| Shadow1980 said: Video games are an inherently visual medium. |
I was tempted to remark the fact that, as a fundamental pillar of videogame design, graphics are indeed a necessity, as games wouldn't be able to work if they lacked any visual representation (the other two pillars, as I consider them, are the source code itself on which the game works and become playable, and sound/audio representation). Ultimately, the way the OP posed the question, I don't think he was asking inherently over which is more important in the raw design scheme, but which one do you favor the most, being both present on the equation: a more fluid, eye-pleasing visual representation or a catching, moving plot that make you care for the events outside the gameplay system itself.
There's also the thing that every game actually features a "plot", either explained in it or deduced by the player himself, as subconsciously we always try giving context to everything and fill in the blank spaces. Space Invaders, for example, inadvertedly gives us a basic premise of "we're (probably) defending Earth against a bunch of aliens" in its title, which in itself becomes the plot of it, regardless of whether it is told or not. Something as basic as Dogfight! for the Magnavox Odyssey can led both players to believe that there's some kind of war going down and there's this plane causing havoc, so the other pilot, being from the opposite war team, is going to hunt it down. I'm certainly going a bit off-topic here, but since I liked the way you posted this piece, I just wanted to reply about it.
