Gameplay is first, then graphics

I'm like graphics but that's just me. Yes gameplay is important but it hate ugly games

graphics dont mean shit. story and gameplay mean everything.

extremely important to me. kind of like the way a nice soundtrack and solid storyline are important to me. doesnt matter that those aspects dont affect gameplay....i still feel like it draws me in that much more.
there is nothing wrong with enjoying an amazing looking game.

It's very important unless you still like playing with pong graphics forever.

Not as important as art direction or gameplay imo , Monster Hunter 3 i played for 3000hours cause of its gameplay...they are relevant to a extent but for me art direction is a much more important factor to take into acount...

I think that Gameplay isnt an "in all cases most important" type thing. Like theres a lot about immersion and just visual appreciation. Games like uncharted, God of war, the witcher 2, crysis, killzone and rage, are all have pretty average game play for their genres, Sure they add a little here and there, but their no more innovative than any other good game. Yet they are all considered top tier series/games because their freaking phenomenal looking.

one thing people forget about is performance, a game just isnt the same if the performance sucks.

Unless you're playing Papa Sangre (and you should) graphics are important in setting the theme, be it simple, cartoony, hyper realistic, etc in games. Relative graphic performance between platforms is not so important, but is a factor for some people.

Of course they are important. Look at the huge difference in Battlefield 3, Crysis 3 etc on PC to consoles. If your saying graphics don't make a difference, then you may as well stick with our current consoles. Of course we all like the odd game like Deadlight which is fun to play, but a blockbuster game needs great graphics IMO.

Remember the old days of the NES? 8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit, 64-bit eras?? Consoles have always touted their graphics, and they're still very important today. However, better graphics don't mean better games. Take a look at the Atari Jaguar and the SNES. The former is 64-bit, while the latter was 16-bit. Which console had better games, were visually appealing despite only having 16-bit, and was also superior in every other way? The SNES! Now for a current comparison. Killzone 2 vs Crysis 3. I would rather play Killzone 2, a game that came out 4 years ago, on a weaker console compared to the PC, but had better gameplay and story, than play Crysis 3, another generic FPS where Crytek focused mostly everything on "teh graficks", rather than story and gameplay.

I gotta say that graphics aren't everything. Gameplay is #1, period. If a game is going for super realistic graphics I tend to think they're hiding sub-par gameplay, that or they have a budget through the roof.

Stereoscopic 3D has become pretty important in my gaming habits.

Bad graphics pull players from the immersion of the game. They can even go so far as to detract from the other elements of the game. You can have a great overall art style, but poor general graphics take away from that. Graphics are simply immersion. They don't make the game, but they do go a long way in improving your perception of it as a whole.
Good gameplay is the most important thing, but graphics are still very much important. It's as simple as that.

For me though, graphical fidelity trumps everything. I am fine with a less than stellar looking game, as long as the overall resolution makes for a clear image. I will take a weaker looking game at a higher resolution over a better looking game at a lower resolution.

if a game plays like shit but has incredible graphics, I'd rather look outta my window to see real life graphics

Games like Killzone, Uncharted, God of War and Crysis are often considered top of the line for graphics but simpler titles are often left out.

Games like Pixel Junk Monsters are never thought of when thinking best graphics but for the style it possesses it is near flawless. Other such games include Plants vs Zombies, Fat Princess, Journey etc.

Graphics are important but that doesn't mean a game has to look realistic.

It is only natural that graphics will get better with the times.. what makes or breaks a game is not graphics but over-all art style.. a good graphics engine allows developers to become even more creative but when limitation are reached it boils down to art direction and over all presentation of a game.. first and foremost gameplay must take precedence followed by style and presentation..

Shenmue II, Valkryia Chronicles, Bioshock, Prince of Persia (2007) release and now I will go so far to say that Bioshock Infinite and Crysis 3 do take presentation into account.. if you ask me.. graphics can only go so far.. does anyone remember the Atari 2600! Pitfall anyone.

The whole idea of games is for you too feel that your the character and to feel that the game is real and you like too feel the realism in the game itself wether your playing a rpg or fps you like to think you are in a real city so graphics are important but it depends what game your playing if it is a puzzle or any other game then gameplay obviously , so it depends really .

Gameplay foremost, then graphics. There's nothing like spending $60 for a pretty game that you latter find out it can be finish in a matter of days.

The graphics should be used only to enchance gameplay. Not as eye candy.

Same cliche articles and same bs responses. Give it a break already!!!!

Graphics, or rather, technical graphical beauty, isn't as important as presentation is. For instance, even though the Wii was drastically underpowered in comparison to the 360 and PS3, Monolith was still able to create a game like Xenoblade which, while not technically stunning, is still a "beautiful" game to play and look at considering that the style, scope, and music of Xenoblade are all-high quality.

Tell me again how the multiplatform strategy was supposed to fix everything. Look at your results and compare them to Nintendo, which keeps thriving with exclusives. Your loyal fans are gone. And let’s not forget the pile of IPs you purchased only to let them rot.

The worst thing is this is down from last years numbers/expectations which was down from the previous years numbers/expectations. You think about how long “down” has been a consistent part of the communication and you realize those subscriptions are what’s holding that boat together. The price cut of gamespass is still a price raise in a string of price raises. They are trying to use players to offset the missing revenue. Now call of duty is out of gamespass, which is literally WHY they bought the company. To draw people to the subscription. They realized they missed a boatload of money and that wasn’t sustainable. Now you pay for it like you would have if they never bought the company… so why buy the company? Mind you those billions still need to be paid back. Yeah it gives you a chance to say we make the biggest FPS… but the internal conversations must be brutal at high level on topics that really matter. Like revenue. Profitability. And ROI for the shopping spree.

Is this like the 10th quarter in a row they're down 33% on hardware how is that even mathematically possible. You would think their mediocrity would Plateau