I am 17 years old and play videogames since NES, and I do not draw attention to the graphics, I like to play more a NES or SNES game than a Xbox360 or PS3.

So true...

Time and money are a finite resource.

The more money and time spent on graphics and "realism", the less is spent on the mechanics, story, gameplay.

Why are you always bashing the most anticipated Crying in the Kitchen simulator ever developed?

That game is gonna rock, yo. 

OT: I'm still impressed by graphics, though it's not the be-all, end-all of games for me. I still like pretty games but can have just as much fun with a visually inferior game with a great story and/or gameplay. Graphics should only supplement great play, not replace it. I would rather watch a movie over a visually stunning game that bores the shit out of me.

You should have read sqrl's post though. A game can have good graphics without focusing on them. Examples: Left 4 Dead, Super Mario Galaxy, Half-Life 2 (and episodes) etc.

Good graphics and great graphics aren't the same. IMO the worst offender to the "graphics make the game" curse this year was Bioshock, which butchered their storyline and cut the game short with some relatively poor gameplay mechanics for great graphics.

Call of Duty 4 is an offender too, and although I love the game (god knows I've devoted dozens of hours to it online) the single-player is criminally short, clearly due to too much focus on the technical aspects of the game.  Heavenly Sword is another example.  A 6 hour single-player only game should be butchered by reviewers and gamers alike.  That's just ridiculous.

I'm always impressed when there's a game that surprises you by how good looking it is compared to other games in it's genre in the past.

What I do find annoying though is that I remember during the SNES days seeing many Nintendo fans putting down the Genesis because of it's graphics and now with the Wii suddenly some are trying to convince everyone that "graphics don't really matter". Bull... And it's not just graphics that the more powerful machines have, it's the ability to have better AI and Physics as well as better graphics.

I have no doubts that if the Wii was as powerful as the 360 and PS3 that some of it's fans would be posting comparison pictures, gushing over graphics, etc, just like people do on other systems.

Yes, I love the AI and Physics argument.  We get that one a lot.  Show me a major AI leap made this generation.  Show me a time this generation that better physics has made a game better.

See, Crysis had incredible graphics (far superior to the consoles) and Physics, but I still think it's a shitty game.  IMO great graphics are causing a lot of people to lower their standards for the rest of the game structure, and people are getting away with some really bare bones crap on high graphics.

 Yeah but SNES and Genesis were damn near identical in games and hardware.  That's like 360 vs. PS3.

The Wii is clearly different...there's only been 7 generations of game systems, not everything can be defined using the previous generations.

I have never considered graphics important. Wii level graphics are fine, anything is else is just extravagant and indulgent imho.

Graphics can make or break games, look at games with bad graphics to games with good graphics and the ones with bad graphics are not even playable. Gears was the first true next gen game and its sales and ratings show that. If the game had halo2 graphics you think anyone would of bought it.