I can see where you're coming from, and I will agree that graphics CAN be a core part of an experience; but the only time I can't play something due to bad graphics is when they actually start to hurt gameplay. Now this doesn't happen very often, but when it does, it svcks.
*Non-Crysis, but nonetheless related tangent*
Take a Wii game like 007: Goldeneye. There was a lot of great design and gameplay choices, but the graphics really did hurt that title. Don't get me wrong, they did some fantastic effects for the Wii, but it's hardware just wasn't up to snuff for rendering complex scenes where there was lots of subtle colors and shadows. On most of the night missions, I always had trouble trying to look through the Non-HDR low-resolution haze, trying to pick out enemies, and it was very frustrating because you can't see anything! The Wii didn't have the capabilities of subtle shading or dynamic flashlights, so all you had were some clunky night vision goggles that weren't even available on every mission. I also ended up getting numerous headaches because you can't see anything at a distance, due to the short draw distances coupled with the low resolutions. (Not to say that there aren't titles that use the Wii's hardware right) *End Tangent*
My take on video game graphics:
Aside from being a source of entertainment and immersion, better graphics also lead to better flexibility in the designing of games. Like I said in another thread, when you have a completely real-time engine such as the Cryengine 3, it gives you more flexibility and freedom to create what you want, and not be limited by the software. (You can spend HOURS using the Time Of Day tool in Sandbox 2, and with all of it's options, you can create exactly the type of lighting you want, and there's no annoying re-calculations that have to be done, because it is all on-the-fly.)
Now there's definitely some games that need more graphical and technological horsepower than others. Games like Minecraft don't need high-res textures or accurate physics because the gameplay was meant to have a retro, "Blocky" feel. The gameplay supports these graphics, because the concept of the game is to place and remove blocks or "3-D pixles" in this 8-bit, 3-D world. It's a synergistic relationship. (They build off of each other) Now take a technological bohemith like Crysis, or something like Red Faction: Guerrilla. Would these games be as memorable if they were made 10 years ago, when the thought of a Rasterized Dynamic Shadow, or a real-time rigid body was inconceivable? A major part Red Faction's gameplay relies on the sole concept of physics-based destruction; a gameplay concept that was impossible to implement even 5 years ago. Like I said before, it's synergistic.
Like most others, I believe that gameplay should take priority over graphics. However, keep in mind that it is also important for games to have appropriate graphics, or they may risk hurting the gameplay or limiting the developer's creativity.
Just trying to add a new perspective into this age-old argument.
» Thu Dec 02, 2010 2:33 am 
? 
1295822258789.jpg [11.13 KiB] 
