Alright, now that I've got your attention with an inflammatory and topical title, let's talk about this.

The Internet is abuzz with graphics right now, since some guy who representing Crysis has said graphics are 60% of a game. Be careful with that 60%, it just came out of his ass.

Graphics do NOT make up the majority of a video game experience. Do they make up some of it? You bet, but to say 60% is ridiculous. You only have to look at recent gaming discussion to understand how little they tend to matter in the grander scheme.

Aliens Colonial Marines didn't have the best graphics, and sure people complained, but they complained FAR louder about the buggy gameplay and shoddy design. Which is more important again? Could the game's graphics have made up for its numerous other flaws?

Graphics are a "pass or fail" kind of thing in game design. Sure, people say they want the best graphics, but when it comes right down to it, you'll find that the acceptable threshold is actually really low. As long as the game's graphics pass that point, people will buy it.

Where is that point, exactly? I don't know, but I'm sure marketing departments have thought a lot about it. Graphics are the easy sell. They aren't abstract or hidden like game mechanics and design. You can put out a gameplay video, show off all the flashy graphics, and expect to get some response.

They're shallow. They're easy. They speak nothing of substance.

But they sell.

Note: Some exceptions exist. This involves games that don't base their art style on gritty realism and try to have their own feel and look.