It's difficult to approach these topics while avoiding defining what art is, because generally video games, movies, and imagery are mediums and computers are tools. So it's akin to asking what the color blue contributes to the overall experience of a painting.

The importance of visuals, like any tool in the making of art, lies in whatever it uniquely provides. Oils give a painting visual texture; lyrics give music a narrative; visuals allow us to share a visual experience to the exact detail. Few can build a world with words like Tolkien, but the tale could not visually enter the collective consciousness without Peter Jackson's help.

Furthermore, computers allow us to create visuals that would otherwise be impossible, or at least impractical. How else do you animate a giant, flaming hellspawn? Here's one example of a visual that's absolutely integral to the art: Superman flying. You can't make a Superman movie without Superman taking flight, one fist forward, cape fluttering in the wind. If Superman doesn't take flight, or worse he does and it looks bad, the movie is ruined.

Every time I've watched Superman with my dad he tells me how the whole theatre cheered when Superman gets his wings in the Fortress of Solitude. On the flip side, if you want to experience the frustration of a none-flying Superman just watch the first nine-and-a-half seasons of Smallville. Here's a hint: this indestructible idiot is afraid of heights. And Amy Adams starts off fat, then eats a deer.

Still, graphics are important even if there are no shots essential for the audience. Toy Story is a brilliant comedy, CGI aside, and would have been a smash hit as a classic 2D animation. But the graphics allow for live-action slapstick and cartoonish exageration. They are amplifying an already fantastic story.

So graphics are important in two ways: they give artists greater story telling capabilities, and may even be essential to meet an audience's expectations.

Bad graphics can completely de-rail a good story. They rip an audience out of whatever immersion they may have had. Your mind can't focus on anything else because it's often just the sense that somethings a little bit off. Something doesn't quite fit right. I'm talking about the uncanny valley. I hate The Polar Express. I hate that it was the bandwagon Christmas film of whatever godforsaken year it came out. Making it completely in CGI serves no purpose, except maybe saving money. All of the characters are offputting. The know-it-all is worse than Jar Jar by an order of magnitude or more. This film took a touching book and transformed it into an offputting festival of jerk kids, jerk conductors, a jerk hobo, and jerk elves that sound like they're on the brink of stage four throat cancer.

Bad graphics ruin good movies. Animators don't get any points for coming close; either do it well or don't do it at all. A more subtle instance is this fight scene that shatters immersion when it can't decide if it's live action or animated.

It appears American cinema will not see any major 2D releases again soon, and that's a shame. The medium drives infects the form and can produce artefacts that don't have a 3D superior or even equal.

For instance, the master work that is Fantasia 2000

or the movies of Studio Ghibli. They execute the "every frame a painting" philosophy to a degree that has not been attained by 3D animation.

3D graphics are more capable though. I can't imagine persuading a Disney exec to make another princess cartoon in the post-Frozen era. The format is also often a product of the subject. Superheros, as we saw earlier with Superman, require much care (read, M$NEY) in a live-action or digitally enhanced format. But a cartoon handles them effortlessly; it's literally a moving, talking comic book! But Toy Story is best handled with CGI; they're literally talking, moving toys!