Graphics VS gameplay.

[Mongoose]

Which do you think is more important? I would say gameplay.

[Marshal Murat]

I personally like both
par se after playing RTW, great 3-D grahpics, and then revert to MTW.
The 2-D graphics aren't to good, but gameplay is great.
Same for many games.

I however, do also enjoy the story line and plot (for those action games) like KOTOR, or other games, keeps you guessing like a good mystery.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I love both, but gameplay makes a game. Great graphics are fun and all that, but if the gameplay isn't good it is no use. I voted gameplay because though I love good graphics gameplay is much more important IMHO.

[PanzerJaeger]

Great question.

In my opinion, even the best graphics will get old very fast without quality gameplay - so I went with the latter.

[ChaosLord]

Gameplay, hands down. The most fun(and time spent) on a game has been a text based game. The better the graphics the more likely its there to distract you from defecencies in other areas(IE, Doom 3). After a while playing a game graphics are barely noticed, while gameplay will be felt the whole time. At least, thats how it is with me.

[Papewaio]

Graphics is the bait.
Gameplay is the hook.

One will get you in the other will keep you there.

[xemitg]

Do you guys remember Sid Meier's Civilization II? That was all gameplay and it remains one of my favorite games of all time

[econ21]

Do you guys remember Sid Meier's Civilization II? That was all gameplay and it remains one of my favorite games of all time

Yup, although I thought it was quite pretty for its time - especially the hilarious advisers. Curiously, I bought a copy a few years back - Test of Time version? - and they had changed dropped the advisors and changed the graphics to be some fuzzy rubbish 3D stuff. I could not play it. Eventually had to buy another copy (Gold?) that had the original graphics.

One amazingly addictive game, although strangely enough I am not sure I really enjoyed playing it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

One amazingly addictive game, although strangely enough I am not sure I really enjoyed playing it.

Yeah like Sim City

[Kekvit Irae]

Yup, although I thought it was quite pretty for its time - especially the hilarious advisers. Curiously, I bought a copy a few years back - Test of Time version? - and they had changed dropped the advisors and changed the graphics to be some fuzzy rubbish 3D stuff. I could not play it. Eventually had to buy another copy (Gold?) that had the original graphics.

One amazingly addictive game, although strangely enough I am not sure I really enjoyed playing it.

I liked the Test of Time version. It allowed me to have fun again with CivII

[Beirut]

For flightsims, certainly for civilian flightsims like MSFS 2004, graphics are pretty much on par with gameplay. Eye candy is the whole raison d'etre of the genre.

[Azi Tohak]

I think the poll results tell it all.

0-29-8-0.

I love Final Fantasy VI. The game is at least a decade old, done in 16-bit, but the game is fantastic.

Final Fantasy X. Looks great, but the characters are boring, and the plot is daft.

Azi

[King of Atlantis]

gameplay is definatley most important, but i do love nice graphics

[Navaros]

i say they are both equal

because after having been spoiled by great graphics combined with great gameplay in many modern games, i am now accustomed to having great graphics

due to constant exposure to great graphics, it has become an expected norm for me.

hence if i play a game with bad graphics, then i am constantly thinking: "wow, these are some really bad graphics!" i am always mentally comparing the environments in a game with obsolete graphics to the environments of all the games i've played that have great graphics. hence i cannot enjoy the gameplay of a game with bad graphics, no matter how great

the exceptions to this for me are games that i grew up with. i can still enjoy those because they are part of my soul and remind me of good times in my childhood.