Art style > smooth graphics and movement > music > polygon count etc > ... I guess technical side of music, 5.1 etc

Name one music track that is more known than the Mona Lisa. I know the example is completely irrelevant, but I don't understand why so many people dismiss graphics as unimportant, when they are in fact quite important. And again, I'm not talking about the tech that renders the image, but about the image itself.

If games like Super Mario Bros., Metal Gear Solid or Sonic The Hedgehog had looked bland and boring, they wouldn't have been as popular. If the visuals don't cut it (and I can't stress this enough, it's not about the technology), then people won't find it as attractive, just like if the music is boring.

You still have games today that don't push graphical technology in any kind of way, but their artstyle and graphical execution are still fantastic.

I have no problem with people choosing music over graphics, but dismissing graphics as unimportant is just ignorant.

I'm talking to everyone who dismiss graphics by the way, not just Rubang.

Goodnight.

I often turn music off, so graphics for me, although there can be exceptions.

Great graphics usually become laughably bad five years later. Great music is eternal.

Music.

Catchy and simple music is made to please the inexperienced ear, I must say I prefer music with a lot of resources in a game which adds to atmosphere, if musicians cant make a good orchestrated composition for a game it means they arent talented enough or lack education. For me, better music is better for a game.

And I cant answer the question in the OP, both are important to me, I enjoy music more but I cant play without video.

you don't lie son, I was laughing about RE4 and GOW I and II the other day, but I am still enjoying dance dance revolution.

Billie Jean by Michael Jackson . My Grandma barely speaks any English and knows most of the lyrics to that song phonetically!

On topic, my answer is music.

Imagine this:

You're playing a game that has very colorful graphics, then you enter a room that goes black and white. You'd immediately notice the difference.

However, compare it to music.

The music is jovial and has been playing for some time, then everything goes silent. That has a much larger impact than a graphical change.

(BTW, we're discussing which one produces a better atmosphere, not more necessary)

Music.

Maybe "Thriller" or "Happy Birthday" or "Ode to Joy" or "Here Comes the Bride?"  I don't know.  But even if you're right, my point is that you can't dance to the Mona Lisa.  A group of people can't remix the Mona Lisa and sing along.  You can't FEEL the Mona Lisa in your bones, making you shake your moneymaker.  People can do that to the Mario theme, or a video game.  Appreciating visual art is more of a solo activity, while music and gaming can be enjoyed solo or in groups.

It's not that I think graphics are unimportant.  It's that graphical improvements aren't worth tripling or quadrupling a game's budget.  When games get that expensive to make, they can't take as many risks, because they HAVE to please as many people as possible to try to get their money back.  No game has had its development budget tripled or quadrupled due to the soundtrack.  Games that do interesting things with music can still take risks and still be affordable.

And I agree that everybody focuses way too much on the technical side of graphics.  The games that focus on the tech side and photorealism are the ones that age the quickest.