just making great games using the technology of the day, and not be in such a rush to outdo each other by using €800 graphics cards to push another cycle of hardware churn through D3D one-upmanship.
