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

[Colt45]

I paid for like 100 SNES games, so...

[kwilliam]

I would pay for a game with excellent gameplay and with good graphics.... But I remember playing football on the Atari,NES,SNES,PS1,PS2....

[BadAssHskr]

The new standard for football graphics is currently ncaa13. The next new standard for football graphics will be madden13. No one will settle for less at this stage, and going backward would be a huge disadvantage.

[TSLxx326]

So to those whove answered already, or about to, is any regress in graphics unacceptable at this point, despite perfect gameplay? I feel these are the questions that a plausable competitor to EA would consider before investing in the college football video game market. This will likely draw redneck refutes, but none-the-less Id like to use iracing.com as an example. iracing is a computer racing simulator. Literally perfect simulation of a NASCAR vehichle, perfect simulation of driving a racecar on a track. However, its graphics are comparable to a PS1/PS2 hybrid. It is an incredibly successful site (six months would cost $60, which I feel compares fairly to playing a console game). The concept of a successful game with a great simulation with terrible graphics isnt that farfetched. Im amazed at the growing opposition to this concept though. However I must admit that iracing is exclusive to people who own simulators as opposed to a controler for a console. Therefore it is tough to speculate on the idea of great game bad graphics of console games vs computer simulators.

[CuseGirl]

If the graphics were pulled back to the PS2/2007 days but had the gameplay perfect, max I could pay is 15 bucks and it would HAVE to play on PS3, I don't keep old consoles laying around.

The visuals help, you kno, so you can actually see what's going on...

[BA2929]

No, I wouldn't.

Why?
Because I shouldn't have to sacrifice one or the other. They should both be great and the developers should strive to make each as wonderful as possible each year.

[Colt45]

The bigger, more real point is that graphics are good/great currently, and the team should stop focusing on graphics and presentation until the bigger issues in gameplay are addressed.

[TSLxx326]

Quote: Originally Posted by BA2929

No, I wouldn't. Why? Because I shouldn't have to sacrifice one or the other. They should both be great and the developers should strive to make each as wonderful as possible each year.

This would apply more towards a first, maybe second year release, not the finished product. Obviously after a release or two, the visuals could be polished and brought to its current potential. Say Games-for-Wins releases The College Football Experience 2014 as competition to NCAA Football 14. Assuming NCAAF 14 is 13 simply with a couple modifications which sells for $60, while TCFE 2014 is the game as I am proposing it (perfect sim, bad graphics) and sells for $25. Would you consider rolling with Games-for-Wins for a couple years to see if theyd surpass EA or would you rather stick with EA?

assuming of course that as the years passed, graphics improved dramatically each year