game-play or looks?

Hello peoples,

which do you consider to be more important? Game-play or looks in a game?

• Thanks

Having both is good, but i always seek for a good gameplay.

For example, i prefer Ultima, Might and Magic and etc, besides new and shi**y (MMO)RPG's.

Both are nothing unless you have both together, it's unlikely you'll have a popular game if the gameplay is good but the graphics are not. Graphics are what people will recognise the game from.

Gameplay... it's a game. People still enjoy Tetris after all and Space Invaders and all manner of clever old games that don't look necessarily fantastic but are still addictive and fun because of the mechanics and challenge.

Graphics are like... the cover of a book. It should look nice, and reflect the quality of the product inside, but if you open a book up and it's crap, you're not going back to it no matter how nice the presentation is.

You can get away with bad graphics, never bad gameplay (unless we're talking AAA here).

Game play over graphics, for sure. Even with minimal graphics, as long as they are consistent and styled for the game, you can still have a popular game if the mechanics are good.

Moved to General Game Design.

Definitely Game Play. This is why things such as Minecraft are successful.

Recently I have experience good graphics and terrible game play in the form of Doctor Who: Worlds in Time. It looks great but it is absolutely awful to play so I played it once and never went back. Just goes to show you have one chance to capture someone in a game and if you fail then that's it.

I would say gameplay, I can get stuck for hours in small flash games with great gameplay but not so great graphics.

I would have to say both.Game play is important for any type of game ,but there's nothing wrong with a bit off eye candy as well.I have played some fantastic indie games which had better gameplay than most aaa titles , but the replay value is not that high when the gfx suck.When i play a game for the first time i usually play to complete it.When i go for a second time then i want to admire the gfx and artwork that went into that particular game.

Casual games can get away with fugly gfx , but hardcore games need hardcore gfx to accompany it.

While, I am inclined to say "game-play uber alles", I am more with Smitchell? your game doesn't need to be realistic or beautifully rendered, but it does need a strong, cohesive STYLE, and looks are a part of that, your user interfaces with the appearance before they ever get to the puzzles.

But style applies to more than just looks.

gameplay style (difficulty, "genre", mechanics, perma-death)

visual style (8-bit, photo realism, cel-shaded etc.)

audio style (bit-crush, orchestral, ambient)

narrative style (text boxes, NPC's, omniscient narration, cutscenes)

It's not one or the other...all these (and more that I probably don't even know myself yet) are necessary, you just need to balance them for the games you want to make to control the experience. It's like a 4-way yin-yang...like a gameplay orgy 4-some where you determine who's on top. lulz.

Protip: "gameplay" includes graphics, unless you can't see the screen. What you mean is graphics vs mechanics, both are roughly equally important depending on the genre of game.

Some of the worst games I've ever played had amazing art.

Some of the most amazing games I've ever played had horrible art.

Art preference is unique to different gamers. Some may prefer the flashier stuff while others may actually enjoy the duller boring look. But then again, definitions of it will also vary.

Both gameplay and graphics are important. Graphics captures the initial attention, gameplay keeps them playing.

Gameplay. But having both can't hurt. You have to consider that there plenty of shallow gamers out there.