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.
Hardcore Gamer Writes "Bring the fight back to earth in this action packed epic that will leave your jaw on the floor."
Stacey Henley from TheGamer Writes "Stellar Blade's marketing has been All About Eve, but it feels like Much Ado About Nothing"
Dalton Cooper from Game Rant Writes "Stellar Blade's main character is getting most of the attention, but the game has a lot more to offer beyond its gratuitous fan service."
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.