Better graphics or better gameplay?

Let's say you were to choose between high-budget games with great graphics but limited/stale gameplay and low-budget games with poor graphics but great gameplay - what would you choose, better graphics or better gameplay?

Imagine a future where there's no "middle point" anymore and you have to pick sides.

So what would it be?

I'd personally go for gameplay as I believe graphics themselves don't make a great game.

What about you?

The big budget games of course.

Graphics. They don't make a bad game good, but they can made a good game even better.

Effective use of graphics budget, with good gameplay, and story if applicable.

Edit: I don't care about "picking" sides in an imaginary battle between complementary elements. If a game had absolutely terrible graphics, I might not want to play it. If Mario looked like an MS DOS prompt would it be charming? Probably not.

Gameplay. It's like saying, would you rather play last gen games, or play nothing but games like Dragon's Lair and Plumbers Don't Wear Ties with cinema quality visuals.

Is this a serious question? Why better gRafIX of course!

.campzor

Lol, I love the reference to Event Horizon in that pic.

Counter Strike Source>Battlefield 3

What do you think?

Counter Strike Source>Battlefield 3

What do you think?

OB-47

[QUOTE="OB-47"]

Counter Strike Source>Battlefield 3

What do you think?

campzor

Never played enough 1.6 to tell the difference. But I refuse to listen to the 1.6 crowd as most of them are stubborn mules.

Not saying you are though

This argument is so simplistic and overused. But many times graphics enhance the game experience or even the gameplay (looking at Crysis it certaintly did). Decent graphics are required for an artist to see his vision portrayed efficiently

inB4tehbothobligatorygenericcomment

[QUOTE="campzor"][QUOTE="OB-47"]

Counter Strike Source>Battlefield 3

What do you think?

OB-47

Never played enough 1.6 to tell the difference. But I refuse to listen to the 1.6 crowd as most of them are stubborn mules.

Not saying you are though

I think we're gonna need a PC for that.

lol @ noobs that think games with worse graphics have better gameplay. The gameplay is always identical, and it's the games with better graphics that usually have more refined gameplay. This is the dumbest question that keeps getting asked on SW.

They're both important but what good is graphics if the game plays like crap.

It's so sad.

It's always one or the other with consolites.

They have been deprived of graphics for so long, thery really do think they can't have one without the other.

hhhmmm, I had Crysis 2 for the PS3 and didnt enjoy it. I then picked it up for my PC cheap and enjoyed it a lot more due to the amazing graphics etc. However, last month I bought God Hand. Now this game has terrible graphics, but I seriously cant get anough of it. The gameplay is spot on!!

So even though I have a very nice PC, which I admit I bought so I could play game at max settings (and to do work on of course), I think I will take gameplay.

Gameplay for sure. That's why I still play Quake 3 and Deus Ex.

Only dumbasses pick graphics over gameplay.

Definitely gameplay. What's the point of playing a crap game even if it looks nice.

It's so sad.

It's always one or the other with consolites.

They have been deprived of graphics for so long, thery really do think they can't have one without the other.

Kinthalis

This, plus consolites don't have the ability to mod their games to improve the gameplay so they think what you get at launch is what you are stuck with.

This question is never black and white. Both aspects, along with many others, can be be redeeming or detrimental.

The technical deficiencies of Dark Souls does'nt stop it's excellence.

It's weak gameplay and poor graphics does'nt stop Nier being one of the best jrpgs this gen.

The (somewhat superficial) visual prowess of Skyrim seems to compensate for it's singleminded gameplay and fps control design. 1000 skills and you're esentially stuck with two guns, if you want fluent combat.

______________________________

I'll take simple but pretty, over complex but low quality, though.

better gameplay clearly.

Better gameplay. Graphics don't define a game for me but the gameplay can.

Gameplay is better than graphics but they are both important... just look at the Wii, it had neither.

Better gameplay, of course. Dragon´s lair or Super Mario Bros 3? :P

Graphics are important aswell and, in some cases, they help gameplay.

Depends. What advantages in gameplay do the PS3 and XBox 360 have over the PS2 and XBox respectively?

Why not just stick with the latter two?

Why is it always one or the other?

So many games in the past have shown that you can have both.

depends on the gamemems_1224

I will always prefer something that is fun to play and has some sense of character and depth underneath some technical flaws more than something that has none of the aforementioned qualities, but is pretty to look at. However, it is obviously preferable to have the best of both worlds as much as possible. As we all love beautiful visuals.

[QUOTE="mems_1224"]depends on the gamekraken2109

Xenoblade chronicles says hi ~

though the graphics is kinda really bad you forget about it after 1 hour once you start seeing the scale of the games combat and features.

PC - > both.