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.
Pepper Grinder nails its mechanics, but its humdrum visuals and world-building stop it from being the modern indie classic that it could’ve been.
IGN : If you haven't already watched our 75-minute, in-depth interview with Judas director Ken Levine about Judas and how its "narrative LEGO" idea builds off of what he did with BioShock and BioShock Infinite, be sure to check that out for additional context. But here you can get a look at all of the new gameplay that developer Ghost Story Games sent us to accompany the interview. Enjoy!
A third game in the Falconeer series has been announced as the second, Bulwark: Falconeer Chronicles, launches.
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.