Graphics are severely overrated.
There are times when this is the case. However, there is a significant difference between something that is comfortable in its own skin (Super Mario World, Starcraft, Team Fortress 2) and something that would have looked completely different if the graphics technology would have allowed for it (Call of Duty games, most shooter games, Quake/Doom/etc.) These games are stuck in the uncanny valley, and anything they can do to get out of there is worthwhile.
Most FPS games are falling for the same trap as 80s-90s TV shows and movies, and most 80s music: Fighting the limits of technology instead of embracing them.
Don't make a "photo-realistic" game if graphics aren't up to the task. There's a reason Toy Story focused on the toys, and not the people. There is a reason shows from the 1960s look better than shows from the 1980s (shot on film instead of video).
If you've made a game that would look the same if it were made 10 years from now, then you've done it right. So many "realistic" games are trying to immerse you in a world. As soon as you start seeing arms clip into walls, and fake-looking flat faces with huge polygons, you lose that feeling.
Right now, I am playing "Cities in Motion" on my 15" 2011 Macbook Pro. It has an SSD drive, lots of RAM, and yet, it gets 10-20fps unless I turn all of the settings down pretty far. More importantly, it just feels sluggish and frustrating to scroll around the city. It would be nice to be able to look at the scenery with all of the shadows and effects running, because they add to the immersion factor, big time.
