When I read many of these posts, I start to realize that those who say "graphics aren't important", don't actually know what "graphics" means.
I have attached a screenshot of Civ V with the hue slightly shifted to right. Imagine if Firaxis released this as the default and original design. You would instantly ask yourself "why?"; many of you would suddenly discredit the game, because if they can't get the graphics right, surely the rest is crap too? The rest of you will shrug it off, reminding yourself that graphics aren't important, play the game anyway, after a short while, you will get aggravated, complaining why did they make the units almost the same colour as the land?
But this is just the obvious stuff right? Everyone knows that the grass should be green. But what isn't obvious to you is what you're not experienced in. Most of you who have little to no understanding of graphics do not see the importance of interface design, colour theory, shapes, location, size, believability and so on. All of these are very important and are constantly under debate how to perfect it.
The theme and interface design for Civilization V is the best I have seen since CivII, CivII nailed it really well. Unfortunately, Firaxis never really developed or obtained a suitable 3D engine for this type of game. The engine in Civ5 is a much better step closer to something more suitable, but they need to go a lot further, and I suspect the artists know it, if they can one day achieve it, I guarantee, even those who are fanatical by their words "graphics aren't important" will have a much more satisfying and pleasing experience.
Many of you are underestimating the power of good graphic design and need to invest more respect to the design theory; and please don't confuse good graphic design with flashy graphics.