It's really just subjective. In my opinion gameplay/interactivity is the only really important element. I also play some extremely complex TBS games that take months just to get a very basic understanding of, so it really depends on what your experiences are to compare. I also have recently enjoyed a Roguelike game which uses ASCII symbols for graphics.

Why do graphics have such a broad appeal? I think it's pretty obvious. After all, we're the same society that created Milli Vanili lol. (I wonder what the actual singers "looked like") I never really cared why anything was popular or trendy though.

Then again Minecraft
/shrug

There is a difference between realistic and looking good. Skyrim is kinda realistic in style and it looks like garbage. The textures are ok resolution but are poor quality.

My complaint is when devs don't take advantage of current hardware (maybe within 2 years?). Textures from 2005, lighting from 2005 ect ect...

me too..

if you're talking about Myst or something. Heh.

..actually, I like a lot of adventure games like that, but were more hand drawn or cartoony. like the lucas arts games (full throttle, monkey island). sierra had some good ones.. king's quest and space quest. some modern games still don't hold up to the charm to the visuals in these games.. crappy graphics, but great visuals, because they had the attention of good artists. many modern games have good artists too (take bioshock, for example), but i bet they could still achieve a good game without the technology.

yeah im talking about myst!

i remember sierra adventure games the most though... i just dont remember any of their names. what i remember most vividly was how they were an exercise in failure. i would svck and die at pretty much every crossroad and have to reload like every screen a dozen times before i got it right. maybe thats why i dont care about graphics... i subconsciously associate good graphics with my illimitable failure to get to the next pretty picture .