I don't want to jump in the argument but I here are my 2 pennies anyways. Let's put it like this, even if the graphics and everything in BioShock was just compromised of boxes, it would still be 10 times the game Crysis is. There's no real dependence on graphics at all. They simply don't affect the gameplay outside of several games, and a genre (horror has to have decent shadows).  Sure BioShock is absolutely stunning in trems of graphics and everything, but if it played like Crysis it would still be considered as a mediocre game, not a great game. Yet if it was pulled off with Quake II graphics but retained its gameplay, it would still be one of the best games out there.

Anyone who says graphics does not matter is lying (at worst, or does not know anything at best). The argument is in how much graphics matter.

First, some historical context. Some of the first commercials comparing systems were about graphics. The graphically superior Intellivision allowed nine baseball players vs. five in the Atari 2600. The Intellivision allowed a football field that looked like a football field rather than a blinking square found on the Atari 2600.

However, while both of these would be considered crude by today's standards, the Intellivision's graphics are good enough to still be played while no one would want to play some of the original Atari 2600 sports titles.

The same thing happened with the transition to 3D close to a decade-and-a-half later. Some titles just have not stood the test of time. Poor graphics make them all but unplayable today.

So the first thing about graphics is that they have to be clear to stand the test of time, not cute to get the job done for today. (Cute refers to their construction methods more than their appearance).

However, graphics cannot over power game play. If people would rather look at something than interact with it, you have a movie rather than a game. Thus, graphics should serve as a means to an end rather than an end to themselves. For example, people can get caught up in being able to read roadsigns (that they don't follow) in the latest racing games. This makes you want to look but does not really enhance the experience of playing.

So the other thing about graphics is that they should complement the game play, not detract (or derail) it.

It is a fine line. But I would rather play something good than something that looks nice -- though having both would be best.

Mike from Morgantown

Who does not believe in eye candy for its own sake, at least with his games.

Are you serious? The atmosphere and feeling that Rapture gives off made that game! You just lost all credibility.

Miyamoto spit in your face. Wii sports? Graphics = gameplay = bullshit

I don't know about you, but I was spending most of my time electrecuting/flaming/siccing bees/ shooting, than looking at the water effects. Yeah it looks good, but the gameplay was absolutely great. It was just like System Shock 2, absolutely perfect. System Shock 2 has a very identical gameplay and general layout as BioShock and it was released '99 and it's better than any Halo, Gears, Crysis, and from the looks of it than any of the "HUGE" shooter titles that are coming in soon (maybe with the exception for L4D but that remains to be seen). I'd even rate SS2 better than BioShock since SS2 was the original and BioShock wass just the spiritual successor.

You guys are losing sight of the question in the OP - Do graphics add gameplay.
Yes, Graphics matter
Yes, Gameplay matters

Yet they are two different entities which, when combined, make a videogame.
How well each area does its job makes or breaks a game

@Xerox - Lets take it back a step - Combat on Atari 2600. For reference -
http://www.consoleclassix.com/info_img/Combat_2600_ScreenShot1.gif

Do they look like Abrams tanks with full out specs, turrets, etc? No. Do they shoot. Yes. Did people question why the thing that looks like a Greek lettering from a fraternity is shooting bullets? No. Was the game fun? Yes.

I rest my case.

The argument isn't graphics = gameplay. The argument is gameplay + graphics = better gameplay. I believe this to be true in most cases.

EDIT: @bardicverse and vlad321: I completely agree good gameplay can overcome bad graphics, but I think using old games is a bad example. If the devs had the resources to make those games with the tech we have now would they still look like NES/Atari games? By today's standards with today's tech I believe that graphics most definitely add to gameplay. Back in the day they did the best they could with what they had to work with. These are very different times now. Same goes to System Shock Vlad. Would System Shock look like it does if they could have made it look like Bioshock?

Miyamoto still spit in your face. Ok, well graphics, which i take to mean anything on screen at all, do inform on game play but not if it isn't used correctly.

Good is more detail, movement and variety on screen purely because of processing and graphical capacity. Bad is any one of these missing despite the grunt of the engine.

Turn off your TV and try to play a game, it's crucial!

Far more so than audio.

If we talk about good and bad graphics, good graphics (for example Mario Galaxy, Kameo, Ratchet & Clank: Tools of Destruction) helps making a game far more appealing to most, just like a movie with good costumes, scenery and special effects makes it far more appealing to watch for most people.

Some games are more in need of good graphics from a technical perspective, a horror, thriller or realistic movie/game is normally more in need of good lighting, convincing special effects, etc to feel convincing and would not be effective with cute cartoon-like graphics (which are usually less demanding).

But if you want to talk about technicals, there's so much more to this than just good graphics. Technical abilities regard many different aspects of a game beyond just pretty visuals, it regards game complexity in general. Better AI, (hyper)realistic physics, more content variety, more action possible on screen, etc, etc. Basically fewer technical constraints allow for more creative freedom for developers, still you need suitably competent developers. Some top developers (like Nintendo devs) are able to create more with less compared to less competent developers.

I think you're just getting the terminology confused. Good graphics will draw you into a game more, make the world more believable, realistic, etc. But gameplay is the functionality of the game, the balance of damage, how your health bar is determined, etc. What I'm saying is that graphics do not affect gameplay. The graphics don't change the stats of the gameplay. In fact, it works quite opposite. let me explain -

In a FPS game, when the health goes to zero, a function of gameplay, it sends out a function to play an animation, graphics, of the character dying. That animation will never tell the gameplay that the character is dead. Graphics are an output onto a screen. The gameplay tells the graphics to output. In other words, for the L337, graphics are gameplay's bitch. =) Thus, graphics do not affect or enhance gameplay. Graphics do enhance your visual impression and overall enjoyment of the game. But they do not do anything to the element known as gameplay.