Is polygon count no longer important?

Whenever people debate about console graphics, all I see is arguments over resolution and framerates. No one ever talks about polygon count anymore.

Graphic is complex so many just grab buzz words and seemingly important and easy to understand standers to look at. It is mainly the most simple concepts that seem important at that time.

wiouds is right OP. There's ray tracing. Texture mapping, even the physics of how any high graphic model moves believably. thats why some hi-graphics 3d games focus on art style more than being ultra-realistic. Eventually your ability to tell the difference will blur away as the polygons get smaller. But theres still a wealth of things for games to pursue in computer intelligence, animation and physics.

@platinumking320: We forgot normals and abstract normals.

Yeah, it's a law of diminishing returns. The higher the count becomes, the more demanding it is on the system but as those numbers get higher and higher the differences become harder and harder to see. Developers figured out a long time ago that artistic merit is more valuable that hyper-realistic graphics in most types of games. Just look at all the 2d games out there that look better than poor quality 3d games.

-Byshop

@wiouds: I know. But there ya go another factor to consider. When you can get fabric and grass like crysis to flap in the wind more or less believably, or in cartoonish wholes. What more could you ask for? I felt we were getting to the ceiling when I first saw the facial pores in mass effect and water splash from crysis.

Part of me got a little annoyed for folks exaggerating about Silent Hill 3 and MGS3's "datedness". I'm like. They may not move as fast as you'd like, but they still look damn good, and without any texture pop in.