Would you buy a game with excellent gameplay but poor graphics?

[TSLxx326]

Perhaps this scenario is a bit extreme, yet I shall call upon my virtual-sports enthusists anyway. In light of monopoly lawsuits and what many would consider an overall botched failure in sports games on the next-gen consoles (PS3, 360) (primarily Madden and NCAAF), the opportunity for competition which many of us here, including myself, have been all but demanding for the last several years, is here. With the possibility that EA likely may not wish to secure exclusive license for NCAA due to "defacto-exclusivity" (http://www.operationsports.com/MMChr...ball%20Gaming/) there is a chance that if competition were to happen, the time would be almost now. In the linked article, the point was made that despite the flaws of the engine behind the EA football games, it would still be a 2 year project to replicate or even compete with it on a presentational level. Immediately I pondered "What if a competitor released a game that had tremendous/simulation gameplay, but severely lack the astetics which admittedly are impressive when one really considers it, would one purchase such a game?"

Thus I ask the question (lemme catch my breath):

Would you purchase a college football game, which contained a beautiful, true simulation engine, near perfect gameplay, but more-or-less possessed the graphics of a PS1 game?
Why or why not?
If so, explain?
If not, would you have a threshold where you would buy it (such as lower price, PS2 graphics minimum, brand-picky, etc)?

(Please no trolling, flaming, name-calling, etc. I would like to keep this an open honest, intelligent discussion, with as little elevated emotion as possible.)

[JerseySuave4]

I wouldn't pay for either. This is 2012, i didn't buy a PS3 for PS1 graphics and a game with crappy gameplay won't get much play from me so neither.

[12]

No, the game has to look visually appealing to an extent.

Game play is more important, but if the game is an eyesore, then I'd definitely pass.

[TSLxx326]

I agree that graphics cant be absolute garbage (PS1 graphics), but given a near perfect simulation (Depth chart logic, momentum, no broken OTs or glitch infested online/offline dynasties, pure realistic player movement, animations, essentially all the little things perfect, correct formation subs and body builds and all), I personally would be willing to pay $20 or $25, for this type of game, possessing more PS2 like graphics. But perhaps I am too liberal in my video game spending.

[Lionsfan7887]

I want the best gameplay possible but graphics have to be good. There has to be a happy medium

[Andrews85]

Quote: Originally Posted by TSLxx326

Would you purchase a college football game, which contained a beautiful, true simulation engine, near perfect gameplay, but more-or-less possessed the graphics of a PS1 game?

Absolutely not. While gameplay is the #1 most important factor for me, graphics have to be up to par.
I know football and baseball are very different sports, but my example is MLB The Show 12. It is an amazing game that has a great simulation engine and next gen graphics.

[man_u_treble]

A few years back PES was head and shoulders above FIFA in gameplay, but they did not have the graphics that FIFA had. Low and behold FIFA outsold it time and time again. This situation is no longer true, but I do think it shows what good to great graphics can do. It also may have something to do with marketing.

[sportzbro]

Already have.. it's called NCAA 06.