i don't agree. true, ugly graphics can turn me off. but the style is way more important than the tech.
low res is not the same as ugly. and highres or high polygon count is not the same as beautiful.

in fact, i think emotions are lacking a lot of games released in the last decade because the pseudo realistic characters look so damn uncanny. we are so far away from lifelike characters/animations, yet try to use them as that. of course that is impressive tech though.

when games were not that detailed and pseudo realistic it was much easier for me to "love" the characters. it has to do with imagination... guybrush threepwood in the first two monkey islands was a way better character than he is now because it was up to me to imagine the details. ...and imagining he would even be made a "lifelike" character in a new title makes me shudder.

how bad the "realistic" games look is always obvious a few years later. i remember when everquest 2 and world of warcraft released in 2004. a lot of gamers thought EQ2 looked better because of its advanced tech.

looking at screenshots of both games now makes me wonder how anyone could have possibly thought so... EQ2 has aged pretty bad while WoW has aged really well. i think thats because of the great art style and fluid, varied animations. and because "lifelike" games always look a lot better a few years later. ...that doesn't make the older games any better or worse, though.

it's funny how most gamers have their favourite games made 10-15 years ago, but now all of the sudden only HD games can be good. yeah, that makes sense... heck, ff7 has so damn ugly looking characters without textures AT ALL, but somehow in THAT case it doesn't matter? wasn't the scene where aeris dies emotional? and if it was, how, without "lifelike emotions"?

and about your just cause example: for me, the most immersive GTA title was... the first one! yes, the one with top down view! why? because the concept of roaming free in a big city and being able to go anywhere was new and awesome! i was very motivated to see all three cities. going 3d was the logical next step and it looks better for sure, but it was just more of the same in 3d. i didn't need "lifelike 3d graphics" to be motivated to explore everything.

another problem is how games become short and often more linear in structure because the HD graphics are expensive and time consuming to create. that is obviously NOT good for the games. when i read that a FF7 remake would take 10x as long to make as the original i wonder: are graphics that important? wouldn't it be better to have games of the scale and with as varied locations as FF7 than HD graphics?

I think the problem the op is trying to state is that people are starting to focus more on graphics, and it is those little things, like Red Dead Redemption looking better on the 360. (or whichever game looks better on whicever console).

While Graphics and Gameplay can co-exist, it seems this generation we are taken in more about "OH that game has full 60fps and 1080p", than things like "the gameplay mechanic works fine or is broken".  

1. I agree. It's part of the reason I find most SNES gen titles to have aged better than most PS1 gen titles.

2. Also agree, but I would be interested to see if this happens this gen as well. For instance, MGS 3 & 4 from last gen still retain the same look and atnosphere when I orginally played them, even though they have realistic graphics and art style.

3. Bad example, this is the Final Fantasy game everyone is begging a remake for, partly because it hasn't aged well. The fans want to see the world fully realised like in Crisis Core or Advent Children. Also, the dying scene was actually conveyed through CGI (more emotion than was typically visualised at the time), followed by text. The idea of your imagination taking over applys to sound and acting as well as visuals. The emotion was again conveyed through imagination when reading the text. Developers now have more options to convey emotion rather than relying on a users imagination.

4. I'm not sure many would agree with this. 3D as you said was the next logical step, but it also improved the mechanics in many ways. That in itself improved immersion. I'm not sure how you can say it was more of the same when it completely changed the game mechanics.

5. Look at the number of open-world games out this gen: Fallout 3, Oblivion, GTAIV, Assasin's Creed 1 & 2 etc. those are quickly off the top of my head. This sounds to me more like developer inefficiency. The FFVII remake comment especially sounds like SE are very inefficient as other JRPGs have been released that have the traditional JRPG structure. FFXIII in particular took an age, not because they were making it technically appealing or because they wanted to add in lots of gameplay options, but due to the sheer volume of artwork and CGI. I have the distinct feeling that SE are the direct antithesis of developer efficiency.

"The only ones to really realize this are the Wii faithful"

Is it our fault that some of the best games on the HD consoles are pretty aswel? Is it our fault that when a game is announced all we have to talk about is graphics since that's pretty much all you can get out of trailers and screenshots?

You know, the most popular thread on the SONY forum is the official Demon's Souls thread and no one in there's talking about the game because they think it's pretty. "why cant ps3 & 360 users also??" Lines like this are utter bullshit.

Hate to inform you but there are plenty of people who play graphic heavy games that are also great with gameplay, music, level design etc. Just because it may not be my system or yours doesnt mean they are completely useless. The thing that burns me up is how if you do not like the system or games noone should behavior that this   Gen is so heavy into. Calling somone who has a xbox360 or a PS3 graphic whores is just stupid.

*Raises hand* You have no evidence to prove that as fact, not saying it's out of the question but there's a number of people who own PS3/360, 360/Wii, Wii/PS3, and people that own 360/360/360/360 >_> total sold consoles is a good estimate of your user base not exactly though, it takes more studies to find out what owners own what consoles and how many of each.

Fact is with failure rates and remodels people will rebuy a console, I've owned 3 DS handhelds and 2 PSPs for a reason but I never bought more than one Nintendo home console ever cause the damn things don't break and rarely have a remodel, new colors yes, but never a slim.

Sorry for taking this discussion somewhere else carry on!

I play video games for the fun and not how pretty a game looks. Games that have nice graphics are just a bonus and nothing more.

Noobies to gaming?

I thought graphics whores were around with the first Wolfenstein and Doom.

I disagree about the Wii faithful.

I agree that people want realisitic graphics to much. Look at awards for graphics by media. It nearly always goes to realism games.

Example I think Viva Pinata is a fantastic looking game. 

I think graphics are highly important. Especially for immersion. But also that gameplay is fundamental. Look at Resi 5. It looked great, but was stuck in the stoneage gameplay wise. I cant bring myself to finish it. It's boring. 

Where the Wii is concerned, people make to much about gameplay, simply because it's inferior graphics wise. As a faithful ninty fan of old. There is no Wii game Ive played that touches Zelda OOT, Mario 64 or MK64 at all. There was a time where every gen Ninty lead the way in gameplay and graphics. The Gamecube days they lost some magic. And the Wii titles get all these praises, but IMO are nowhere near the ninty of old. Watered down ninty is the Wii for me.

Saying that, M$ need to get Rare in line. What the hell made Rare do Banjo Kazooie N/B? What a waste of time. The gameplay was pretty boring and crap. They essentially ruined the 2nd best platform game of all time. 

Yes to many want graphics, but to many also think ninty is gameplay god. Yes Ninty games are still good, but not what they once were. Sorry ninty fans. IT's true. The magic isnt there for me now. And I was a huge ninty fanboy from Nes - GC.

I have to stop you right there, the only game I've ever played that's made me cry like a little girl was Mother 3 (to a lesser extent Earthbound) with its 2D SNES style graphics, I can tell you it's all about art design over graphics anyday, if you want to give those effects you can do it if your team has the talent, more power isn't going to change that.

I've seen plenty of crappy looking "HD" games that were technically more impressive than anything you could find on the Wii and yet games like Super Mario Galaxy trump it, because it's art and talent over anything else.

@Silicon

Yeah I know right?  Same asshats that said NES/SNES/Gen/MS weren't real gaming devices, they were only for kids.  Graphic whores and elitists have been around for a while, but it does seem like there has been a shift in that crowd, since most PC games are now coming out on consoles as well and then there's the gap in power between PS3/360 and Wii, now the argument has turned into Wii being not a real current gen system cause its for casuals.... how life comes full circle eh?