Overall package, I will say the appearence of a game has never put me off buying it, but gameplay has. So I guess ... put me down for gameplay.

I find those guys saying (more or less) graphics mean nothing hilarious ... mainly because they're all fans of a certain console that doesn't posess great graphical power.

Graphics matter a lot to some people, a beautiful game can enhance your experience tenfold, bioshock wouldn't be nearly as good as it was without it's amazing graphics to create that amazing atmosphere.

People that shrug off graphics as if it's fact they add nothing need to just get off their high horse.

I agree with this post

There are games eight or nine years older than Bioshock with considerably better atmosphere, using techniques other than high-fidelity graphics.

System Shock 2, ironically, springs to mind.

Graphics is only not important until you have it just like 3D.

Few people claim graphics don't matter - some people just don't rank it very high on the presentation ladder. There is a difference.

No, it's just like the virgin who always talk about how sex is not a big deal. 

That is hilarious, because the machine I play on has graphics that makes the graphics of the machines you play on look like a Wii, literally.

System Shock 2 was an absolutely better game than BioShock as well. Even with its few polygons and everything esle, it was just a much better game.

Because these are games and not movies. You play games, you watch movies.

Anyone who rates graphics over gameplay is a poor excuse for a gamer. In fact, I'm embarassed they even associate themsevles with the same group as I do. I think there should be a new classification called "watchers" and not "gamers" to make such a big distinction.

How it plays. It can look like a NES game if it is fun Ill buy it.