Lmao. I got you mixed it with the "republic of china" guy. Silly, Retarded Darwin.
And yes, I do have an arguement. I just feel no feed to argue for hours and waste my time trying to prove my point when, obviously, you are pretty set in your beliefs.
Oh, and because this is a BYOND blog post and not an international debate competition on whether Graphics affect the gameplay of ANY game on ANY platform.
I have a reason to be "set in my beliefs". That reason happens to be the fact that games like DF and Minecraft are incredibly popular games with low-end graphics. You can't argue facts - that's why they're called facts.
A black and white zombie shooter on the XBOX, if made correctly, would be played and enjoyed just like every other game with low-end graphics but great gameplay.
For example, suppose you make a simple shooter but unlike many games where you see the bullets traveling across the screen, the bullets move at realistic speeds so you can't see them. There are some graphical touches (blood splatter when you hit someone, dust kicking up when you miss, bullet holes in walls) that are purely visual, affect the gameplay, and are not dependent on the quality of the icons. If the game doesn't have these details, when you shoot there isn't any feedback given to the player - you don't know if you hit or missed. Even crappy looking blood splatter and dust cloud icons would be sufficient.
When people want their game to have "good graphics" they hire an artist to draw icons or spend a lot of time drawing the icons themselves, but really they should focus on these kinds of details instead. If you make good use of icons, a game with poorly drawn icons can still be visually appealing.