Regarding graphics and gameplay, I think Kevin VanOrd said it best on his twitter:
"I have many feelings about ideas like these, one of which is that things we call "gameplay" are often "graphics."
Gameplay specifics like locomotion are often dependent on animations, which are, of course, "graphics."
Moreover, when a game relies on world-building, aesthetics and visual specifics are vital to its success.
These things are not separate entities; games are sums of their parts, and I think it is OK to have opinions on both the parts and the whole. "
This was in response to Colin Moriarty:
https://twitter.com/notaxation/status/606113105727373313
"People are complaining about Fallout 4's graphics. Remember when GAMEPLAY was what made a game good or bad? Oh yeah. That's still the case."
Graphics, especially when it comes to a game like Fallout, or Skyrim, or any open world game that's meant to "immerse" you into its world and characters/story does play a part in the "gameplay" and adds to the overall game, it's some side-thing, separated from the gameplay.
Horrible graphics, terrible animations, can really sap the fun out of the story, the emotions the characters are meant to portray, etc.
I mean (and I know people are using this game a lot because it just came out) the Witcher 3.
The Bloody Baron's storyline, the emotion evoked through the characters face/animations, you will absolutely miss that in games like Skyrim because the graphics simply don't, or rather can't, portray that kind of emotion in the detail it's needed.