There is a kind of aggrieved entitlement from Gamer Types about any discussion over graphics, but I feel like these types take having a beefy PC to heart instead of realizing part of the complaints about graphics is that they're rewarding behaviors that short change themselves as well.
The discussion isn't about whether or not complex, graphically indulgent games shouldn't be allowed to exist, they always have and they always will, but I think it's telling that a game with hundreds of actors on-screen at once already existed in Rollercoaster Tycoon, which could do that in 1999 by being written almost exclusively in Assembly and being extremely optimized as a result. Granted, doing something like that in a modern game is functionally impossible, but the limitations of hardware meant that really efficient game design could enable a surprising amount of detail and moving parts could be fit into a really compact space.
Now, with hard drive technology being accessible and cheap, and incomprehensible power being relatively inexpensive, you can fit thousands of gigabytes and multiple teraflops into a cheap hard drive and a medium-strength APU, games are enormous in size (100+ GB per game), and very textured without being very big.
Is the equivalent of Rollercoaster Tycoon possible anymore? Not really, games are way too complex and have way too many fancy lighting engines and models to be hand-stitched, but it does mean publishers like EA and Ubisoft can churn graphical powerhouses on a regular basis without bothering to optimize, or account for bad UX decisions. Games could be cleaner, smaller, more efficient, and less bloated, but they don't have to be, so they don't.
Your $4,000 bit-cruncher could be even cooler, look even better, and use less energy if developers had the time to make their games better, but instead, they're forced to crunch, don't have time to optimize, and produce games that look really good by requiring a bunch of power under the hood simply because publishers want to make more, better looking games faster.
In 1969, we landed humans on the mood with computers that were fractions of a fraction of the power of the computer most of us carry daily in our pockets. Now we can barely load a webpage in under 30 seconds despite having the fastest internet ever in history and computers that are doubling in power every handful of years.
Why is it that technology is so much more powerful, but never seems faster? Well, I guess I'd need more than a $500, eighth-of-an opinion to work that one out.