Most of the gamers I know say that graphics don’t influence at all while they play. They say it’s all about skill and imagination, that “graphics just enhance the experience a bit”. I’m pretty sure that in the videogaming industry, there are 2 different sections (at least) that separate the graphics work from programming but in the end they are still part of the same team, so is gameplay actually a consecuence of graphics?

I don't thi9nk so, you can have totally crappy graphics and your game can live on forever. Look at pong, the old mario, guantlet and other arcade games that are still played today. Just because newer versions have been made that have updated graphics doesn't mean the games are only good because of the graphics.

Moved to Games

I think gameplay is more important, if there's a heavy dependency on graphics, the game gets boring and if there is great gameplay you could play it for the rest of your life without regreting a thing! But I do think the graphics a a very important feature non-the-less.

I think this is one of the problems with Doom 3. ID Software went overboard on making the graphics and environment perfect. The game did look very pretty, granted, but it did suffer from not enough gameplay. Even as a remake of the first Doom, they could not finish the full storyline because their oh so shiny graphics took up too much room. on top of this, it meant that when it was released, the graphics card needed to run the game on full specs had not been invented yet.

Half Life 2, on the other hand, went the other way. The graphics barely changed from Half Life 1, but the size of the game was multiplied tenfold. There is so much more to do, and still with decent graphics and good gameplay.

So, I'd say graphics are all well and good, but should never come first before the game itself.

Yup, on game development forums you can read a lot about the role of graphics and visuals in games. Today, if you want to put out a game so it has good position on the shelves, it must be marketed with a serious campaign, however you can only market something if it sports stunning visuals. Right now just to create the required visuals you need a separate team and lots of money. This leaves independent game makers out in the cold, if they have a good idea because studios must take care of their investments, so they won't be really willing to sponsor new ideas that might fail. There are only a couple of designers who can push new ideas through. This is quite sad, because if you think of Doom (the first installment), Civilization and others that created a genre, they were made by just a couple of people. Today something similar happens in the mobile game industry, you can create really nice things with limited resources, but on the desktop it is usually not possible. All we get is these nicely packaged crap without real inventions.
</rant>

Nicely ranted

Gameplay For the win!

What I really hate are the people who say
"YOu GoTz CraPPy GrapHiCs, sO UR GaMe SuCkZ!!!"

Gameplay is the most important thing in a game.
Would you have impressive graphics and crappy gameplay,
or good gameplay and crappy graphics???

~ Xarver

Definately good gameplay.

Although going to the far extreme, it's like saying would you ratehr have life-like graphics but you can only walk around in one small room or a massive world with all sorts to do but not that good graphics.

Easy choice in my opinion although often people say graphics as they compare a good gameplay and graphics against one with just good gameplay.

Gameplay, definitely.

But don't get me wrong, some new graphics, such as MGS4, kick arse!

The ideal condition would be excellent gameplay wrapped in pretty graphics.

Gameplay is everything. Graphics are good. But Gameplay is God.