It's just a personal opinion, I think graphics is the main address of the game, because if it appeals me, I like it, it it don't, I f*cking hate it! It's just like someone caring about the stories, NO! You need to care about the graphics, whoever thinks like that should slap it self.
Lets take minecraft for example, it has bad graphics and besides that the game sucks. So low paid graphics are supposed to make people like its graphics? Graphics are ment to wow players, ubisoft is very good in graphics that i recommend you to watch the scenery, whether in old towns or mountains. If graphics don't make a good game, minecraft wouldn't even be colored or have a PE update saying better graphics. Perhaps minecraft graphics are bad to reduce lag, but minecraft is a infamoulsy literally laggy game(especially multiplayer). Also bad graphics can hurt your eyes...
Not all games require good graphics. Like mine craft, or perhaps the original Mario, they are still fun games. Some games however need good graphics because the type of games they are. For example, the Witcher 3. Such good graphics, but why? Because it makes the characters and places believable, allowing us to connect with them and the environment.
This purely is opinionated. If you say yes or no it really just shows what kind of game/gaming experience you prefer.
If you said yes, you probably enjoy games that are SUPPOSED to look as real as possible. I'm guessing you either like sports games (NBA 2k, Madden, Etc), or games such as Destiny, COD, Halo, or GTA.
If you said no, you probably like platforms, such as Mario, Zelda, Splatoon, DK country and Sonic, or you refer to famous classics like Pac-Man, Atari, Tetnis, Pong, Super Mario,and the famous Donkey Kong.
Conclusion: If a new Madden game had bad graphics, it would be a shame. But not the case with Mario.
I know graphic don't make game good because it depends on the game but, the game would be better if the game is good with good graphic like Far Cry 3. That game looks cooler than the other games that only good in the game. So, i would say not really
Graphics truly enhance the experience, and the lack of good graphics can hurt it. Take for example Gran Theft Auto IV. Sure, it had great gameplay, but the dated graphics hurt an otherwise perfect experience. The most obvious issue is the aliasing problems in the game. Since it's a free roaming game, they obviously put more the console's gpu power towards anistropic filtering than anti aliasing. The jagged edges on everything were really distracting. These days though, a new technique called FXAA has been made, which basically makes it so that systems can have AA with little to no performance decrease. This has been used in GTA V, and the result is that now they can focus less on AA on focus more on texture quality and AF, and the result is a game that looks far better and is more enjoyable.
However, that's not to say that games with good graphics but crap gameplay get a free pass. Games like Battlefield 4 and MW3 which had great graphics, but were criticised by players for poor gameplay, those games still aren't good even though they have good graphics. However, if two games have similar gameplay, the one with better graphics will always win. Good graphics also tell the story much better than poor graphics.
A lot of games are good. Graphics help them convey the story and show all the gratuitous blood and gore.
They don't contribute to a good story.
Graphics lack Dwarf Fortress, but Dwarf Fortress is awesome.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Back in the good ol' Atari days, there were only giant pixels for graphics . Even if it was ugly, people liked it because it was fun. Nowadays, people praise games for it's graphics (apparently) only, at the same time, the game is very glitchy and basically not actually fun.
I'm not saying we should give up on graphics completely, but I don't play a game just because it looks good. I play a game because the story is good, or the mechanics are interesting, or its addictive. Some of my most played games (1000+hours) have graphics on Minecraft's level and I play them because they are fun. If I want something that just looks great I will watch a film or look at a painting.
Why do so many people still think that what matters and only matters is 1080p vs. 900p, 30 vs. 60fps, Xbox One vs. PS4 graphics. The game play, story, difficulty, etc. should be the things people should look at in games and not the graphics. The graphics only matter if the graphics are so bad that they're distracting or make no sense to the player.
Graphics add another dimension to a game. However the mechanics, depth and ultimately amount of fun from a game I would say are not connected.
There are many fun games with low resolution graphics, or even no graphics that are absolutely great and enjoyed by a vast community, take Minecraft, SanctuaryRPG, Dwarf Fortress etc.
And there are games that have the latest graphics, beautiful open world's that absolutely suck (as is the case with Fuel).
Games that strip away graphics potentially leave more to the imagination. Much the same way as TV and picture books never replaced books.
Graphics do not make a game better, just look a the order 1886, its more movie than game, and every year call of duty looks great but plays like shit, I could name a lot of games that have terrible or lackluster graphics but are great
Fallout 3 and new vegas
Super Mario Bros.
Star Wars Battlefront 2
Elder scrolls 3,4 & 5
Age of empires
Sonic the hedgehog 2
Now, I'm not saying that graphics are meaningless- good graphics sell, as do innovative looking graphics. Many modern games prove the first, Nintendo proves the latter with games like Splatoon. But if all gamers want is graphics, look at a painting. I assure you, most would rather play an actual game as opposed to staring at a picture, regardless of how good it is. I personally hate all the stupid realism going into games. You want to see realistic? Look at a tree. The polygon count on that is great compared to even the highest quality graphics. Video games are meant to take you away from all that real world stuff so you can enjoy yourself. And having to pay 100 dollars for copy paste games? Not cool, but that's what the realistic FPS games do. That's why I admire Splatoon- it doesn't look like just another FPS. It looks like it's actually worth getting, since it's not just the same as everything you've seen before.
Call of Duty has not changed there graphics for a couple of years now and there 8 year old fanboys can't tell the difference. Also, we have games like Doom or Wolfenstien that don't have the best graphics but are great, great games that people still play now. Just saying
The game you play can be good even with bad graphics. Games like Mario are great and fun, even with the bad graphics. The " Graphic " part of the game does not matter, as long as you have fun playing the actual game itself. That is all I have to say.
The quick answer is no, since there are good games in every era of gaming form Pong to Super Mario World to Arkham City. My personal observation? Graphics definitely help certain games have a certain quality. What do I mean by this? Well quality is definitely subjective but since this is a subjective question I have realized that certain graphic styles, based on the quality available at the time, are for certain genres. Personally, the best space shooter games are made with Atari or Nes quality graphics. The best sidescrollers are in the 8-bit to 16-bit range. The best children's games have a SNES/Genesis or N64 look, considering how colorful it is. The best tabletop RPG's like ChronoTrigger and Pokemon have a more pixelated yet fluid art style whereas games like Samurai II and Starcraft are better played with a higher processor. The best horror games have a PS1 or 90's computer feel. And the games trying to be very realistic looking (CoD, Arkham, Skyrim, FarCry, etc.) are obviously best with the most modern graphics.