As for me, I think even for a great game, a certain quality to the graphic is required. It maybe just me but I can't stand playing some NES games even though back then they were very popular. (FF1) To a certain extent, graphic does add gameplay but only to a certain extent. (I believe the sentences in this paragraph have been repeated a lot of time already but what ever). Well, actually, this is kind of off topic.

As for the age matter, I can't really agree or disagree. Yes, I do think it does do something but in another way, I also think it depends on one's expectation. (Mine is low so graphic from SNES generation is enough for me to be happy, with great gameplay though) I'm not going to deny the fact that I prefer better graphic however, and it's one of the most important things in choosing the game. (You look at the cover first afterall) 

I think age plays a certain factor, but not nearly as important as insecurity. Hear me out on this: Gaming, even back when the PSone made it mainstream, has always been seen as a "nerdy" hobby. I think the people who feel the social affects of this (or are worried it will affect their social lives) tend to care more about having something "cool" to show off that it's not such a nerdy thing. Big pretty pictures are something that any outside force can look at and say "ooh that looks great." Then the gamer can validate his purchase and his decision through the impression he can make.

I think this also is the reason high school kids all refuse to play anything without unrealistic gore and violence. It's more defensible to the "popular" crowd. So yeah, I'd say that the graphics matter the most to the socially insecure. This often overlaps with the age argument though, because who is more socially insecure than 13-25 year old boys? Adults never have this issue, and don't feel the need to defend their actions or justify them with social norms, therefore you rarely see an adult afraid to pick up and play a Viva Pinata or a Pokemon game, but you would never get a high school kid to do so. Graphics are just part of the desire for social acceptance of gaming as a hobby.

Regarding ages I think younghters can enjoy Mario Bros, Tetris and many other classics as much as older people can.

However once you've played better versions, for instance after playing Super Mario World the original Super Mario Bros feels a lot less special. IMO this goes for gamers of all ages, however for those who've grown up with certain games they may have fond memories of, people may experience additional nostalgic feelings replaying their oldtime favourites. The same goes with regard to movies and other things, they may also better suit what people have grown to like. For instance I like many music from the 80s, while I don't really like many of the new songs my kid sister likes to listen to.

Younger kids can vividly enjoy themselves playing on their parent's Amigas, Snes, c64, etc. But often around puberty they want to fit in with more mature people or at least they pick games what they think is mature gaming. For instance, Gears does not have the wow factor for me. For me such a game requires more depth (no "Boom Boom", like those stupid Boomers say or ultra macho shallow comments from the 'heros' making the game a lot less realistic and appealing for me), a well done story line, etc. IMO Gears' design is mostly geared towards adolescents.

Gears IMO is a bit like what A-team was in the past.

I agree, read what I posted above.  I think this sort of game is appealing to the adolescent males looking for that sort of social acceptance.  The adult and child gamers though tend to just gravitate towards whatever they enjoy.

@ tiachopvutru

While you make fair points (and again, like you I disagree with the hypothesis) you must remember that a sample size of you and some friends has no statistical validity (though it does add to the increasing pile of annecdotal evidence).

For the record, I would think that graphics matter. I mean, it makes sense that people are superficial and therefore prefer better-looking games, right?

Wrong. Gaming history has shown us far too many console wars where the graphically inferior console wins EVERY SINGLE TIME.

PS1 vs. N64
PS2 vs. GC and Xbox
Gameboy vs. Gamegear
DS vs. PSP

It doesn't honestly make sense to me, either.

But history has SHOWN, time and time again, that customers just don't value graphics enough to allow it to affect their decision-making when it comes to console purchases.

Graphics does matter. Usually good epic games have both graphics and gameplay. However graphics does not matter so much that a crappy game is played only for its good looks (FF VIII contradicts all this, I know). I do not see things as a trade-off between graphics and gameplay. RE4, Zelda, Onimusha, Half Life 2 TP have both.

If I was faced with a "chose-only-one" option, gameplay would be the winner. All the above examples are that great for their gaming experiences and not eye candy.

Regarding graphics I think they can only enhance the game experience to a certain degree. Like someone said in a previous post, a pretty game gets old fast without good gameplay. Example: You may add dozens of details in a game like GTA, detailed T-shirts for passerbys, glass and water reflecting things, fingernails, beards and moustaches made of individual hair polygons, nose hair, thousands of random lines for NPCs to say, still that would not improve the game the same way GTA 3 improved GTA 2. Resident Evil 4 is not that much good loking than RE 0 or RE remake, but the gameplay experience make them look as games from different developers.

after playing the wii all weekend long for the 1st time ever...graphics do not matter at all...with that being said... graphics do matter..lol