Well I'd say lighting engines and also the other things you've mentioned if used in a way which only impacts on the presentation of a game falls into what I'm getting at. Maybe presentation would have been a better word than graphics, oh well.

Yes, most are. That's only because most gamers also put a high priority on graphics though. Developers need to cater to their potential audience. Can't say that we didn't ask for it.

I don't think it's the devs, exactly, I think it's the "hardcore" gamers.

"Hardcore" gamers are the loud minority: it's a truth I began to understand from playing MMOs. 80 percent of the people are fine with easier, simpler stuff, but the 20 percent who plays constantly are also the 20 percent who post on forums and make requests constantly, and they demand harder, faster, more competitive content. It takes a particularly savvy company to realize that this loud 20 percent doesn't represent the much more sedate 80 percent. 

I honestly believe that "hardcore" gamers may lead themselves to economic ruin if they persist, or if some companies don't wise up and realize that the economic opportunities presented are rapidly being outpaced by production costs. It's not sustainable: there's strong evidence that the number of people interested in "hardcore" games isn't growing very fast, but the cost to make these games has doubled in the last 5 years. Why is this relatively small group being catered to so luxuriously? Because they've been around for a long time, have proven profitable in the past, and are very, very loud.

Again, I only blame the devs in so far as they are unable to see that the people who go on message boards and in forums and write letters requesting high end games with extreme graphics and AI are only a small portion of gamers, and that many if not most are fine with Wii Sports or Guitar Hero. 

just my opinion, developer need to invent new gameplay over graphic. Especially the ones constantly milk on first person shooter, this gener will be in serious trouble because its basically the same game with a different coating of makeup, with the mass flooding of FPS we get every month soon people will realize its the same game kind of game that offer nothing new, and will grow tired of playing it.

 See I'm actually getting tired of people making things "new" and claiming it to be the next revelation. I will buy ton's of RPG's that are "solid" and just stick to a great formula. First person shooters are fine and dandy and still have plenty of useable content that makes them great. I mean honestly look at halo, a very solid formula that happens to be very standard and very basic, but the game is met with huge success and considered to be a very enjoyable game. 

I agree with what you're saying but I personally think it's a flawed outlook to think next gen = cutting edge visuals and I'd say it has developed due to too many gens failing to deliver anything of significance other than better graphics. I'm pretty sure if asked most gamers would say that the big difference between the SNES/MegaDrive & PS1/N64 gen was graphics when actually it was the jump to 3d.

Oh yeah for sure for sure, but another part of it was also the grahpics, the overall look of the game. I mean when we wen't 3d, we still platformed, role played etc etc etc. Then when dreamcast, ps2, game cube etc etc... it was a big graphical overhaul. Presentation is where the "next gen" lies nowadays, I mean you'd still consider the SNES to be the next gen version of the NES right?

To answer the question: beyond a certain point they are.
Actually there's only one thing that matters in graphics, which is that are they good enough for the gamer. You should also notice, that art style has a lot to do with how the game look like, although graphics are a lot more than just numbers on paper, visuals would propably be more accurate definition to what people mean by "graphics", or what they should mean.

@rocketpig: the problem with engines is that the games that uses common engine, tend to be too similar by it's content. They looks the same, feel the same, when the most difference is in which game has most impressive visual. Basically you get the deja-vu type of feeling.
Sorry if i sound depressing, i may have been in gaming for too long.

graphics are important for me, but mostly gameplay :)

Spot on, couldn't agree more. I do hope though that devs are also listening when Portal gets more forum love than it's undoubtedly more expensive and ,I'd hazard a guess, graphics-focussed Orange Box companions.

I also hope they look at how SMG is being almost universally adored and the fact it probably cost a good deal less than HS & Lair, an absolutely horrifying thought. In fact I think that SMG should be the poster child for the point I'm trying to make, how do you think N split it's budget between visuals and level design, controls, content etc.?