did either of you play shadow of the collossus and like it?  sotc was fantastic, but im not going to lie: the graphics made it so.  the graphics affect the game in basically every way for me.  It set the tone early on and it was consistent throughout.  

graphics matter, but only when used promote what the game has.  sotc is a great example because it had more than just graphics.  The concept was interesting, fighting the collossi was fun, and the horse was the best side kick ever (if it can even be called such a lowly name).

I'm pulling your pieces out of the quotation one at a time, to address them.

Superficial or not - do you deny that they can greatly enhance the enjoyment of a movie or game in question?

Yes, I do. Absolutely, That's what I've been saying, hasn't it? Again, I put all my games on low settings on my PC, even though my PC can handle Crysis on very high at 30 FPS. I play Counter Strike on low settings.

If so, what's wrong with rewarding the efforts of the people that strive so hard to add to a more immersive experience for the viewer/player?

Nothing is wrong with it at all! If you enjoy it, go nuts. It is not, however, a profound concern, and therefore shoudl be ignored by reviewers. As I said earlier: it's fine if you like hollywood flotsam like Transformers or 300 because of the special effects, but it is rightly ignored by reviewers because film isn't predicated on cosmetic concerns. I'm not asking you to agree with reviewers.

I have no idea why a facet such as graphics, which can either make or break a game or movie should be so easily overlooked.

They cannot make or break a game for me: graphics are irrelevant. That is what I'm telling you. My argument makes a lot more sense when you realize this -- because I don't care about graphics, they cannot possibly make or break a game for me. That is implicit in "not caring," that their quality is irrelevant to my experience. 

Graphics are cosmetic and superficial. Again, by definition. If you happen to care about cosmetic, superficial things, that's absolutely fine, Fumanchu. And I mean that -- I'm not being sarcastic. Enjoy what you like. But this thread is about reviewers, and I personally hope that reviewers can become a bit more sophisticated, a la film, music, or literature critics.To do so, we must abandon the superficial for the profound.

I guess my viewpoint stems from my background as a 3D artist. I have a great appreciation for the efforts and talents of the great teams of people that sweat blood to make such beautiful art.

I personally don't see how a reviewer is more "sophisticated" because they can ignore the mere "cosmetic, superficial" concerns when I consider it as such; art.

"Nothing is wrong with it at all! If you enjoy it, go nuts. It is not, however, a profound concern, and therefore shoudl be ignored by reviewers. "

- Isn't this a paradox? How can you agree to reward them and ignore them at the same time?

EDIT: You further contradict yourself when you freely admit to graphics enhancing your enjoyment but then state that they're irrelevant.

I suggest YOU reward them, not I.

Where do I say that graphics enhance my enjoyment? I specifically said that they do not. I said that they apparently enhance your enjoyment, which again is totally fine.

@bolded: WUT!?

I've seen this argument a couple of times now, and it's preposterous. The purpose of a review is to give consumers a guide to quality, NOT to serve as a confidence booster for the producer.

Imagine a food critic giving good points to cooks who work long hours. 'The food is disgusting and unhealthy, but Paul in the kitchen puts in double shifts to provide it to you - 3/5'. This is akin to what you're suggesting, Fumanchu.

On Topic:
Graphics in games serves a purpose. The only two means of experiencing Videogames is through sight and hearing, with the focus on sight. So you cannot get away from the fact that visuals are important, and each person will put a different weight to that import. You review the experience, the sum of the parts, and not the parts themselves. So if the graphics of a game put you in another dimension, so to speak, that should count towards the final grade. If, like Bod, it really does not affect your overall perception of the game a single bit, by all means, leave it out.

It's perfectly simple. What was the game to you? What made the game good, and what took away from the experience?

Even movie-critics comment on the visuals, and they can add to or take away from the experience in movies just as well as in videogames.

Let's try looking at this a different way. The best books, movies, and art are generally considered to be timeless classics.

What makes a game a classic?

I'm not going to answer that question. It's too difficult for a short forum post. So, what doesn't make a game a classic? I say that graphics have very little to do with it. Just think about this short list:

Tetris: Graphics hardly matter at all.

Super Mario Bros: Better graphics does virtually nothing to change the gameplay. The formula was copied until 3D became the norm.

Super Mario 64: Time has not been kind to these early 3D games in the graphics department, but its still considered a classic. It is the gold standard for 3D platformers to this day.

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time: Same problem as SM64 in graphics, but this is still considered one of the best games of all time.

Crysis: Generally considered the best looking game right now. How will this game be remembered in 10 or 20 years?  Probably not too well.

Do they? Yes. Should they? No. Graphics alone do not make a game, and too many developers and reviewers think they do. Thus, a lot of the newer "good" games aren't really good as games, they just look pretty. Once games go back to actualy gameplay, then I go back to them.

I think it should affect it fairly substantially. It should effect it more negatively if it has bad graphics then good graphics would affect it positively though.

Like a game with awesome gameplay that would otherwise get a 10/10 should only get about an 8-8.5 if it has horrible graphics.

If a game is average like a 7 gameplay wise but has amazing graphics it should only be bumped up to a 7.5 or 8 at the very most.

Whether or not you feel graphics are important to you, the fact of the matter is they're important for a lot of people, and game reviews are written as consumer guides, not literary criticism, so graphics are accounted for in there (but only given a small weight, 10-15% on average).

If you want to complain, harp on about reviewers often praising good tech with no style over the pretty art styles that either don't push the polys or somehow look "kiddy", whatever that really means.

I didn't mean a reward to the people as a confidence booster per se.

What I'm insinuating or alluding to is that the effort put into the game shouldn't go neglected as it can greatly increase the individuals perception of quality.

I think we risk killing off industry professionals with 'reality tv-esque' amateurs if no one can see added enjoyment or quality with polished visuals. If the games aren't rewarded commercially then all games will have 5 million dollar budgets with first year interns as the head artist.