a game form 2005 lookes betetr then one from 2001... really.

 either way its inferior to God of War 2

Graphics may not directly sell games but they do increase the hype around games.  Gears was a good game but honestly wasn't the game of the year that everyone praised it as.  The graphics created an excitement for the game that in turn skews opinions about gameplay. 

I would say impressive graphics play an important role, as if you look at the seperate platforms the best designed games of which graphics plays a as well often sell better. Although I agree that's not the whole story, Tetris for instance is a type of game not requiring good graphics to be addictive and fun. Actually simplicity can be a virtue for some type of games.

>  Most PWR                           Least PWR                               Winner
> 1. GameGear       V.S             GameBoy                               (GameBoy)

IMO Mario and Tetris played an important role, but the Gameboy offered a more acceptable battery-life and was considerably cheaper. 

> 2. MasterSystem  V.S                NES                                     (NES)

IMO Mario won this one!

> 3. Genesis             V.S             SNES                                     (SNES)

Again Mario won! Super Mario World was a great game! 

> 4. N64                    V.S             PlayStation                             (PS)

The N64 took a headstart with Mario64, but apart from Mario64 there weren't many games I actually liked that much... Personally I liked the N64's cartridges better at the time despite the storage short-comings, if only later games came close or go beyond the excellence of Mario64...

> 5.GCN,DC,X-box V.S                 PS2                                     ( PS2)

I think it can be debated which platform was weaker, as each platform had their strengths and weaknesses.I think mainly the games which sold well for the PS moved to the PS2 and the PS2 was backwards compatible, so users moved there as well. 

> 6. NDS                  V.S                 PSP                                     (DS)

Nintendo dominated the handheld console market since the release of the original Gameboy, by targeting a more higher-end consumer which likes PS2-style games in a handheld console and may also be interested in media uses Sony is doing better than any other of Nintendo's prior competitors. I think if they didn't distinguish their product from Nintendo's offerings they probably would have done much worse. I and my girlfriend own a Nintendo DS. Why? We love Mario and the DS's touchscreen functionality for other games, but maybe if in the future if I can access content stored on my PS3 through a PSP, I may buy one of those as well.

 Doesn't seem to be affecting Wii sales, graphics are more important to the hardcore gamers, not so much to the general public

Graphics can have an impact.  One famous example is Myst.  Not much of a game, but a huge seller for the PC.  On the other hand, you don't need 1080p to play Tetris.  So sometimes good graphics sell a game, other times good game play sells it.  All the rest of the time, it's good marketing of a bad game. 

At one time, the graphics power of a system was a major limiting factor of what games could be made.  But after the last generation, it's much less of an issue.  Sure, there are going to be some games that will not be possible on the Wii due to it's lack of power. And vice versa for the other two not having the unique interface of the Wii.  And I'm not talking about HD or number of polygons.  I'm talking game types/modes/features.  A first person shooting game is a first person shooting game.  480p or 1080p doesn't make much of a difference for many.  But if one controls better or the other offers realistic physics that matter, those could be the factors that count.  At this point, however, developers are still grappling with just getting their games out the door.  So it's unlikely that we'll see much innovation before the end of the year.

We could argue all the merits for an against prettier graphics until the end of time.  (And at this rate, we probably will.)  But at the heart of it all is good games.  All the systems will have them.  May the best one win.

 Your list is false.

3.  According to Wikipedia, the Genesis was technically better, but if you look at reviews from the early 90s you'll see a lot of multi-platform games got higher ratings on the SNES, many citing graphical superiority.  Also, if you want to really be a jerk the Jaguar was technically superior to both.

 4.  The N64 had too many limitations to say it was more powerful.  Graphically, it was capable of more in a single frame but less could be in the frame (memory problem) and less could be in the game in total because it was limited by the space on the cartridge.  That's why I became a Sony fan after favoring Nintendo before, and why Square jumped their ship.  Square said Final Fantasy 7 was not possible on the N64.  It took 3 discs on PS1 and would have needed 9 cartridges (correct me if I'm wrong, going by Wikipedia) to have the entire game.  That doesn't include data you need on multiple discs/cartridges either.

5.  Xbox shipped years later, but ok, it and gamecube were more powerful.  The dreamcast was not, it was slower.  Also, the dreamcast held 1.2 GB, gamecube 1.5GB, and the PS2 4.7GB.  Space allows graphics to be increased.  

Also, many of these were similar in price when released.  The PSP, PS3, 3DO, and others cost more.  Even PC video cards that are graphically superior to current consoles can cost more than a console.  Like other have pointed out, cost is an issue.

When it comes to selling games on a console, of course the graphics matter.  You think zelda and mario would sell as well as it does now if it looked the same as it did in 1990?  I don't think it would.  Graphics matter, it's just not the #1 determination of which console survives.  However, you list is wrong anyway, the lesser console has not won every time. 

To be honest i still find nes and genesis games more fun then i do MOST new games simply because there is way to many check points and save points and when you die it reloads you at a check point instead of the start of a mission and conveneintly with ALL your weapons and stuff.

Am i the only one who find that annoying? That kids these days don't have challenging enough games and it takes them litrally a few hours to finish.

Somone above mentioned how load times are long on ps2 well guess what check out ps3 they about twice as long.  

One thing that i like with nintendo games since we steped into 3D is the way they make their load times so minimal and seemless. Just look at zelda TP (granted the game isn't visually that great or the game ain't hard as oldskool games) but the transition between areas is amazing which makes it a constantly flowing game and fun to play.

 All 3rd part developers should strive for such performance. Example of a game that pissed me off was red steel with its load times and stupid annoying check point. Does the game have to stop to make a damn check point especially in the middle of say someone shooting at you and your trying to move out of the way. I am sure you can make check points without having to freeze the game to do so.

Another game is on my PSP raw v smackdown 5 fricken minutes to load all te crappy logos and shit before you can even like select players. So bloody annoying.

 To answer the question I do think graphics sell the game initially but if the game sucks gameplay wise people will stop playing it anyway.

Mario can be beaten in less than 10 minutes if you are good enough. That's why it doesn't have save points. Games are longer now and more involved. No one wants to collect everything again in an RPG just because they die. But, I suppose you liked the new Ghosts and Goblins, or was it Ghouls...whatever that new one was. Memorize level after level to finish! Oh, to play Contra again...ugh.

Load times are much better for the PS3. In fact, Motorstorm and Elder Scrolls would have much better load times if they used the hard drive. Ridge Racer certainly loaded faster because it installed data to the hard drive, and Ninja Scrolls will load much faster because it will have an option to install most of the game. Elder Scrolls loads faster than GTA games on the PS2, also.

PSP games load much faster from the memory card.

I agree with you about graphics and gameplay.

I wonder if forgetting the wii for a second. Whether graphics will in any way affect the PS3 V.S 360 battle.

The two consoles are competing directly based on almost soully graphical  power. Microsoft has only been in the race for a few years and its first party titles don't have the huge user bases GranTurismo has. However Microsoft and Sony have been brought almost to a level playing field (Japan excluded). Just look for a second at the consoles power Microsoft and Sony have pretty much neck in neck strength!

According to developers in magazines and newspapers such as EACanada have stated in the past that the PS3 is so powerfull making games that can utalize all of its power is nearly impossible with current technology. Other companies like Konami I believe have also stated Blu-Ray disks store so much memory they would have to do tons of extra work just to fill it. From what I've gathered 360 can handle the best games that can be made albiet the memory of the Blu-Ray disk opposed to that of HD-DVD.

 Right now Sony is showing off the PS3 by making games designed for 1080p HD resolution, that may look better then many of the X-360 titles but Microsoft could easily match that right now. I don't think we will see PS3 games surpass the 360's capabilities for a few years. As Sony said this console was built for two generations a life span of ten years.  So far advanced that developers can't really develope games that utalize its capabilities infactit'll be years before developers have reached the limits of 360!

 So how will graphics affect them, at the moment PS3 sales aren't too much better then 360 sales 6-month in! (Are they?)