Sure it does but it's not more important then gameplay,story or lenght wich is very very often overlooked beacuse of graphics, wich in turn makes the game pretty but utterly boring, laggy and a waste of time.

When I look back over my gaming life, I find that my favorite games would have been fine with worse graphics. I'd rather have had the game mechanics and ideas a gen earlier with worse graphics than wait for a pretty version. I don't remember games for their graphics or story, not good games anyway.

Fixed....HD graphics are a very old thing to me....if you know anything about a PC.

Regardless, I admit that I'd like to have an HD Wii. We might actually start to get those multiplat games....except awesomer. Not now though, for my initial investment has yet to pay off for itself.

You seem to be under the impression that in order to have quality graphics that the rest of the game needs to suck.  Why is that?

I think of each game as a complete experience.  Graphics, story, gameplay, sound, and the rest all need to contribute to the overall experience of the game.  I don't look the elements as a "this or that" sort of thing, I want excellence in all aspects.  Great games are the ones that can deliver it.  Poor graphics will hinder a game, they will make it worse, and they will hold it back from its potential.  I just don't think most people know the difference between good graphics and poor graphics anymore.  It's certainly not the difference between SD and HD though.

Poor graphics will not hinder a great game. If you remember a game mostly for it's story or graphics then it was probably a shit game.

I can't remember what half the things in OoT looked like or even what the story was apart from 'save Zelda'. Yet I can remember all the boss battles, items and ocarina tunes and what each one did.

M64, OoT, SFII, SMB 1-3, Mario Kart, Tekken, Perfect Dark, Pong, Wii Sports

Great games don't need stories or graphics, give me new gameplay mechanics, refined controls. I just wish game devs would plough all their money into gameplay instead of graphics or stories.

This goes back to one of the statements I made in that last post.  You cannot tell the difference between good and poor graphics.

Go back to the NES.  Look at all the games on it.  Look at Super Mario Bros. 3.  That game was brilliant.  The sprites were well-done, the color scheme was vivid, and just about every part of it was detailed.  It is one of the most graphically impressive games on the NES, but you can't see that.  Mario Kart was brilliant for its time as well.  It's faux 3D was terrific and a step above anything short of F-Zero/Star Fox.   Ocarina of Time was amazing too.  My jaw hit the floor the first time I saw Volvagia:

About the only thing in your post that you got right was saying "Poor graphics will not hinder a great game."  This is because graphics are part of what make a great game great.

I'm not saying the graphics in those games weren't good. I'm saying the graphics didn't need to be as good as they are to make the game 'great'.

I wont go and conjecture the concept of Pachter's discussion, but I will answer your question-

I would definitely trade my Wii in and pay $100 more for one that was powerful enough to play all the current HD games in full 1080 resolution. It would beat paying another $200-$300 for another console.

This