Last gen I would have said no, but now I say yes. Playing CoD4 with a large HDTV gave me a level of immersion I never had thought possible. On the other hand, although fun, I find my Wii somewhat lacking partially due to the graphics. IMO with this console generation HDTV is a bigger "game changer" than the Wii remote. I suspect next gen systems (and developers) will really improve upon the motion controllers, and make it invaluable.

The transition from SNES era to N64 era graphics certainly opened up alot of new gameplay options

false. UT2004 (with engine from 2003) is still the best multiplayer game out there with only TF2 being able to approach it in some areas, but overall it falls short. I'll also take FEAR, with its bland evironments, but the best AI, over almost any single-player shooter as well (Though FEAR did have amazing firefights just because of special effects, they added nothing).

OT: No I don't believe graphics make a gameplay at all. But more advanced mechanics (AI,physics, etc.) usually do. If you gave me a game that looked like Quake II or DOOM but with all the elements from say, UT2004, that'd game would still be better than just about anything on the market.

When playing a game like doom3 on PC in the dark and theres a sense of realism and a hightened sense of fear do graphics matter???? lets just stick with pong then.

Or how about F.E.A.R. very creepy and the it pushed the envlope for graphics when it was released.

Still gameplay is what genre of games a person likes best and why they like it.
some genres horror and shooters racers gran turismo forza are more compelling as they get closer and closer to reality.

would anybody want realism out of Mario???? or Mario cart????

No and no one expects it either. does that make realism in gaming bad or lack of realism bad?????

Not at all because what works for Ninty fan might not work for Sony or MS fan and vice versa.

Personally I love Cod4 in 1080p on a 5.1 dolby digital sound system. the gameplay is great, Crysis on my new 5600 amd 9800 gtx is amazing too.

Yes crysis has amazing graphics still the bouncer on PS2 looked great with its 2 hour campaign and 4 player no stradegy hack and slash fight system. so beauty did not make the game graphics and game play togeher is what is really needed.

because there are some beautiful games that suck out there.

Absolutely... people just don't understand when they play a game done very well that the graphics absolutely add to the gameplay. Games like Grandia 1 would never have held our hearts on a 16 bit system...why? Because it used a unique combat system that couldn't have been done on the previous gen not to mention the bumping into stuff and all the other tiny little things that added to gameplay. FMVs in Final Fantasy also added to gameplay by telling a more easy to follow story. It's easier to feel awe and fear of Sephiroth even though he was a little pansy next to Kefka.

Those two have nothing to do with each other. Having both involved in a game is a delicate process. On the PS2 it was more about gameplay rather than the Xbox which focused on power hungry graphics.

However games like Riddick couldn't be done on the PS2 without significantly changing the game and Chaos Theory was a much better game because the Xbox allowed it to be much grander than the PS2 version.

Graphics allow you to discern what is going on which makes it integral to gameplay. We are talking about VIDEOgames here.

not to mention it's easier to empethize with something that looks human than a bunch of sprites...

Not really. Maybe better graphics can add a certain level of immersion or realism, but I think that's as much as they do.
However, I think we do like to watch something that is nice to look at. A well designed game that isn't muddy or jaggy is pleasing to the eye, but a game that has these problems can spoil the experience.