Gameplay is more important but as for graphics: they seem to be first on everyone's agenda. Its the reason why battlefield 3 sold well.

Some of the most addictive games ever made came out on handheld consoles. They may not have been graphical powerhouses, but they were incredibly well made nontheless. Graphics invite a player in, but the gameplay keeps them there.

Gameplay is more important but the graphics must be up to date or adequate.

Gameplay duh... no point of having the best graphics if the game sucks

gameplay is more important but lets be honest there are limits, you can not sell a game with 8 bit graphics as a 60 bucks retail title no matter how good its gameplay is

Gameplay is the most important part of the game. When you have developers that focus on graphics more than gameplay, you get average games, like Ryse, that have average gameplay and nothing to offer you but pretty visuals.

But I do say this, Developers should have a standard for graphics. They do somewhat help immersion. You don't have to have photo realism, just put some effort into it.

You only need to take a look at xbones ryse to know that graphics doesn't guarantee a good game. Gameplay is the most important of all

Gameplay and graphics are not mutually exclusive. They are very closely intertwined. Trying to treat them as entirely separate entities is a fallacy.

Gameplay is comprised of graphics and vice versa. It's in the name: "VIDEO" games. That is, they use computer graphics in order to allow the user to play a game. Developers use graphical representations of actions to convey their effects to the player. Without graphics, there is no gameplay. Without gameplay, there is no game, just graphics (in computing, it just refers to digitally synthesizing and manipulating content).

Graphics just have to be suited to the gameplay. That's it. If you're aiming for a more realistic/real-world experience, you'll want more realistic graphics. People often approach the graphics vs. gameplay argument by suggesting that graphics are just how "realistic" or how many advanced graphical techniques are being used. The real question should always be: how well do the graphics suit the gameplay? Based on your interpretation of the director's vision, do you believe they were successful in conveying the appropriate atmosphere/aesthetic visually?

They are not at odds: gameplay and graphics go hand-in-hand in videogames.

Gameplay and graphics are both important. These are video games. Notice the VIDEO part of it. I happen to enjoy the best gameplay and the best graphics, which is why I choose the platform that gets the best of both worlds; pc

GTA 5
Is graphic good? No
Gameplay? Awesome

What is more important?

Demand both where this question is applicable. Don't believe you have to settle.

Gameplay of course. That's a no brainer. If I want good graphics I take a walk through the forest.

But graphics are still important in games. There are a few unique titles that make me stop and look at things because they are beautiful. Like Skyrim with Mods. It helps making a game more immersive, but if the gameplay sucks graphics won't save it.

Pretty but dumb games prove that graphics will always be trumped by gameplay.
I have both Crysis and Battlefield Bad Company 2, try and guess which I have spent over 750 hours playing online and which I have barely played 30 minutes of. Although to be fair, BFBC 2 is not a shabby looking game.

Obviously a great blend of the two is preferable, but gameplay should always be king.

Gameplay, after all that's what differs a CGI movie of a game

I would say gameplay but that doesn't mean that you can't have both in a game.

What's more important?

Getting a life.

Yin & yang.

Is having both to much to ask for?!

Why not both? Why do they have to be treated separately? Of course I prefer gameplay always because its a videogame but come on, why not make the game a more enjoyable experience with breathtaking graphics? Look at the last of us and God of war 3. Both great games with groundbreaking graphics. Why should yhey be treated separately? Thats just lazy on the developers part. We are living in 2014... like I said I always prefer gameplay but in 2014 if I play a game with great gameplay but graphics similar to tablets on the playstation 4 or xbone, just no....thats so freaking lazy. Might as well make the game on the playstation 2 if you plan on making games that have tablet graphical capablities. So to me both gameplay and graphics are important to being a great game :)

At this point they are BOTH important. I want both good game play and good graphics

Gameplay is most important but if the graphics are too ugly I won't play it.

Compare it to a beautiful looking Cake with pretty decorations...but tastes awful.

Game play wins over graphics, but the majority of people judge things by presentation.

Saying that, a little 'Eye candy' never hurts :)

Depends on the game. The aesthetics of having better graphics than the previous iteration or game on an older system is definitely needed because it shows what developers can do if they put their minds to it and a natural progression. Other than that though it should be gameplay, although you could argue gameplay has been the same old same old for ages now, it's again down to developers to evolve it.

Most people are going to be on about having better graphics until we're playing photo-realistic games anyway so the argument for pretty graphics ain't going away soon.

gameplay stands the test of time graphics dont. If a games got solid gameplay you can revisit it twenty years later anf it'll still be just as enjoyable.

If the only thing a game has going for it is pretty graphics it'll cease to be special as soon as a better looking game comes out.

I'm gonna use the argument everyone in the god damn world uses.

Minecraft

SMT: DS SOUL HACKERS is way better than Tomb Raider Ultra Setting on PC..

Gameplay came first. Without it we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Gameplay first. Graphics? Art Direction is important. Technical prowess is not something that matters to me.

would you play a visually stunning game that has nothing to do in it? just to lurk to nowhere and watch the backgrounds?

Gameplay is a lot more important the graphics, but yet the younger generation does not seem to understand this. For example RE 1,2 and 3 the graphics were not great but it was a proper survival horror game with amazing gameplay and like Oagoz said above just look at minecraft graphics aint everything when you got an amazing game like that

Gameplay. Anyone who says otherwise shouldn't be playing.

Both graphics and Gameplay has always been important in the industry, always. Only now, with the underpowered xbone, some people suggest that graphics are not important in an attempt to justify the weak hardware of the xbone.

Ask yourself, why when the xbox 360 had a little edge on multiplatform games (not on first party games) you never saw articles or people saying "Gameplay is more important" no, they said "xbox is more powerful and that's what matters"

Now, because the xbone is underpowered, then graphics doesn't matter, resolution doesn't matter.

You should ask nintendo.

.. Both graphics and Gameplay has always been important in the industry, always. Only now, with the underpowered xbone, some people suggest that graphics are not important in an attempt to justify the weak hardware of the xbone.

Ask yourself, why when the xbox 360 had a little edge on multiplatform games (not on first party games) you never saw articles or people saying "Gameplay is more important" no, they said "xbox is more powerful and that's what matters"

Now, because the xbone is underpowered, then graphics doesn't matter, resolution doesn't matter.

I can go back and enjoy games like ape escape and pokemon leafgreen, i won't go back to play crysis 3.

Definitely graphics first. If a game looks like ass (especially on a next gen system) it makes it feel cheap like the developer doesn't put enough effort in. When I see a game with amazing graphics, I get the feeling that it's a large budget game and a lot of effort was put into it.

"That game sucked, but atleast it was pretty" said no one ever. Gameplay is king... it's the reason people are still playing aged titles online. Appreciation for graphics only last as long as the next visual offering, but great gameplay can never be replaced.

Always gameplay over graphics.

Graphics because as long as the game looks good it does not matter how boring and mediocre it is

Now that Jim Ryan is gone just need to remove Herman Hulst from his position! And maybe give Shuhei the position he deserved.

This gen hasn't been the best for games, last gen consoles are still out there and now there's been talk of the PS6 and Xbox Two for a year or so. Many games this gen will be ported to next gen and the cycle will continue. The re-release of the Neo Geo AES+, games on cartridge for £70 ($95), gaming is going back in time. Gaming has gone pricing mad with the high cost of games, consoles and controllers. The men and women at the top are clueless.

It’s always interesting to hear behind-the-scenes stories like this, especially involving veterans like Shuhei Yoshida and leadership figures like Jim Ryan. That said, there are usually multiple sides to decisions at that level. It could be less about not “listening” and more about differences in long-term vision for PlayStation. Yoshida played a huge role in shaping the brand, so whatever the reason, his impact is undeniable.

If true, and I'm inclined to believe it is, it goes to show that Sony lost their way when they became more western/didn't respect the PlayStation origin story. Andrew House and Jack Tretton did great work, but they also didn't try to fundamentally change the PlayStation DNA. Ryan oversaw the death of Japan Studio and a live service direction.

I already figured this, good lord imagine if Shuhei took over instead, would've been a platinum era 😩

I miss the first three generations of PlayStation. The way they turned PS3 around, we knew they meant business. We were all worried for a bit there around launch. Eventually from 2008 they started shifting slowly. But since Yoshida was fired, it's never been the same. Still enjoy my PS5 daily. I got a backlog dating back to PS2 lol So I'm fine but new games aren't as appealing anymore.

It seems like we were thrown on to the worst timeline possible where everything is too expensive and the wrong people were put in positions that makes the world a shitty place. We could have had Shu as the head of PS but we got the shitty alternative. Same goes for everyone in power around the world. Doesn’t matter the company or country the majority of us got the shitty picks and the world is declining like never before. I do think PS can come out of this because of their studios, talent and IP but they need someone more in touch with gamers leading things like Shu was. They’re still the best place for console gaming imo but it could be much better than it is especially without the massive live service failures. The rest of the world I have a lot less hope for right now. Hopefully the pendulum swings back towards the good ole days but I’m preparing for the worst.

There goes illuminati distraction story

So now there's certifiable proof that Ryan was in fact "fired", as opposed to when it was first announced that he "retired", in order to save face.

There's another guy who recently "retired" as CEO of another large gaming company, after doing a dismantling job as lead for well over a decade.

seems legit, the business man, fires the one who has ideas to move the business forward.

Jim Ryan is the reason why we are entering year 6 since the PS5 launch and many of us don't feel like the PS5 has gotten started as yet.

I hope going forward, we will see a return to form.