Mjah, one should also consider that graphical updates aren't any more what they used to be. When the came with the Quake engine it was like: ooh,aaah, look at this, oh and that!!! Then the same all over again with the Unreal engine: the wow factor was immense.
Lately carmack introduced his new engine that is dynamic and has a unknown complexity, but the average comment was like: 'doens't that looks like motorstorm? an old game...'. So however this engine is far more complex of what is out there now and what the PS3 will ever be able to do (memory constraints, the current gen was made in a time flash chips were expensive) yet no one has the 'wow' factor.

But that is normal, when you look at some of the first 3D games building were just square blocks, and people were sprites. Then you had some walking boxes that represented humans, then they got hands, fingers, moving fingers... But as you can notice the progress is in the details and details have the ability of virtually dissapearing. After all thats why they are called details.
So i don't think that the age is defining what we think of graphics, it does however affects the preception of the art. But since the general move of the industry towards towards reality one can expect that the art is only defining how your enemy looks in modern games. (however thats mostly brown, and lizzard looking or just a darth vader mock-up)

Games that have an huge art factor always have the same problem, you have people that like it and you have those that dislike it. Unlike realistic games: you just gotta accept reality... Look at games like windwalker, killer7, ...

A last factor i think is important is the learning abilities: when i play NES games i can usually complete them in an afternoon when it took me weeks when i was young. Of course games got more complex and difficult so we are better trained now. (however most popular games only require to trigger some distance weapons, thats probably why oblivion and zelda and the forgotten thief are so popular: direct and close combat)

Then 2 more remarks i had while reading this toppic:
- zelda and gears are two different games, so i don't really see the point comparing them. Its like saying : i like Donnie Darko over pirates of the carribean... pointless don't you think?
- More complex AI and physics seem strange to me, Perfect Dark had the most complex AI ever and i think still has so they are out there but they make the game weird and sometimes unfair. (they have actually made the AI in perfect dark more stupid before release) And physics have unexpected and unfair results, imagine a game over because the level collapses, and mostly it turn the game in a boring puzzle situation.

I'm only 15 (tommorow actually), so I should be stop this arguement (well... I probably wont given that I am not a Wii owner). Personally, I think that graphics are important, but not the defining factor, but it's unlikely that I'll get a game with awful graphics. Essentially, having great graphics can improve a game, and with decent gameplay, it can become a great game.

Let's take Motorstorm as an example. Everytime I see this game, I am in awe of the graphics. It may be severely flawed (why no exhibition race or splitscreen) but the graphics, combined with some good (but not incredible gameplay) makes it a must have for PS3 owners.

If you look at Resistance, it does not look incredible, but it has very good gameplay. However, the graphics are good enough that you don't feel like you're not involved, so the gameplay makes it into a must have title, but that graphics don't take that away.

The other thing about graphics is that many kids do not have large HDTVs to play their games in, most are playing on small tvs in their bedrooms, so graphics is not much of a concern to them.

That is a REALLY BAD WAY too look at it!

I'm 15... (So that puts me right in the middle of your 'group') And i ONLY play on Nintendo consoles... Cause they make the games i like most, period! Graphics are good enough for me on Wii and NGC... Have u ever played TP?! The Details man!... gorgious! Sunset on hyrule plains! Who needs a 360 for graphics... ...  And i still buy good budget Cube games (... Yesterday i bought beyond good and evil for 7.95 Euro's)

But eerhm... Just to conclude this misunderstanding of yours... 6 guys in my class (im in highschool... 4th year) own a Wii... Whereas one has a 360 cause his brother wanted FPS games and NONE has a PS3.... Cause it's too expensive and has way less games on storeshelves! (Btw: Here in Holland PS3 hasn't nearly got ANY shelvespace)

Btw: Yes... I'm from Western Europe... So that makes this post legit.

I didn't mean all teenage boys thought like that, just that graphics seem to be more of an issue within that group than with younger/older/female gamers. 

 Also, teenagers are less likely to be able to afford a PS3 than a wii (unless they can nag their parents enough), so I'm not saying PS3 will be a hit with teens.  I'm just saying they seem to be more likely to be drawn to flashy graphics.

lol... i got one ... with 1080p and hdmi. (34")

StarcraftManiac said: lol... i got one ... with 1080p and hdmi. (34")

 Will be getting one soon (hopefully) at the moment,  I have to settle with playing on a 32" SDTV, but occasionally on my parents 50" HDTV

I wish they'd learn to stop trying to justify something to people with opinions they shouldn't value anyway.

Would people be less interested if Crysis looked like Doom?
Would people be less interested if Gears looked like Cabal or Narco Police?

Improved graphics can add a lot to the gameplay as well, for example with regard to line-of-sight, being able to spot and distinguish enemies or friends in the far away distance.

Often the best games also offer good graphics for their time. Examples God of War series, Mario64, Half-Lfe 2, Civilization series, The Sims, GTA series, etc, etc.

Replay those good old speccy games (ZX spectrum) and ask yourself would you pay modern retail prices for them? Do you like a movie with a good storyline with realistic special effects better than the same movie with bad unrealistic special effects and picture quality?

IMO graphics artists should be given credit for the impressive work they are doing. Modern Zelda games are also good examples of games offering good graphics. I think the main reason for this thread is the XBox 360 and PS3 offer by far more artistic freedom to development teams, a fact Nintendo fans may dislike. Everything in terms of graphics created on the Wii can technically be reproduced on the higher specced systems, only there an option for games developers to go beyond the technical boundaries the Nintendo Wii allows.

Would you pay the same price for two almost identical PCs which you plan to use for playing games, one with a cheap onboard grahpics chip and the other one with a top-notch graphics card which allows you to play the same games with all the bellsl and whistles enabled and peforming well in high definition resolutions?

Or don't you mind it at all having to play your favourite games in lower resolutions with all the extra bells and whistles disabled?