16,666% exactly.
I divide a game in 3 categories

Audiovisual presentation
Gameplay mechanics
Replay value

Since i give equal relevance to each, and Audiovisual category is formed by 2 sub-categories...just do the math.

Well if taking about buget and time over 90% of time and budgets are usually used on graphics, because it is the most time consuming of the assets. But at times it usually isn't worth the money when make a game that needs over 3 million units to sell just because of the graphic. Though it is hard to create good aseteics (spelling?) that is what they should be concentrating on not how much bloom and how brown they can make a stage.

Another thread that proves that all people read is the terrible misleading title which doesn't reflect what he said at all.

“The better the graphics, the better the physics, the better the sound design, the better the technical assets and production values are – paired with the art direction, making things look spectacular and stylistic is 60 per cent of the game.”

In other words visual and sound design mixed with technical execution (asset/effects quality, physics, framerate etc) and art direction and style make up 60% of a game. Still debatable but a far cry (pun intended) from what the title suggests he said. And lets be honest think of you favourite game of the last 10 years and imagine it without sound, physics or graphics leaving you with just text and maybe some ASCII art if you are lucky, would it really be half the game it is without those elements?

This right here is what really matters. It seems a lot of people think that it has to be either graphics or gameplay. But you really can't have one without the other. The graphics do determine the kind of gameplay you have in a game (as does the sounds and ost).

What irks me is that some people let their love for gameplay mechanics blind them for the importance of graphics. Let's take Braid for example. Gameplay-wise it's a decent puzzle platformer with an interesting mechanic. However the graphics and the way the story is presented is what makes the game stand out from the crowd.

A modern video game is something very complex. Simplifying it by saying "gameplay is all that matters" or "graphics are all that matters" or "story is all that matters" is insulting to the people that created it. What actually matters is the goal the developers have for their game and how well they achieve it. Everything else is a matter of personal preference.

Fact is, he is wrong. 

Games like Crysis 2 / 3 and killzone 2 / 3 are certainly more focused of graphics than anything else, but look at the sales of these games. No game has sold well based on graphics alone. 

From a commercial and critical standpoint, I don't think graphics even make up 25% of a game.

Yes yes. And was Crysis 3 a better game than 1. Its better technically, but was it a better game?

Better assets, physics, sound etc might make a game more immersive (maybe even better) but if all that fluff gets in the way of making a game decent then whats the point.

i see how graphics are not as important to nintendo fans. but i cant help but to be a graphics whore, its all about the look baby!

it has been said there are only 7 basic story plots and all other stories are based on them.


i think there are only about 7 basic gameplay mechanics and all games are merely different aesthetics of them.

That explains why the Crysis games had such mediocre gameplay.

"paired with the art direction, making things look spectacular and stylistic is 60 per cent of the game.”

Why are people bringing up entirely different genres when he's talking about Crysis?

As far as FPS games go, he's probably right.  The graphics leapt has meant a lot to the genre.  Not just on how it looks, either, but how it plays.  Contrast Borderlands 2 with one of the early FPS games and see what a difference it is, even though you're still just shooting stuff.