Guess I have to spell it out for the special people in here. PotC 1 was awesome since the whole movie was carried by the acting (gameplay equivalent), 2 and 3 got ruined by the effects(graphics)  they threw in to make everything flashy. Graphics have never made a game. Maybe the gameplay of the game requires something more graphically intensive (shadows for example), but I don't see why I should give a damn if the walkway I'm standing on has a shadow in that sunset, or not.

I can only think of the horror type genre that really requires anything special beyond the basics, maybe games like PokeMon Snap or that Safari game for the PS3 (or was it 360?) would benefit too. If we take a shooter, I doubt I'll be standing around and admiring the gorgeous textures on those buildings and rocks and the blades of grass on the ground. If I'm playing and RPG I want an in-depth story with good character development. I don't give a damn if the characters have 10 polygons or 10 billion.

i agree graphics can have no effects at all on gameplay, lots of games had proven that. but it doesnt mean graphical improvements are not important. graphics doesnt improve gameplay but it does IMPROVE UR GAMING EXPERIENCE.
while satisfying ur gaming needs, good visuals and audios will satisfy ur eyes and ears at the same time. thus the gaming experience becomes more complete

Graphics add to the overall atmosphere. Superb graphics are assential in a game this gen. Physics add to the gameplay. You need both

If this argument is for people who think that graphics are the most significant part of any given game then I can see where you are coming from , except no one in this thread argued that graphics made a game.

You argue that graphics ruined Pirates of the caribean ( in your opinion ) but in truth it was likely the use of the graphics in a way which didn't add but subtract from the story that made you believe the films were ruined , in short it's not the graphics itself that ruined Pirates of the Caribean (in your opinion) but the application and priotisation of the graphics over a solid story line and good acting. Using a movie to demonstrate why games don't neccasrily need good graphics is another weakness is your argument .

If you feel that graphics add nothing to your gaming experience then it's likely because your a Wii owner or a PS3/XBOX360 owner who simply can't appreciate the gnificance of good graphics in a game.

I can't be bothered to go too far into this argument because it's likely you won't change your mind regardless of what's said but i'll say it as simply as I can. A key factor in the pleasure we get out of certain games is the level of immersion we experience when playing , whilst i'm playing this particular  game i'm temporarily lost within this computer generated reality and the closer this reality is to the one which I live in the less problem my mind has with accepting it .

After playing games like MGS4 on the PS3 i'm going to struggle getting immersed in a game like MGS1 , it's true that MGS4 looks no where near as detailed a real life however taking a step back as far as MGS1 makes it clear the importance good graphics contributes to believable visuals. You can't recreate believability with Art direction because real life has a fixed and unchaging apearance.

vs

Graphics also dramticaly improve visuals , give you something you admire , you could consider it an art form.

I actualaly do most of my gaming on my PC. You know, I spend a few extra hundred every several years to get my games looking just right, so I'm well invested into graphics. As for immersion, It really doesn't matter how immersed I am in the game, if the game sucks it just outright sucks. No amount of graphics can help that. I've played too many games that looked great and played lass than good for me to believe that graphics can actually add onto the value of a game (look at Crysis). Meanwhile if there's a game with more simpler graphics but deep gameplay, the game generally explodes (look at PopCap Games all together).  As a last note, I only used a movie cause someone tried to use women, which is far weaker.

As for art, you really need to go to some museums before tryng to push off graphics in video games as art, because they don't even come miles close to actual visual art (paintings,statues,etc.). Video games are video games and they should be art in their own medium. You don't see people comparing Mozart to da Vinci do you?

I would argue that many of the Atari 2600's games are more fun to play then Crysis.

Amen.

I don't see how you can possibly say that doesn't affect gameplay.

graphics [can] enhance gameplay, processing power [can] adds gameplay

i'll just say though.. i'd seldom not play an old game with good gameplay because of outdated graphics, ever.. and i'd rather play a lot of N64 games over the new 'shiny' graphic games, such as assassins creed (which sucks btw, don't get it if you haven't already)

They definitely add atmosphere. That definitely enhances the experience. I enjoyed Final Fantasy VII, but I think I would've enjoyed it a lot less if I wasn't constantly saying "Holy shit, that was awesome!" during the cinemas and such. I find it impossible to play now.

Question: Do you consider things like multiple enemies onscreen (ie: Dead Rising) or destructable environments (ie: Red Faction or Mercenaries) graphical enhancements? If so, graphics do add gameplay.