Just because games with good graphics and bad gameplay are bad, doesn't mean that a game with good game play and bad graphics is good. Good graphics are good, good gameplay is good. From what we've seen, gameplay looks solid. It should not make us bad people to want graphics that match the gameplay's quality.
Graphics: Don't need to be good, but a game with bad graphics for no reason is unacceptable.
Yes they do. They need to be good. Graphics need to be good because a game needs to look good. The visual aspect is half of the whole experience. Not just the gameplay, but what you SEE.
Let me give you a good example of an ugly game.
This is Bruce Lee: Quest of the Dragon. It's an XBox game. It's [tornado fang]ing UGLY. It has bad graphics.
This is Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3. It's a Game Boy 8-bit black-and-white game. It has awesome graphics.
Everyone, get it through your thick [tornado fang]ing heads once and for all. Good graphics are NOT ABOUT TECHNOLOGY. They are about A GAME LOOKING GOOD. A game could have the most detailed graphics ever and still be [tornado fang]ing ugly, because it has bad graphics. It's not about technology, it's about if it looks good or not. And half of the experience is about the game looking good. The other half is playing well.
I think I get what you mean SB. For instance, 8-bit graphics are NOT bad. However, if MM9 and 10 had looked like the original donkey kong, that would have been bad.
IMO Mega man Universe needs some AA and a few more polys to be considered a game with good graphics.