Which is more important to you? Gameplay or Graphics?

I value my time as I don't get a lot of it to sit back and play so playing £40 for a game that lasts a day is a waste of money in my eyes. Also, there is very little replay value in games now. Very little insentive to go back and run through the game again. Also, considering you are calling $60 "lousy", you strike me as the sort of person who has no concept of money and the value it has. Someone living off the bank of Mum and Dad.

Both of them.......good gameplay and good graphics.

Lets stop being hypocrites and face facts:

1) You all sheep shit your pants when first Zelda Wii U screenshots surfaced. It wasnt its gameplay for that kind of hype or anything like it was it ?

2) You all sheep shit your pants with first Zelda Wii U cutscenes , that of a mini-boss creature chasing Link in forest. You guessed right , you saw nothing about gameplay yet you hyped what you saw. Oh boy its looks awesome , oh boy the colors , oh boy the depth of field , oh boy its open world and on and on ... Was that gameplay ?

3) You still cant wait to play next-Zelda and all im hearing from you sheep ... is only one thing. How good it looks !

So , since you cant deny facts since we all are here the last decade or more and we all know what people said , praised , hyped the last 2-3 years at least when it comes to Zelda Wii U stop being hypocrites that only gameplay matters to you and nothing else when 99% of sheep praising Zelda Wii U for anything other than its looks. So please ... just please.

Its so hypocritical to judge Uncharted 4 for its looks or how big it is or how shiny is and nothing else when all you do the last 2 years is praising Zelda Wii U for the very same reasons and literally nothing else. Damn!

Sheep , today you are on rampage!

EDIT : Also what the heck you consider quality gameplay ? Care to elaborate further ?

Artstyle is more important than graphics

Gameplay.

I want both, and I don't want the manufacturer of my console to limit me by cheaping out on crap technology that is far behind the competition.

I can enjoy games with bad graphics, but good graphics enhance the experience. If Witcher 3 looked like a pig it wouldn't be half the game it is.

i think there are a few issues here.

on the value of getting a disc....yea the installs are a pain. its not like the PC though where the game was compressed and copied to disc, then uncompressed during the instal process. the capacity of blu-ray is not the issue. the problem is performance. basically the seek times and read speeds are not good enough on the blu-ray drives. a HDD is far superior for those things. so if there were no installs then loading times would be brutal and texture pop in would be really nasty.

personally i would prefer a custom disc based solution (some sort of raid 0 drive setup where games came on 2-3 GC sized (physical. around 8-10GB capacity each)) discs). back to carts would also be good if the cost could ever work out. i dont think installs should be happening on consoles. but that would mean no blu-ray movie playback and it would add to the cost of the console and game distribution.

as for the cost of development....its becoming a very serious issue at the AAA level now and its starting to buckle. the number of games that can be sustained with that level of expense can nearly be counted on one hand...thats really really bad. the cost of producing content has become the biggest bottleneck in the industry now. initally i thought this gen was going to be short but as it goes on im thinking it may be just as long as last gen due to the cost of development.

as for the topic: gameplay...but graphics are the most effective way to attract higher spending customers to the game.

It's 2016 you don't have to choose between graphics and gameplay anymore. You can have both. Some people choose to play games that look hilariously bad with average gameplay thinking themselves 'cool' indie dudes. They are actually just plain stupid. You don't have to be.

Never really understood this comparison everytime a "Gameplay vs Graphics" thread comes up.

Many people will always say gameplay, because it looks better to themselves on the Internet by legitimizing themselves as some 'gamer'. Yet, will turn tail on a game with excellent gameplay if it doesnt meet some expectation of presentation or production value.

Both...on 2D stuff visual not so important...but 3D stuff..you better be sure to have a decent visual..if someone nowadays release a game with the look of 3D visual from PS1 era ..no way I'd say oh that's okay..no matter how good the gameplay is. :P

Always Gameplay.

I only care about how many shades of grass a game has.

Gameplay, but I won't discount the importance of graphics. I just bought Stardew Valley and the game is dope, even given the lackluster graphics... Hell, look at the Undertale following.

Gameplay.

With graphics now, gameplay turns into "uncanny valley charting".

Not even close. Trying playing a game with bad gameplay and you'll quickly choose better gameplay option by a mile.

Gameplay will dominate this poll (as it should), but most of these peeps are straight up lying lol.

If I've learned anything about SW over the years, it's that everyone will chant the "Gameplay#1" mantra, but for many of them it's the furthest thing from the truth.

It's nice and all that Pokemon can be as fun as GTA, but GTA wouldn't be the same game using Pokemon's graphics, so there is clearly a driving force behind gameplay that stems from the graphical level chosen for a games' mechanics. That's really the whole idea behind it. You can't create every gameplay mechanic on a Super Nintendo. The demand for better graphics and more power is often a demand for a greater complexity of gameplay design.

Gameplay, duh. I don't care about graphics, but rather the art style.

Discs no longer have much of a point because we have to install games anyway, and they take up so much space.

Cant loan, trade, sell or borrow Digital games.

Gameplay is king. Any other element video game simply on its best fucking day, isn't as important.

Not saying a story doesn't matter (though yes Champ is very pro-video game stories are shit and you people should demand better), not saying the aesthetics and atmosphere aren't important, not saying that a cohesive visual language doesn't add to an experience, not saying poor visual design can't suck the excitement out of a game, but gameplay is without question the heart, soul, and backbone of a good video game. There is no such thing as a good video game with gameplay that is subpar as far as I'm concerned.

And part of that opinion is fueled by that gameplay=/=mechanics. Mechanics are one part of the gameplay, the pacing, the level design, the narrative (yes even that) exploration, all these elements that form a singular composition, that composition is the gameplay. Max Payne 3 has excellent mechanics, the shooting in that game is fucking stellar. Max Payne 3 has questionable gameplay scenarios because some of the scenarios it puts the player in are fucking dull, repetitive, uninspired at times, and are poorly paced as the game never lets the player build any momentum until this one bitchin airport sequence.

In contrast none of the Last of Us's mechanics, sans maybe the shooting, are anything better than functional, but the game is paced so fucking well, it's got atmosphere for days, and the level design offers some breathing room that the likes of the lesser Uncharted games don't, and that adds to an experience that I would argue has good gameplay, great gameplay.

So naturally in these discussions, somehow gameplay is always looked at as mechanics, because that's how gameplay was judged back in the day (because games were more driven by their mechanics), and that line of thinking needs some adjustment or some thought.

So I guess that Shareplay doesn't exist. Or Steam Family sharing.

OT lets be honest. Graphics matter. But not for the reason we think. The gaming industry is ruled by the casuals. Its the casuals that made CoD king. They also keep franchises like FIFA and Madden big. They drive the industry. If you want a chunk of that revenue, you need those pretty graphics. Those graphics are what get the casuals attention. If you have a fantastic gameplay game with crap graphics, then they won't care. The game might get a dedicated cult following, but more than likely, it will be ignored by the casuals.

Graphics. What a dumb question. You play graphics, not gameplay!

Gameplay

Most of the money goes into marketing. Financially devs can still find a middle ground where the game looks great and plays well too, and not targeted for lowest common denominator. As for visuals, yes the disc space is increasing with better graphics but that's part of innovation and evolution. Things change. I've no problem with digital only games.

Graphics do nothing else but increase your gameplay experience so asking what's better between the two is stooopid.

Oh good, 80% of us picked gameplay

Thought everyone was crazy nowadays

Gameplay all the way. I cringe at people buying games because they look "pretty" and not because they play well.

A lot of them are lying even if they don't know it.

Nope it doesn't. I seem to not be able to share Taken King with anybody, why is that?

I like the combination of the two, physics in gameplay and graphics for eyecandy, coming together for quality boob physics.

There's a game that recently came out that is completely amazing and has the gaming world taken by storm.

It's one of the top games currently being streamed over on Twitch and It sold nearly half a million units since it's debut on Steam and that game I'm talking about is Stardew Valley.

This is what the game looks like.

It's not Battlefront, it's not The Division, it's not Farcry Primal in terms of graphical power and hell the animations aren't even close to Naughty Dog's Uncharted 4, but it's selling and it's getting great reviews and positive user feedback with about 9000 user reviews on Steam that are positive.

There is a thing about Graphics making the game, sure, but for them to be the end all be all isn't true at all. A Game can have great Graphics, but if it plays bad then you just got a polished turd.

Depends on the game.

A game can rely on other things to carry it and not have great gameplay. There is a place for these games. And I know where to look.

I like to think that I appreciate both of these things wether a game relies on graphics and presentation or on gameplay.

There's two games I can think of when reading this and they are Metal Gear Solid IV and The Last of Us

Funny how gameplay is winning but every other thread here is about graphics..."scratches head"...strange indeed.

No I'm just not a cheapass with my hobbies. If I want something, I buy it. It's 2016, $60 isn't jack, that's chump change considering the cost of living. As someone that had a job by the age of 13, I'm well aware of the value of money and as a homeowner with a family, I know what stuff costs in comparison and I'm telling you that $60 for entertainment on your free time is cheap. It costs $20 to take a date to the movie and nearly another $20 for drinks/popcorn and that's just for 2 hours....so really? You think you understand time and value? You're just really frugal with money, that's the reality which is fine if it suits you but don't act like $60 has the economic value of 1972

I think for walking sims like Dear Esther, graphics is more important because that's basically all you have in a game where you just walk and let the story unfold as you go.

@primorandomguy:

It seems the right question to ask these days are graphics vs story.

It seems people now a days put alot of emphasis on story than actual gameplay. Which is odd to me.

Both.

3DS is currently the best console soooooooooooo .......

Obviously gameplay as I still play on 30 yr old consoles, but graphics matter too to an extent.

gameplay for sure is always the priority. But graphics are very close up there in importance. Good graphics can help immerse you into the game. Graphics and gameplay go along with each other and to ignore either hurts the potential of the game.

Theres so many powerful tools out there now to develop games with, having awful graphics that look like they could run on a 30+ year old console isn't acceptable either.

Both. I want good gameplay with good graphics. Why should I have to choose one or the other? This is 2016.

Graphics grab your attention..... Gameplay keeps it...

Isn't this like many other aspects of life? If you ask someone whether they would like a partner who is versatile but not particularly attractive vs hot with less versatility a lot of people will claim they want the partner who is versatile, but when it comes down to it their decision making can be swayed by the superficial. This isn't true for every person, but in general people are swayed by the visually appealing a lot more than they like to admit. On top of that, people will tire of these visually appealing less versatile things faster which means they'll be looking to find more. $$$

15% of people are really stupid. how is it not 100% towards game play?

As someone who works and values money. 60 dollars isn't that big of a deal. Even If i get 10 hours out of it, to put it in perspective. a movie night for my family of 4 costs well over 100 dollars for about 2 hours, A round of golf with drinks and a cart is about 80-120 dollars for about 4 hours of entertainment. It's all relative. As a kid, our parents paid 50 bucks for what is essentially 10 dollar games now. The fact games are only 60 bucks now despite costing 100+ times more then they did to make 20+ years ago is amazing.

@darkangel115: everyone is different. Gaming simply isn't the biggest priority or entertainment in my life anymore so I don't mind waiting for price to drop. I remember buying a lot games full price on the ps3 when I was making less money than I am now. Back then I was playing all day long now I can spend weeks without even playing something.

Nothing wrong with that, What I'm saying is that the mind set of "no game is worth 60 dollars" is beyond stupid. Especially since the cost of making games has gone from the 10,000s to the 100,000,000s and the price has only increased 10-20% meanwhile the cost to make has gone up like 1000%