In regular gaming, I never care about graphics. This holds true with the iPhone for the most part. However, I definitely avoid playing any games that look like they could be ports of actual cell phone games. If a game has the graphics of a cell phone game, and it's really blatant, I don't want it getting near my iPhone. I don't want it to be degraded like that The one exception I've made is de Blob. It definitely feels like a cell phone game, straight-ported to the iPhone, but something about it makes it feel not so cheap. At least, not as cheap as the countless other cell-phone like games on the iPhone
I was saying, graphics don't have to be the absolute greatest of the greatest to be good. It's more about art style and direction. When I said "sub par" I meant visuals that are so far below the standards for the times, of what a system is capable of - such as very low poly count, lack of normal mapping, no dynamic shadows or HDR at all, extremely poor textures, and such. So while War Hawk wasn't the very best of what PS3 has to offer, it's not so horrendously outdated in visuals either as to look like like a PS2 game. It's not sub par in that refards and is "good looking enough", just as GTA4 is.
I love this subject! I think that while graphics can't make up for lousy gameplay, they should not be dismissed as mere icing on the cake. Art, animation, sound and music are all tightly woven into the overall experience, and if neglected can make an otherwise interesting game lack flavor. In the end, its all about how satisfying the game is to play, and satisfaction can come from many sources - responsive controls, punchy sound effects, or stylish animation can all make your input feel like more than just simply tapping on a piece of glass. And beyond just visceral reaction to our input, it can also add a deeper context to the players actions. Context can be vital, and can turn an otherwise simple collection of rules into a game with more personality, and this isn't only true of video games - I like to use board games as an example of this. Would Monopoly have the same appeal if you were exchanging generic "points" for "plastic cubes" instead of "money" to "build luxury hotels"? So in short, I don't think it matters how many polygons or shaders it takes to represent what's on screen, as long as it is effective, readable, and has some kind of personality behind it.
graphics definitely add to a game but the core gameplay is more important, pokemon for example doesn't have the greatest graphics but the gameplay is good enough to make up for that, but graphics certainly help.
of course graphics are important. What I don't like about many, many iPhone games is that they all have this same cartoony look.. it appears like many devs are using the same graphic tools. If I would have to estimate, then I would say 70 % of the games look all the same to me... they look good, ok, but not distinct... they are almost impersonal. I guess, that's why it is called mainstream, right?
