What is more important for you, graphics or gameplay?

I try making poll! But I don’t know how!

I will get this started, by saying, graphics is more important for me. I’ve seen great games that I would never play because of how it looks.

1 Like

Graphics is irrelevant to me. Story and Gameplay are by far the most important factors imo

Stardew valley, mount your friend, portal knights, a druids duel, worms.
Examples of games with relatively poor graphics that i would strongly recommend. Either for its story, or the gameplay.

Not saying i dont like graphics, throw that into the mix and you get some of my all time favourites, such as the Trine series, ori and the blind forest, the witcher series and so on :slight_smile: Games that imo nail all three.


Gameplay obviously , I do enjoy pixel art platformers if they have good gameplay.

I think alot of people fail to differentiate graphic rendering quality from design.
A game like The Long Dark for example proves that it can look good even without cutting edge high res graphics, and In my opinion, its better than many games just because of its visual design and gameplay.

By contrast a game like Hunter: call of the wild has high res photoreal-like engine and yet the gameplay is so bad and boring to me.

Another example : Subnautica , great visuals , very inspiring . but the game-play : lets just say that after you play the game once there is absolutely no point to keep playing it.
it’s not a bad game but its not good either , not worth the time spent playing it.

I don’t think of graphics vs. gameplay being as simple as good graphics or good gameplay.

If a game has excellent gameplay, but non AAA-quality graphics, then it might be worth a look unless said graphics were downright ugly (ie. it has no shading at all or it resembles a PS1 game gone bad).

If a game had gorgeous graphics, but terrible or non-functional gameplay, then it’s not going to be worth having, the worse thing is that it would be a 40 gigabyte space eater.

1 Like

A lot of what is called “AAA” anymore seems to only mean graphics combined with scummy monetization schemes (loot boxes, MTX, etc). Combine that with “online only” and that’s a big fat “NOPE” for me.

What good are graphics if the game world is shallow, boring, and restricted?

1 Like

of course good graphics is very important to me. but good graphics doesn’t mean photorealism. it can be any style. sometimes also retro pixel style. :slight_smile:


i could not agree more actually… i very often say i straight out dont play AAA games, at all. I dont even bother looking at them. If the story is good, then i watch a playthrough for the story, as i gain nothing from playing it myself. Examples being God of war, batman, beyond two souls etc.

Then there are the very rare exceptions, such as Witcher 3, and some “aaa” games made by indies, such as the team behind hellblade, which i still classify as a AAA.

Graphics and gameplay are intertwined; your question is like asking whether a car’s steering wheel is more important than its engine.


if it’s a Game, having AAA graphics, with a shit gameplay, it doesn’t make any sense, it could even pass the Story, not necessarily that it’s completely essential, but the Gameplay is everything

I think we need to distinguish between realistic graphics and good graphics?
To me graphics are as important as good gameplay. Whether it’s pixel art or GTA V like realism, as long as it gets me message across.


There’s also the issue of subjectivity. “Good” may mean different things to different people. Heck, even “gameplay” might mean different things to different people.

The thread-starter might get the sorts of answers that they’re looking for without elaborating, but I’m as interested in how we’re defining our terms as I am in any actual opinions.

I think graphics are not subjective, the taste in art style may be.
A friend of mine once said, he likes PUBG over Fortnite because it has better graphics. What he probably actually meant was, he didnt like its art style.

For me, graphics are bad when there are inconsistencys, or when it is technically badly excecuted.

This is the kind of distinction that makes the original question more meaningful.

So, maybe:

“What is more important to you, art style or gameplay?”


"Could you really enjoy a game with technical flaws, as long as the art is in a style that you are attracted to?

For example - I’m one of those people who you’d think would really appreciate games done in the pixel graphic art style. I was born in 1975 and started playing Pac-Man around 1980, and my first home system was an Atari 2600. After the Crash, I was a huge fan of the sorts of Nintendo games that most of the modern indie pixel graphics games are based on. My first art program was an ANSI drawing program.

But… I can’t stand pixel graphics now. I have the tag excluded on Steam and, if a game is done in the pixel graphics style, unless it’s an absolute masterpiece, I never even think once about getting it. I love role playing games and after watching a couple of YouTube videos I couldn’t bring myself to try Undertale, even though Undertale is supposed to be one of the best experiences of the decade.

1 Like

Graphics and story are the most important to me. A game with poor gameplay but with great story or visuals is something I’ll always play and replay it.

A game that only has gameplay to offer, will keep me entertained for about a week or so before getting bored of it. That’s why I can’t play online games at all. It’s boring.

But a game like for example TellTale’s Walking Dead is a game I absolutely love and play it every now and then despite it barelly having any gameplay in it.

But I also say that the best games are those that create gameplay/story and graphics of equal quality. The witcher series and God of War comes to mind.

1 Like

I think you should try Don’t Escape: 4 days in a wasteland, I think you will change your mind.
In the last 3-4 years many retro pixel games have come out and they are just fantastic … told by one who has devoured any kind of game in the last 30 years…

This is happening, especially among the indie developers who have few resources, who have great stories to tell and great gameplay experience to show but have no resources and time to create superb graphics …
yet the compromise works fine.

On the contrary I have seen more and more AAA titles appear from exuberant costs and graphics, which literally suck. Assembly chains of so many people who come together to create something that then turns out to be a clone of something else and has nothing to tell and nothing new to teach and ends up boring when it’s good. Loops of eternal loss of time, with some graphic shimmering effect :sneezing_face:

Mixed bag on this one. I mean some games I’ll just play because they are graphics porn, sometimes it is just nice to see what some skilled artists can do (and to be fair, you can do quite a bit of story telling with just graphics) Some games I’ll play just for the gameplay or the story behind them.

Each game is a window into another world, a window constructed as best as the artists and story tellers can make it, part of enjoying the game can be admiring the window as well.

Game with great graphics and poor gameplay is something nobody will want. Game with great gameplay and poor graphics has time and again been a classic that millions will play.

By gameplay I mean all the interactions that you do with the game, not just what is traditionally considered gameplay. Would the game work for you even if it had mediocre programmer art graphics? If yes, then the gameplay is good.

By graphics I mean AAA art. Uncharted 4, Last of Us, Assassins Creed, Far Cry, Battlefield, etc…

Computer graphics today have more or less solved aliasing and low res textures which are two of the most distracting flaws in the PS3/Xbox 360 generation.

If a game has good antialiasing and sharp textures I have no complaints even if the graphics is Dreamcast level.

I will be honest if a game is good but graphics below par I could not enjoy it fully.

Good graphics can really suck me into the world. Like Thief 3 or UT2004. In UT2004 I would turn off all the bots and the HUD and just walk around imagining making a game with that kind of graphics but with a story.

Speak for yourself. I’ve played many great games with great graphics and story but almost non-existant gameplay or just poor and I enjoyed it very much.