Sure it does but it's not more important then gameplay,story or lenght wich is very very often overlooked beacuse of graphics, wich in turn makes the game pretty but utterly boring, laggy and a waste of time.
You seem to be under the impression that in order to have quality graphics that the rest of the game needs to suck. Why is that?
When I look back over my gaming life, I find that my favorite games would have been fine with worse graphics. I'd rather have had the game mechanics and ideas a gen earlier with worse graphics than wait for a pretty version. I don't remember games for their graphics or story, not good games anyway.
I think of each game as a complete experience. Graphics, story, gameplay, sound, and the rest all need to contribute to the overall experience of the game. I don't look the elements as a "this or that" sort of thing, I want excellence in all aspects. Great games are the ones that can deliver it. Poor graphics will hinder a game, they will make it worse, and they will hold it back from its potential. I just don't think most people know the difference between good graphics and poor graphics anymore. It's certainly not the difference between SD and HD though.
