Those all had excellent graphics for their time. I bet if you released them today, nobody would take notice.

Consider Square Enix's Thief reboot from last year - it was pretty much universally disliked, and that game looks fine as far as today's graphics go. Rather, players took issue with the uninspired gameplay. The recent successes of the 3DS remakes of Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask further contradict your point.

Lastly, consider games like Super Meat Boy, Shovel Knight, VVVVV, Luftrausers, Nidhogg, Grow Home, (...). These games do not have great graphics by the current standards (rather, they have style), though they have all enjoyed varying degrees of critical and commercial success.

Shovel Knight has been widely acclaimed for it's beautiful visuals.

You need both in some form.

To sell the game and get it into the gamers hands you need good visuals in screenshots and Videos.

Once they have it you need good gameplay, and at least a few hours of it, to prevent them refunding it...

You also need marketing, otherwise no amount of gameplay or graphics means squat if nobody knows it exists...

what do gamers prefer, graphics over gameplay, or gameplay over graphics?

What do drivers prefer in a windshield, visibility over wind protection, or wind protection over visibility?
If you mind rain and bugs in your teeth, and if you want to see where you're going, both would be the way to go.

Text adventure games were fun. Just sayin'.

What do film goers prefer, audio or video?

Yeah, I know they want both but which one is more important?

Can I just focus on the audio amd still have a good film?

</Farce>

It's a false dichotomy. Both aspects should enable amd enhance each other to make the whole greater than the sum of it's parts.

But what if I prefer silent films? =) Or I guess there is a thriving bastion of Text Adventure games out there. But then is it the writing (subbed in for graphics) or the clever puzzles?

(But I agree, totally pointless exercise)

I think we have seen a lot of games pushing for better graphics as their focus (this was always true even with early games) and the rise of interactive stories reinforces this.

I think the real question you should be asking yourself though is specific to your target platform and target audience.
Web games, for example, tend to deal with smaller budgets and players appear to be more forgiving to poor gfx there if the gameplay is sound (see stuff on kongregate for example).

AAAs get a lot more backlash from cutting back on gfx even when gameplay might be stellar.

Hope this helps!

Definitely both.

Dwarf Fortress is an exception, it has success despite terrible graphics and ui. There are always outliers, but you shouldn't be fooled to think either doesn't matter because of them.

I'm sure it would have even more success if they at least fixed the usability of it. I for one would play it, but now I just can't bother.

Similarly, there are games that got success mostly on their excellent graphics, but would have had even more if the gameplay was deeper too.

To be honest a lot of good games would still be good with bad graphics.

The main reason AAA games have good graphics is because it's become accepted and expected. People dont go out and drop £400 on a next gen console and expect pac man, they expect destiny etc. If one game has amazing graphics they all feel they need to match it or be ignored as "not as impressive" as their competitors. Advancing technology drives better graphics and therefore higher and higher art budgets and higher games pricing. It does not promote better gameplay in fact in my opinion quite the opposite, money is taken from the games budget and funneled into art development at the expense of other areas because graphics gives the first impression of the game on adverts, billboards, on the side of buses, and directly sells the game...

it seems that players look for a particular type of gameplay experience first, and then from titles with that gameplay, tend to choose the one with the best graphics, all other things being roughly equal. this means a game like dwarf fortress with better graphics ought to sell ok - once you account for the niche appeal of the game type, and the huge head start the original text mode version has against any newcomers. it also means that games like minecraft don't have to compete with call of duty graphics, because call of duty doesn't have minecraft gameplay. "best in class" seems to be where one wants to be with graphics - IE for games of a similar type, you want to be the title with the best graphics. I personally tend to use this to my advantage. i usually produce unique games with no direct competition, so whatever level of graphics i have is automatically "best in class", because its "the only one in the class". SIMTrek enjoyed this position for a number of years until Gene Roddenberry died, and Paramount entered the starship flight sim market. Caveman also enjoys this "only one in the class" advantage.

Dwarf Fortress is an exception, it has success despite terrible graphics and ui.

So.... if a game has terrible graphics and stunning gameplay, it's popular because it's an exception. I suppose if it has stunning graphics and terrible gameplay (nice view from this mountain top, I guess I better go to the cave, battle a couple dozen necromancers, and retrieve that book from some lazy NPC back in town for the zillionth time, then go back and find another identical quest), it's popular because it's a good game.

I see what you're doing there.