Ah, the age-old argument, a discussion that will likely never end as consoles and PCs get ever more powerful and capable of some truly stunning games; which is more important, quality in looks or quality in gameplay?
Will you bother to play a game that looks like it was designed in 1997? Do the retro graphics in games like Braid put you off or are you more interested in the engaging gameplay mechanics?
Here is what we think matters when it comes to gorgeous graphics vs quality gameplay.
Alex writes: "Good guns win games, so we've put together the best ranged weapons in Fortnite Chapter 5 Season 2 to help you do rack up more wins."
Sucker for Love: Date to Die For was short, a little broken, but ultimately engaging and relatable. Just like my love life.
IGN : Men of War 2 is a World War 2 real-time strategy game developed by Best Way. Players will engage with epic story campaigns following the Soviets, Americans, and the Third Reich. Trek down battlefields alone or with up to five soldiers in the Conquest campaign, raids, and PvP and PvE multiplayer modes. Men of War 2 is launching on May 15 for PC.
Just to tag on to what I wrote in the piece, I feel that gameplay will always come first unless the graphics are broken and take away from the game.
Dated graphics don't bother me, but broken graphics always will.
I'll take both[gameplay&graphics] since developers have capable hardware
Not as important as they've come to be, which is why they've become a problem.
ill say they are semi important,personally if a game is pure trash it better have good graphics so it can have 1 thing thats good about it(crysis),but personally i could care less,now if graphics help the experience then im all for it(prince of persia 08)
There is something remarkable when you play a beautiful game, it can really enhance the experience. But if the game plays like crap it doesn't matter how good it looks. Graphics should always take a back seat to gameplay. Plain and simple.