I think graphics are relevant. But to defend this point I have to put across that I see it as being more complex than mere ploygon counts at the stage we are in today.
graphics can be technical complexity, visual design and artistic beauty.
If Tetris had poor visual design, it would never have been popular. IMagine a version of tetris where the blocks were substituted for something less intuitive, or with fuzzily designed boundaries between elements of the grid. The game would be frustrating, and probably nauseating to play (it may make you feel funny in the pit of your stomach). However its simple visual style works perfectly and fortunately for the developer does not require much artistic beauty or technical wizardry.
Now take a shooter like Halo. Techically, the graphics were nothing to write home about, even when the game was released. However the artistic style was and still is beautiful, and the simplicity of its visual style (abstract alien shapes, laser beams, spartan, unpopulated areas devoid of wildlife) meant that not much in the way of techical sophistication was needed to make it work.
What about Doom3? We all knew it should get 99% for graphics due to the advanced technology behind it, but the images were not pleasing to look at, and most of the time the great lighting technology worked against the game.
The way I see it,doom 3 is not an example of a game that failed due to graphics over gameplay, but a game with poor overall graphics despite advanced technology.
On the wii, mario galaxy looks great because the visual style does not demand advanced technology to bring out the best of its artistic beauty. The majority of wii games however look like crap becuse they are designed with no attention to beauty or a good clean visual style, with the outdatd technology used as an excuse.
So I say Graphics, yay, but only when seen as more than merely volumetric fog, HDR, heat haze or some other bullet points that do nothing to enhance the pleasure experienced by the gamer.
POST SCRIPT:
On the subject of ps3 vs 360 vs wii, it is worth noting that technical prowess is a tool that makes creating a beautiful work of art or a good visual style more accesible to developers. A game set in the busy streets of a city will likely look terrible on a machine that lacks the power to reproduce the ambience of such a scene. That a game set in a mushroom forest may look the same on both machines is beside the point: the more powerful machine has the option of doing either one or the other.
The wii's lack of technical capability is in my opinion,a disadvantage because it limits the ability of developers to produce a game that will please the gamer aesthetically. However please note that this would not have been a problem if the standard display technology had remained a 480i television set, because the wii is capable of producing graphics that have a wide range of uses on such a display. Unfortunately modern television sets demand a much sharper and better defined image, and thus the wii hardware does present a problem in modern times.
POST POST SCRIPT:
On the question of graphics versus gameplay, I dont believe either is more important. I believe they all contribute to the viewers' subconscious immersion in the game which directkly translates to their enjoyment of it. Traditional board games that rely entirely on the imagination have to be absolutely outstanding in the balance of their rulesets before they can hold attention of players- there are huge boks full of board and card games that will never be widely played because they are nowhere near as engaging as the big, popular board/.card games. A game with bad graphics will cause the players imagination to do more work, which may or may not detract from the experience depending on the nature of the game. Adding snazzy 3d graphics to street fighter detracts from the game because the subconsicous contract our minds make with the game to 'buy into' the experience, i this case consisting of frame counts, frame times, and clearly defined boundaries and hit markers that correspond to the 2-dimensional onscreen sprites, breaks down when depth of field, multiple viewpoibnts and 30 fps animations are brought into play. On the other hand, soulcalibur which depends on visual cues only possible with high framrate animation, and hit regions based on horizontal/vertical weapon movements would be useless in 2d.
Adding splintering wood, realistic physics, dust, smoke, heat haze, and silhouettes to call of duty 4 modern warfare has in my opinion greatly advanced the game by improving its atmosphere. Adding exactly the same to super mario world would result in a very strange product indeed, certainly one that doesnt look quite as pleasant. On the other hand, adding antialiasing and colour gradients to super mario world could enhance the experience!
Its all about visual style and artistic beauty in addition to technology.
please excuse my endless rant...
