So if you don't believe graphics add gameplay would you like FF7 if all characters were dots and all buildings were squares and rectangles? The gameplay and story are the same, but everything is just shapes with bland coloring? I'm not saying graphics are the most important aspect, but don't kid yourselves.

What about FFVIII where they allowed you to move in some of the FMV sequences? 

Lets say that the player doesn't instantly recognize the box as a piece of the puzzle because of how it looks.  Does that not change the ease of playing the game?  I would think it does.  Graphics are an integral part of gameplay.  It is how we distinguish and recognize what is going on.  If you can't do that reguardless of how good the code is your experience in playing the game is hampered. Admittedly few games suffer from such horrible visuals but I believe both to be integral parts of the way we experience the gameplay. One might go as far as to say gameplay could not exist without graphics(how would you play the game? is it beamed into your brain?)

That would be like saying camera angles and lighting don't have any affect on movies when being able to see and interpret what is going on is crucial.  While a large part of the movie might be acting if you cant tell whats going on(because of bad angles or bad lighting) then you probably wouldn't consider it a good movie reguardless of the good acting(that you probably missed a lot of due to poor lighting and angles).

Arrrrr all console games suck, it's all about the PC!!!111 I have no reasons for this at all, it just is!!!111oneleven.

Not to flame, but unless you provide a logica reasoning your opinion will be thrown away as useless, which it is.

Now you're just being silly. the term VIDEO game means that video is presented, which is graphical, whether it be that 8 bit box or that beautiful rendering of the arc de triumph. I have played games even with good graphics that I didnt recognize the piece as integral to getting to the next stage. I think that a person doesn't recognize the piece of the puzzle, then they need to explore the area and figure out what the next process is to continue on, thus the gameplay element. The gameplay is set for box A to be pushed into square B, regardless if it is 8, 16, 32, 64, or 128 bit in nature.

The problem becomes merely an issue of gaming veteran status. the NES offered great games with graphics that would now be abysmal even by handheld gaming standards, and they had great gameplay. So yes, you can have a solid game without solid graphics.

The argument these days is the shine level. What's the big diff between HD and SD gaming? The shine of the chars. Play Quake 4 on a SD monitor and then an HD one and you'll see exactly what I mean. So, in the current gen, does the shine of HD really drastically improve the gameplay of a game?

Yes, NES had great games and the graphics aren't very good, but they also had many poorly designed games too. If you had to choose between which generation to play in which would you pick? Gameplay isn't just the scenarios you run through in a game, but the entire experience you go through while playing a game. Have you seen the 8-bit remake spoofs of things like Shadow of the Colossus and FFVII? Although they aren't "bad" they lost much of their charm and impact between the two generations. It's not that graphics "always" add to gameplay, but there are plenty of instances where I'd be disappointed if the game hadn't been made on PS2 or PS1 or Xbox 360 ect. Some games and concepts rely completely on the horsepower of the newer consoles to create the experience necessary for the game to be what the devs envisioned.

I have played games from the atari 2600 on. I can't claim to have owned every video game system but I do have quite a bit of experience in playing them.

Super Metroid was a great game for it's time.  However Metroid:Fusion and Zero Mission while having only slightly better graphics are much better games.  Namely because they include things to help the player realize what needs to be accomplished and where.  Maps with highlights of items and necessary rooms. Visual aids(graphics) to the player to keep them on track. 

Nintendo has experienced so much success by making sure that gamers aren't penalized because games aren't accessible(via interface).  I think when used correctly graphics do the same thing.  They don't need to be eyemeltingly gorgeous simply relavent to aiding the player in his goals(the reason I used a game that hadn't graphically evolved much as my example).  Whlie there isn't much of difference in HD and SD gaming I think that's because HD developers aren't thinking about it in those terms and tend to prefer more poly's and partical effects.  It's a shame.

P.S. So how would you play a videogame with no graphics? since they obviously aren't relevant to the gameplay.

Visual cues are different from the graphics that people here or anywhere else talk about. While you are right, they are graphics, when people compare Wii graphics to HD console graphics, they're referring to textures and models, not HUDs, etc which you reference here. So it really depends which aspect of graphics you're talking about - 3D or 2D.

And I answered your question before - a videogame with no graphics is not a videogame. the part of the name, "video" implies graphics, so you're basically asking me how would I paint a tree that doesn't exist.

Gameplay is a series of balances, such as weapon strength, player movement speed, physics implementation, AI, etc. Graphics is the things of 3D and 2D modelers - chracters, weapons, levels, animations, textures. The two elements are necessary to make a videogame, but they are highly independent of each other. The meshing together of a gun model, for example, with the functionality, damage power etc, doesn't come until the very end of the creation of both elements. The gameplay doesn't care what the gun looks like, it could be a box for what it cares, but it knows how fast its going to fire and how much damage it will do. The graphics don't care about any of that, as long as the shape is what it wants to be, has its lighting and textures applied correctly and is running whatever animations it wants.

So at the end of the day, gameplay and graphics exist independently of each other, and only are combined to make the final product- a videogame. How the gameplay staff makes the gameplay work and how nice the modeling team does with the graphics are independent of each other. I'm sure you've played a lot of good looking games that handled and played like crap, and vice versa.

seems like they don't matter i sold the best looking game on the ps3 (metal gear solid 4) to get warhawk an awesome game but with rudimentary graphics and i have to say i get more joy playing warhawk then i use to playing mgs4. Also look at gta4 and gta san andreas, every things looks way better in gta4 but in san andreas you could do so much things that i enjoyed it more then gta4 and i know a lot of people feel the same way.

Your argument only works in the development process. The final product, the videogame, cannot have these things seperated really. Sure the gun can look like a box, but if it's a box wouldn't you wonder why it shoots? Graphics and gameplay go hand in hand because gameplay can't be represented without the graphics and likewise graphics aren't a game until you can play them. Trying to seperated the two is a little foolish when they rely on each other so heavily.

Next time u look look at a screenshot and see those pretty blue eyes or that massive fire breathing dragon in the background tell me that graphics dont matter. graphics used to be a limiting factor in game design. Now that developers have the power to create whatever they want....a good thing? i think so.