Anecdotally, it seems as though pushing technology is more interesting when you're young.  Graphics weren't everything when I was young, but I gave them an unreasonable weight when considering games.

The game should look good, obviously, but it doesn't have to push the envelope.  If the art is good and the graphical style is pleasing and consistent, I'm usually going to be satisfied.  Zelda: TP was a good example of a game that I thought had very pleasing graphics.  I enjoyed that game a hell of a lot more than Gears, anyhow (about 65 hours to 6, and I wanted Zelda to be longer, not Gears).

 I thought the new Zelda game was supposed to be the best looking?

"Graphics" is a rather vague term to compare. Graphics do matter, but the matter more for some kinds of games then others. For FPS's especially, better graphics definitely improve the experience. Actually, any game that's striving for a realistic look (and that includes Zelda: TP) is generally more enjoyable with more polygons.

Games that aren't striving for photorealism can look great with a deliberately simple style, such as Zelda: Wind Waker or MySims or Sly: 2

Graphics DO matter.

Would you buy a brand new game that looks like it's from the PS1 & N64 era? With that said, I don't think it's as big as people make it. Wii graphics are fine, 360 and PS3 graphics are much much much much better. All in all most Wii owners are fine with what they got and 360/PS3 owner are happy. Like somebody said earlier in the thread, "could you imagine Zelda done on something with the power of 360 or PS3 it would be great" (I paraphrased it) but at the same time it was great on the Wii.

Edit: Oh yeah I'm 21 from the US

I think for some types of games good graphics (and audio and game complexity) are more important than for others. In more realistic games for example meant to be scary, I think relatively plain polygons, weaker lighting, etc is less effective. For cartoony games like Mario64, Zelda, Ape Escape graphics horsepower seems of less importance to me, I wouldn't say it's completely irrelevant though (i.e. R&C PS2 vs R&C PS3). Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, Pluto, Simpsons, South Park aren't detailed. It depends on the art direction developers take, for example modern animations are more detailed and use better lighting such as Dinosuar, Ice Age and Monsterhouse.

FWIW, I bought GT3 at launch because it looked pretty and had a decent enough soundtrack and all of that. I did not buy GT4, not because I already owned GT3, but rather because after owning GT3, I'd found out the series had terrible AI, poor collision detection, and no rendered vehicle damage. The physics which define the differences between one car and another are very cool, but the physics within the race itself, given that a car can't flip or roll, are plainly absurd. I thought the whole thing was a load of crap.

I really, really tried to like the game, but I just couldn't get into it because its flaws grossly outshined its strengths. My friends and I tried head-to-head racing too, and the novelty of that lasted about 10 or 15 minutes, so we shut it off and played Mario Kart 64 instead.

Graphics only get you so far.

Tetris

You can't get much less of a graphically intense game than that. Yet, the fun factor has caused Tetris to be ranked as the #1 best game of all time as recently as 2006.

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/games.htm

You can see it consistently appears in poll after poll after poll, spanning generations. I find it hard to believe, but I do remember it being pretty popular during a generation in which graphics weren't all that shabby...

Somewhat yes I believe.

My first exposure to videogaming was Pac-Man in the arcades in 1980 at the age of 4. Donkey Kong/Donkey Kong Jr./Donkey Kong 3, Centipede/Millipede, Asteroids, Defender, Dig Dug I & II, Ms. Pac-Man/Super Pac-Man/Baby Pac-Man/Jr. Pac-Man, Robotron 2084, Zaxxon, Galaga, original Mario Bros. (not Super), Popeye, Frogger I & II, Q*Bert, Burgertime, Pole Position I & II that's the stuff I first came in contact with in my very young impressionable life.

So while I missed the 1st generation of gaming being born in 1976 I got to see a great deal of the 2nd generation and the hot days of the arcades. I remember the Colecovision and Atari VCS or 2600. I remember woodgrained systems with joysticks that broke off very easily if you got too crazy with the controlling. I remember the early Saturday morning cartoons and the Game and Watch tabletops (I still have my Mario's Cement Factory tabletop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario%27s_Cement_Factory from 1984 & my Coleco Pac-Man tabletop from 1985 and they still work-and Pac-Man was true to its name when it came to my batteries let me tell ya). I remember the newness and freshness of videogaming and saw nearly all its developments.

When I got my NES on Christmas 1988 I was appreciative and knew to enjoy what I had. Family was poor and they had put it on layaway for me to get so I made sure to enjoy it to its fullest. I didn't gripe about unnecessary issues I just enjoyed the games for what they were. I was just happy to have a home videogame system in my room! I had lined up my tabletops like arcades for years pretending I was running an arcade having my He-Man toys "play" the system and now that I really had one it was just about the experience. It was so new and so fresh. The Wizard & NES cereal was big news to kids like me back then. The little holographic tips cards. Didn't have cable and wanted to watch Super Mario Bros. Super Show so bad. Captain N & all that. A little later and a little older a friend downstairs got a Genesis and I got to enjoy two different schools of gaming plus the local arcade with Bad Dudes, Double Dragon, original Street Fighter, amongst others. The NES mom & pop rental shops—this one allowing kids to hangout there and play games for free all day and rent at the same time.

More than age plays a factor but I think the time you come into gaming and the phenomena gaming has at the time you entered influences your take on the gaming world. Games looked simplistic back then so the complexity had to come from the art of the game which I still think is the superior philosophy. The old school is the best school because talent REALLY had to shine back then. You couldn't get away with just looks.

By the time PS1 came along photorealistic 3-D images were almost realized. They didn't see the hard struggle of visuals over the 70's & 80's and the newness and freshness of gaming wasn't with them at that time, it was already an established medium by the time they came along.

John Lucas 

That's a very good point naznatips. Excellent observation!

John Lucas 

Hey mates,
I just wanted to let everyone know that I appreciate their honest opinions about this.

I fully realize this is a topic that could easily be used as kindling for a flame war, so I appreciate everyone keeping things decent.