Graphic are a bonus to me, and in some cases I actually prefer 2d. No, storytelling and gameplay are what is important, not graphics.

I'm not a graphics whore and a game doesn't have to be "Crysis" good, but I do have standards. I can handle games all the way back to around 2005. I can handle some games graphically that were released before it, but it's hard to look at older games because of it's graphical quality.

No where did I say video means it has to be ultra-graphical.  That was just your assumption about what I meant. If you can't discern what going on from the graphics it's not going to be easy to experience the gameplay that everyone is hyping and that is simply the way VIDEO Games work.  Yes I happen to love when games have great graphics.  I didn't say that makes the other aspects of it unimportant.  Nor did I say graphics should be the focus.  I said if the graphics are unappealing(ugly or without aesthetic value) or muddy(read as unclear in what is being perceived) it hampers your ability to play the game.  If you don't concur with that statement then I do believe you are kidding yourself. 

Just because games like Breakout and Pac Man are simple in appearance doesn't mean they unappealing or muddy. Their visuals are clear, concise and give you great ability to perceive what is going on. The color of the various squares in Breakout are appealing.  As well as the flashing ghosts and big yellow pie against  a black background with borders. If you couldn't see those things so easily I don't think you would have a good time with those games.     

Hell Okami is a bunch of low-res textures and really jaggy models that didn't stop it from being one of my favorite games ever with one of the most appealing style of visuals.  I would never make someone play Halo 3 instead of any game.  FPS suck and thus Pac Man is clearly the superior game.  

I wasn't intending to mean that you had to perceive it as "ultra-graphical", but the fact remains that there are some people on these very forums who would interpret it as such. I know there's at least one user here who has written off games as new as the PS1 generation just because of graphics. And I don't mean a game or 2 that's not fared well, I mean the entire generation of games. I personally think that's a load of shit, but it's someone else's interpretation of graphics making a game.

I've been gaming since before the days of the NES. I remember seeing games that looked like shit on the Atari. But I could still play them. (The problem was that the underlying game itself was also shit, a product of a rushed game for the season.) I guess what this means is that my threshold for a game's graphics actually starting to be an impediment is at the point where a game from the mid-80s onward would never make it out of the production house. (Truthfully, I question if ANY game has ever been released that would fail my said criteria to me.)

Now, at the bold part. Unappealing graphics is the first part. I'll use E.T. as an example. That game was hideous. I would say there are no aesthetic values in it. But I was still able to beat it, and the graphics were not a problem in my doing so. As for what is being perceived, I'll look at another 2600 game, Journey Escape. What I see are fences, good (blue) guys, and Mr. Happy Man, among others. Turns out these were stage barriers, roadies, and your Manager, respectively. Knowing what these were supposed to be, instead of what I called them, didn't change what I thought of the game, nor did it impact my ability to clear all the band members to their getaway vehicle. (That was a vehicle?)

So I guess what it really comes down to is where everyone's threshold is for problems. Some people I feel are absurdly high, but others, like myself, are low enough that graphics are not important to them. And with how games have been marketed for, oh, about 20 years or so now, I don't have to worry about graphics ever being that bad, following in my never been hampered by graphics view. What I do think that graphics hamper, is the willingness of some to make a bigger, deeper game. These graphics have eaten up part of the budget that used to go toward more game. Now that, I see as a detriment, but that might be for another thread...

i'll say one thing:
monkey island 1+2 > any other monkey island part (or remake)

monkey island looked great back in the 1990 and it still looks good (to me).
it's not the technical side to graphics but the style and flair.

i hate techdemo-like games. especially with the horrible uncanny pseudo-lifelike characters we get since around 2000.

I don't care at all, I've played a lot of games that looked really good,but, had no story and/or controls were horrible.

I must admit that I do care about graphics a little, they are awesome
but if they're not mind blowing, I won't really get hurt

I rather more time be invented in polish, pacing and replay value than textures, polygon counts, and lighting effects.

I prefer great graphics and good to great stories. If I'm playing a game on a given console in a generation that doesn't have the best graphics of the other consoles of its time but strong gameplay, I still think the game would be much better on one of the consoles with the better graphics.

You can tell that a game will suck when they have to make gameplay decisions because of the graphics. Graphics should be built around gameplay, not the other way around.

Gameplay >>> Framerate >>> Graphics

At least PC gamers usually have the choice of FPS or graphics. A lot of console titles unfortunately target 30 FPS, which is playable but nothing like 60-120hz gaming.