Graphics or Gameplay: which is more important to a game?

Since the advent of 3D models, graphics have been a major selling point in just about every game, with each new generaion boasting more realistic graphics and games selling themselves on how realistic they look. Now, a pretty looking game is always good to see, as some games have truly memorable moments thanks to breathtaking vistas or well-rendered cutscenes that work in tnagent with motion capture to deliver incredible performances with subtle facial cues that elevates scenes' emotions.

However, recently debate has sparked over how important a good looking game truly is, as some feel that this is done at the cost of fun gameplay or, at the very least, a focus on making the game look as pretty as possible takes away time and resources that can be spent enhancing the core gameplay loop, or creating more interesting gameplay scenarios for the player. This leads to a dichotomy in games with AAA titles looking good but mainly being only worth one play with stylised indie games being so gripping that they can be played for far longer than a game that has had hundreds of millions of dollars poured into it.

These are by no means set in stone rules, as AAA games that look good can also have engaging gameplay scenarios and a solid foundation to make a good game, but I think back on the games I played last year and the ones that stuck out to me above the others and most of them were indie titles. For example, one of my most played games of the year was Phasmophobia, a multiplayer horror game which has a solid core idea: you go to a location and have to figure out what kind of ghost is haunting it. After a good few games you've most likely found everything the game has to offer, however each time going in with friends was so fun that I always wanted to play more, and every game having that same tension of how the ghost would mess with us that time. Contrast this with a AAA title like Far Cry: New Dawn, which I got bored with exceedingly quickly before I even got close to completing it, or just about any high budget open world game that just consists of samey busywork to pad out the world; I'd rather have the same gameplay feel different every time I played it rather than having a lot of different things to do that all feel the exact same.

What also should be involved in this discussion is the issue surrounding crunch that, while it has been a longstanding issue in the gaming industry, has ramped up more in the past few years. The debate sparked up once again around the Game Awards where Naughty Dog's The Last of Us Part II, a game that was revealed to have underwent heavy crunch to get released garnered many awards, while only two awards went to Supergiant Games's Hades, which was shown to completely go against crunch culture and actually encouraged developers to take time off. There's no doubt that The Last of Us Part II looks stunning and pushes the PS4 hardware to its absolute limits, however is that much really worth it at the cost of developers being put through greuling conditions just to get the game to ship? On the other hand, Hades boasts a compelling gameplay loop and a cartoonish art style that looks stellar without trying to look as realistic as possible.

In fact, historically these stylistic-focused games hold up far better than the ones trying to replicate reality. Technology that was once cutting edge is now laughably terrible looking and so too are some of the games that released on them, lest we forget some of the true nightmares that FMV cutscenes gave us back in the PS1 era (especially Tekken's, eugh). Meanwhile, games that opted for a more cartoonish style like Spyro the Dragon or Kingdom Hearts, are far more acceptable; sure their graphical limitations are still clear, but they aren't uncanny or unsettlingly almost-human as other games of their respective release periods are.

Nowadays, there are even games that mimic the outdated graphics of yesteryear that have intensively fun gameplay loops. Take for example DUSK, a high mobility first person shooter that looks like Quake and plays like one of the best shooters I've experienced in years. Add that to the cavalcade of critically acclaimed indie games that utilise classical aesthetics (Stardew Valley, Superhot, Baba is You and the Binding of Isaac to name a few) and it's clear that good gameplay will always outshine whatever the game's graphics are.

As I said earlier, this doesn't necessarily mean that a game with good graphics is inherently bad or dull; personally, Devil May Cry 5 and Doom Eternal are two of my favourite games from the past couple years, and they both look and feel amazing. However, if it came down to a decision of whether a game should look good or play well, I believe the latter should always get the most love. A pretty game can have moments that are beautiful, but a game with truly exceptional gameplay will stick in your mind and keep you coming back for more.