How many orgasms have you had with your PS3 to-date?

I guess by that train of logic my favorite comparison - Tetris, must have sold miserably. But you know and I know that Tetris, despite having about the simplest of graphics (and certainly not at all orgasm-inducing unless you love fugly), sold this many games:

http://vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php?name=tetris&console=&publisher=&sort=Total

Let's see what Gears of War, or Lair, for that matter, will be able to sell in their lifetimes!

lol its freaking funny seeing wii owners try so desperetly to diminish the importance of graphics.

...not nearly as funny as seeing PS3 owners trying so desperately to suggest graphics trump gameplay!

Take a long, hard look at the following:

http://vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php?name=&console=&publisher=&sort=Total

Tell me out of that ginormous list, which games can you identify that could be considered graphical powerhouses for their time, with graphics as the main drawing card trumping over gameplay?

I see Final Fantasy VII (and that's due mainly to cut-scenes, not to actual in-game graphics) as the first candidate, all the way down at 22nd overall.

Every single game above that was hailed for its fantastic and oftentimes groundbreaking gameplay. Nothing to do with graphics at all, unless you consider Pokemon and Mario to have had awesome, mindblowing graphics for its time (which they didn't).

The results of this chart flies directly at your face, especially when I reread your quote:

"Yes they care, they care alot. Its in our nature to care about the looks of things."

Again, true, people care, but not enough to sacrifice gameplay over graphics. Not for games. For movies perhaps. But not for games.

I do enjoy nice cg effects (given that it is in that field which i would like to persue a career) and so forth, but i don't really care about them when playing a game, because i really just don't notice graphics all that much when i'm engrossed in a game.. Some of the flashier cutscenes in certain games with nice cg look remarkable, but that is nothing i can't find on the internet (for example, from gametrailers.com etc).... all in all, i usually just like to leave my PC to produce the good graphics and leave my consoles for good gaming

note the word "game" in gameplay. if you play the game for graphics and not gameplay, shouldn't that be called... graphicsplay (or simply called it movie :))

edit: graphics is additional spice for gameplay, not other way around. 

From my point of view, next generation graphics can and cannot be everything to what gaming should be. For instance, six years ago when I use to do alot of pc gaming, my reasoning for greater graphics was not for how realistic objects looked like. Instead my reasoning for greater graphics was because I wanted more fps and better movement for better gameplay. However, there haves to be a point where graphics peak, and gaming alone cannot rely on just its graphics. Especially since the purpose of creating gaming consoles is to have fun and/or be competative. Personally I think the quality of graphics is almost at its peak where developers of gaming consoles have to be more creative, and add another dimension to gameplay.

Side Note:

    The xbox360 and PS3 maybe very powerful machines, but I see no creativity and very little difference compaired to its previous gen. Personally, I rather build my own computer with incredible graphics, sound, processing power, and etc... than to buy a PS3 and xbox360. As for the blueray/hd-dvd I rather buy a professional blueray/hd-dvd theatre system than messing with a mediocre gaming system.

settle down blue. graphics arent everything..your premature mind wouldnt understand.

your just a material girl living in a material world

Hehee, here in Finland same thing is gonna happen in less than ½ year. 31.8.2007 to be exact.

In cable-home's they are gonna extend the date, but still...

graphics are important in that bad graphics will detract from the feeling of the game. For instance, Wii Sports was (to me) detracted from by its poor graphics. However, great graphics doesn't mean photorealism. For example, Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, Super Paper Mario are games where the graphics are outstanding, despite the fact that they run on GC/Wii and don't have HD photo-realistic graphics. Red Steel, as a counterpoint, while pushing the Wii to its limit, still managed to not look good. Graphics are important, but I'll take artistic style over photo realism any day.

I think people are mistaking artistic style with graphics quality.  You could take the same graphic artist and have him apply the same artistic style to a game on the PS3, 360, and the Wii and the game would very likely look significantly better on the PS3 and 360 even though the same artistic style was used on all three.

Also good graphics can help enhance the appeal of a game whatever it's gameplay.  For example Spider-Man on the Wii had horrible graphics which turned off a lot of people even though the gameplay was relatively decent (from what the reviews said).  Had the same game been given much better graphics chances are people would have enjoyed it a lot more.  So what I'm trying to say is that good graphics are like good icing on a cake, if the cake itself is bad then chances are that the icing won't help but if the cake itself is good then the icing serves to make the cake even more enjoyable.