Graphics are an extremely important part of my gaming experience; after all, they are the interface I use to interact with the gaming world. Thus, on the most fundemental level, the graphics must be good enough for me to understand what the game wishes me to do, for me to see what the game wants me to see. However, this basic level isn't enough. If it was, I wouldn't care about the differences between Bionic Commando and Bionic Command: Rearmed; but, I do. Quite a bit, actually. I much prefer the version of the same game with the significantly better graphics.

Really, I always want graphics to be as good as they possibly can be. Of course, this doesn't mean hyper-realism, it simply means the graphics are of a high quality for the genre at hand, and aid my immersion in the game. For some games, that means creating a version of reality that I can feel I'm a part of, and presenting vistas that inspire awe. For other games, it means creating a gaming environment that I can interact with, with clearly marked signposts for me to follow. And for others, it simply means presenting a grid I can puzzle over. That all said, when two games present the same gaming experience, and one has better graphics, I'm happy to say I always prefer the version with the better graphics, unless the better graphics have somehow impacted the gameplay.

So, as the above suggests, it's not graphics that make a game -- it's obviously the game itsel that makes the game -- but the graphics can sure make a good game better. For me, graphics are the buttery icing on a really good cake. Sure, I can enjoy the cake without the icing, but I'm an icing man, and I always prefer my cake to be iced up if I have a choice, just as I think a bare-plaster wall looks better if it's been painted.

Really, in a perfect world, why would I want anything else? If given the option of a great game with great graphics, or a great game with mediocre graphics, I know I will always choose the latter. Sure, if there is no choice, I will accept poor graphics, but it's not my preferred option. I understand that some games can't have perfect graphics because of the system they are presented on, or because of the available resources allocated to developing the game, but that doesn't stop me preferring the best graphics possible.

So, to conclude, quality graphics are not essential for a good game, but they do make a good game better, as long as they are implemented well; to my tastes, at least.

It's like asking, How much do you care about a girl's looks.

the answer is... Of course it's always a factor (an important one to teens).

I dont think graphics are all that important...i still play my NES and PS1 games just as much as my PS3. It comes down to gameplay, a game can have the best graphics in the world but if the gameplay sucks then its pointless

Artistic direction is more important to me. For example, I prefer Bioshock's and Super Mario Galaxy's graphics over Crysis', despite the later having more technology.

Whilst I agree with the point that Pong is a game to be held in high regard for many reasons, I have to disagree that 'Art Style' is more important to good graphics. To me, 'Art Style' is a part of good graphics, as it is all about what the graphics of the game present. For me, a game with an immense atmosphere created by clever use of 'Art Style' is greatly enhanced if that style is presented with great graphics.

It's not a matter of either/or when it comes to graphics and the art direction behind them; the two go hand-in-hand.

Wii/PS2 graphics are enough for me, don't what it to realistic beacuse then I could just go outside.

I dont mind any type of graphics, but graphic glitches(pop in, missing textures, framerate drops) annoy me.

As long as a game is fun to play then i do not care what it looks like.

Absolutely; but, if a game has great gameplay and great graphics, it's, for me at least, better than just having good gameplay. Of course, superior graphics do not make a poor game play better; thus, at it's core, gameplay is king for video games of all stripes. However, a great game with awesome graphics is, for me at least, just better than a great game with poor graphics.

Much like you, I play several retro-games -- however, I still prefer a game to not just play well, but to look good, too.

Just as kingofwale suggests: I freely admit that looks are not necessarily the clincher, but a pretty face sure goes a long way, especially when combined with a killer wit, a sharp mind, and a charming personality. Why just choose one when you can have them all?

Depends what I'm likely to be doing during the game. If I'm going to be more of a spectator in game (lots of vids) then having good graphics would be good. However if its an action packed game where I don't have time to sit back and admire graphics then graphics really don't matter. I guess it really boils down to this.... if the game is fun enough or good enough you can let a few things slide. If the game is boring then it doesn't matter how good other things are you are still going to be bored regardless of how good it looks.