I'm not even sure what fits into what category.  I'm mainly into MMOs and when I think about graphics I don't even know what that includes. I mean you can have a pretty cool world design with weak shaders and effects.  As for game play and story, you would think those would be #1 and #2, but then I remember EverQuest and the game play was so so. As for the story, few people actually did the quests, especially at the lower levels.  It even got the nickname NeverQuest.  Yet I still found it fun to play for whatever reason.

That being said, since I'm working on an MMO I decided to try to prioritize this.  I split it into 4 categories however.

1) World design
2) Game play
3) Graphics
4) Story

I prioritize in that order. The reason I put story last for MMOs, is I find most people don't really care that much. I mean they may go though the motions but really a player's personal story is driven by player to player interactions and so the built in story line doesn't matter that much. On the other hand I think a kind of underlying environment/story is important. Different races, different regions, stuff like that. However I kind of think that goes more into world design.

7 minutes ago, Gnollrunner said:

I'm not even sure what fits into what category.  I'm mainly into MMOs and when I think about graphics I don't even know what that includes. I mean you can have a pretty cool world design with weak shaders and effects.  As for game play and story, you would think those would be #1 and #2, but then I remember EverQuest and the game play was so so. As for the story, few people actually did the quests, especially at the lower levels.  It even got the nickname NeverQuest.  Yet I still found it fun to play for whatever reason.

That being said, since I'm working on an MMO I decided to try to prioritize this.  I split it into 4 categories however.

1) World design
2) Game play
3) Graphics
4) Story

I prioritize in that order. The reason I put story last for MMOs, is I find most people don't really care that much. I mean they may go though the motions but really a player's personal story is driven by player to player interactions and so the built in story line doesn't matter that much. On the other hand I think a kind of underlying environment/story is important. Different races, different regions, stuff like that. However I kind of think that goes more into world design.

Well, looking at your priorities list, I think you enjoy playing sandbox games, maybe? 'Cause that's what I get use to demanding on MMOs. In that case, gameplay is by far so important. Mount&Blade, for example. And I am agree with you with the list but only because of the MMO condition. Withouth that, Story goes up to the 3rd position.

26 minutes ago, Esteban5XG said:

Well, looking at your priorities list, I think you enjoy playing sandbox games, maybe?

Well I'm not sure. I mean I thought WoW was a good game when I played it.  I guess they call it theme park MMO. If I had to put my finger on it I would say the best MMOs force players to work together at least some of the time. I found games like Guild Wars 2 to be somewhat lacking in that department. It was like you run around and play the game, and sure you see other players there but there wasn't so much incentive to group up. When I played WoW you could solo (some classes being better at it than others) but if you wanted to do certain content, you really had to group up. 

1 minute ago, Gnollrunner said:

Well I'm not sure. I mean I thought WoW was a good game when I played it.  I guess they call it theme park MMO. If I had to put my finger on it I would say the best MMOs force players to work together at least some of the time. I found games like Guild Wars 2 to be somewhat lacking in that department. It was like you run around and play the game, and sure you see other players there but there wasn't so much incentive to group up. When I played WoW you could solo (some classes being better at it than others) but if you wanted to do certain content, you really had to group up. 

At this time, with these type of games, maybe co-op games will fit better in the list. I enjoy playing Rainbow Six New Vegas with some friends, and that's not exactly a MMO, but these games are amazing because of the co-op mode, I believe.

The easy, obvious answer is that I want all three aspects to be great.  And there is such a glut of great, cheap games available that I really shouldn't have to compromise.

But if I have to choose, I would say story (including world-building) > gameplay > graphics.  I can tolerate some really shitty graphics.  I can even tolerate bad gameplay (so long as it merely dull and not frustratingly difficult).  But nothing pulls me out of a game faster than bad storytelling.

I am especially suspicious of game developers who try to downplay the need for story with a "gameplay über alles" attitude.  Not only do their games generally suck in the story department, but I rarely find their gameplay enjoyable either.

5 minutes ago, a light breeze said:

The easy, obvious answer is that I want all three aspects to be great.  And there is such a glut of great, cheap games available that I really shouldn't have to compromise.

But if I have to choose, I would say story (including world-building) > gameplay > graphics.  I can tolerate some really shitty graphics.  I can even tolerate bad gameplay (so long as it merely dull and not frustratingly difficult).  But nothing pulls me out of a game faster than bad storytelling.

I am especially suspicious of game developers who try to downplay the need for story with a "gameplay über alles" attitude.  Not only do their games generally suck in the story department, but I rarely find their gameplay enjoyable either.

Such a good answer to point that story is a priority. Like it!

13 hours ago, frob said:

There must always be gameplay, otherwise it is not a game.

Graphics and story without gameplay are called a movie, or a graphic novel, or comics.

I agree, but we're at a point where we're already stretching the definition of "game" in terms of an interactive experience.

Is the Stanley Parable a game? (or other "walking simulators") 

You can make pieces of "interactive art" with no gameplay, but still kinda/sorta/vaugely fall under the category of "video games" (at least in terms of the process used to create them).

Finally, it's also worth distinguishing between graphics (the engine, lighting, textures, etc) and design (the look of the world, characters etc). Dark Souls is a great example of terrible graphics with fantastic design.

Graphics and gameplay go hand in hand. If the graphics aren't clear and readable, the gameplay suffers. The graphics facilitate the gameplay, and indeed this is a visual medium. Problems do arise when developers sacrifice clarity for visual spectacle, though. In God of War, Atreus has this lightning attack that fills the entire screen with lightning bolts and while it looks visually spectacular,  it obscures the game world and the enemies, and will lead to you getting hit by attacks that you physically couldn't see coming. And there are other examples to be found in most AAA games, including instances of misleading graphics(such as wonky hit boxes that don't match the graphical accompaniment). You might think of this as a point against "graphics" but I think this further demonstrates how graphics are important to the gameplay. If the GOW devs had designed those lightning effects differently, they could have kept the game clear and readable without compromising the gameplay, right?

The graphics are a component of the gameplay, and shouldn't be thought of as two separate things where it's either one or the other, IMO.

Please don't necro. Locking thread.