That's a good analogy.  They can enjoy whatever they want out of hiking or games, but if they ONLY wanted the view, they'd look at some photos or a film, so I think the people who are the biggest graphics fanatics are being hypocritical when they knock some of the funnest games ever because they don't look good enough.  The graphics are part of a whole, and while they may be your favorite part, they absolutely have to be complimenting the part of the experience you enjoy.  I only dislike graphics when they get in the way and make it unplayable, and I'd only dislike a hike if it was somehow so ugly it wasn't worth it anymore.

Now if 2 games were exactly the same in every single way except for the graphics, I'd prefer the one with better graphics (like say, Okami PS2 vs. Okami Wii), but not every time.  I'd still rather play SMB1, 2, or 3 on a NES than play Super Mario All-Stars.  But if 2 games are completely different and I can only pick one of them, graphics will have absolutely nothing to do with my decision.

I'm one of the "games as high art" type of nerds, and I could care less about counting pixels or colors or particles or whatever.  It's either beautiful to me or it's not.  I'm just more of an elitist asshole when it comes to games because I can pay $10 to go to a museum and see dozens or hundreds of art pieces, but each game will cost me $30 to $50, so I have to really pick and choose which ones are fun enough carefully.

Oh, and @Legend11's Nintendo fan stereotyping... I make the graphics argument for the 4th generation, but I don't for the 6th generation. By the time the Cube came out, I stopped caring about graphics entirely. I didn't even have a Cube. I played StarCraft for that whole generation. I almost majored in StarCraft, actually.

I understand what you're saying, but don't you think you're ignoring just one little detail? Do you honestly think that people would be having such a positive reaction to Wii if Nintendo had only released a slightly more powerful GameCube?  It would have probably sold 10 million lifetime and been their last console. They are showing us that new ways to play are just as or more important than good graphics.

Don't get me wrong, great graphics can greatly enhance the experience (read my Gears of War post), but yours and Legend's jab at Nintendo fans is quite naive.

I'm having trouble remembering my history of getting impressed with graphics. I've always been a very low budget gamer, as a kid playing what I could get my parents to buy me (or pirate/borrow from friends), and more recently getting used stuff as cheap as I can.

The point of this is that I've absolutely never been on the cutting edge of visual technology. Even though I own a current gen console, it's no secret that impressive visuals on the Wii are going to achieved by imagination, not horsepower.

The leap in graphics every time I got a new computer (1996ish, 2000, 2004, later this year hopefully) was huge, but by then I had been seeing the awesome new graphics on TV and in magazines for years. I had the occasional "wow-experience" after getting back into consoles on my Gamecube, quite a few more on my Xbox, and even a few on my PS2, but they were never enough to make me play through a game I didn't like (never got into Starfox Adventure, Chronicles of Riddick, or Final Fantasy 12..).

Wait, what was the point here again? Oh yeah umm... looks to me like we still get impressed with graphics, heck the HD consoles have impressed me plenty already, but we definitely get disillusioned a lot faster if the game turns out to be shit with a sugar coating. I for one have far too large a backlog of quality games waiting for me (still haven't finished Galaxy or Zack&Wiki...) to waste time on a game that's strongest point is the graphics.

Personally, I think this is generally true because of how age changes how you see time and technological advancement ... In other words age gives you perspective

A 15 year old gamer (as an example) likely only has ever really played videogames for the N64/Playstation and Dreamcast/PS2/Gamecube/XBox generations; this means that the N64 and Playstation are seen as ancient technology and the XBox 360 or PS3 are huge advancements over everything that has come before. On top of all of this a (5 year) generation seems like a very long time which impacts how old the Dreamcast, PS2, Gamecube and XBox seem ...

In contrast a 30 year old gamer may have played through the Atari/Intelivision/Colecovision, NES, SNES/Genesis, N64/Playstation, and Dreamcast/PS2/Gamecube/XBox generations and when he/she looks at how far the Dreamcast/PS2/GAmecube/XBox is to the Atari they started with the previous generation consoles still look very good.

30 year old gamer here. Graphics do not impress me as they once did. I do still enjoy from a technical standpoint but felt much more in awe of past games than those of today.

Crysis vs Chrono Trigger for example. My jaw dropped dozens of times when I played CT but only a few times at Crysis.

I think when the jump from 2d to 3d happened there was more wow factor.

Thing is now some developers dont just use the power for graphics. E.G. Forza 2 Physics engine updates 300 times a sec for over 2000 Physics points at once! thats alot of cpu usage.

 Ah I see. I agree completely. I'd like to think most of those who like certain games solely becuase of graphics are kids. Sadly, that isn't the case. And yes, they are typically very hypocritical when knocking great games with less than stellar graphics. I've had a few people laugh at me for suggesting Disgaea as a great purchase.

I can apreciate your argument about games as art, and I agree with you. This may seem irrelevant at the moment but I'll explain. I'm a teacher who majored in both Math and Geography in university. I then went on to do an Education degree, where I focused on the philosophy and nature of teaching both subjects. My interest in particular was integrating Art in both Math and Geography. Geography was fairly easy to include, as many people interpret different landscapes or envionments throught their paintings, words, photos, etc. Math on the other hand was much more difficult to convince others that the two could cross quite nicely. I was a math nerd growing up and absolutely loved doing math problems in my head, playing with a graphic calculator. You really can create some wonderful things by playing with different functions. Many of us as kids express ourselves through cryptography. Obviously, I have a very loose definition of what Art really is, but I include many of these things as Art. We may not all recognize it as Art, but I think it's truely in the eye of the beholder. Anyhow, what I'm getting to, and I apologize for the long explaination, is that I think that graphics can in itself could be considered as art.

Perhaps, I'm reaching. And I know that most who we would call 'graphic whores' may not view this the way that I had just suggested. But I believe that some genuinely believe that graphical achievement is art.

And to be honest, I'm not sure I could offer a valid counter-argument.

Nice sig, by the way. Love 'Young Americans' 

I'm as impressed now as I used to be. I've been gaming since the NES. Oh well, you guys can continue downplaying visual improvements now...

 I was talking about Fanboys (people absolutely loyal to the company under any circumstance).  This generation, Sony fanboys are all about the graphics and Nintendo fanboys are all about the controller.  Not every single person that buys a Wii is a fanboy.  Heck, I recently bought a Wii, and I'm enjoying games like MP3, but I like my 360 and PS3 much better.

Much like there are games that have great graphics and awful gameplay (like Lair), there are quite a few Wii games that just tack on motion controls rather than provide good gameplay.  Just as shiny graphics don't make a game good, motion controls don't automatically make a game good as well.