Great art direction before those two but out of the two graphics for sure.

Assuming proper optimization in both instances, i'm firmly in the image quality camp. Aliasing and blur actively make me enjoy a game less. I can get used to poor graphics after a few hours of play, but poor image quality is perpetually irritating. It won't stop be playing a good game, but it will make it a slightly worse experience than i know it could have been.

Image quality is what lead me to PC gaming back in 2010. It meant dealing with sub-HD and 720p less often, and gave me the power to optimize my settings around whatever my screen's native resolution was (at the time 1080p, now 4k). If you're willing to invest enough, you can also hit that native target with few compromises to frame-rate and graphics. 'Tis the good stuff.

A healthy mix.

However I feel like 1080p is high enough a resolution that Id rather they focus the rest of the juice they have in the systems on better graphics.

Well, whichever one affects gameplay more! Gameplay is what is important to me, so if it's the graphics that make it more enjoyable, then I choose that!

It strongly depends on the game. In MonHun for instance a higher resolution gives me more details to see and help the game, and I couldn't give a shit about image quality. Similar for strategy games or say Baldur's Gate style RPGs, I need a better overview. In other games the details are less important and a higher image quality can be preferable.

Considering my PS4 pro I prefer graphical features over resolution after the 900/1080p target is secured that is. But in general I care way more about graphics than about resolution, since the difference between 900p, 1080p isn't that big. Besides 2160p checkerboard is nice but I would trade it in an instance for HDR and better lighting and shadows.

Both cause you know why

But if I really have to choose... Better Resolution until 1080p and then better graphics

I can't really tell without some good examples, 3DS games is not good example because has terrible 240p resolution.

Graphics is too broad of a term, but anyway art style trumps all.

Take two examples.

Wind Waker & Wind Waker HD. Both games have different graphics and resolution, yet both follow the same art style. Both are completely 100% playable today and look great. Their graphics or resolution don't really matter.

8-Bit style games. Any 8-bit or 16-bit or of that art style game today. It does not matter if it is 4k, 1080p, or back on a NES and in like 240 or something. Take Super Mario Maker. You can choose the art style to look like an NES game, yet it is still in 1080p. If someone plugged in an actual NES system for you, you would pop in Super Mario and play that game and still have a blast.

Art styles can be timeless. Graphics often are shit in a year or two.

Makes me think of movies and CG vs practical. Watch some older movies that use either. The CG movies will make you cringe, or are glaringly bad. Makes some movie unwatchable. Even movies that at the time were thought to be amazing due to CG now look like a sci-fi channel movie. Yet pop in a movie that does practical effects like Jurassic park or the Labrynth and the movies hold up and almost get a unique quality to them. Even jumping to 4k discs they at times look even better.

Art style always wins when talking "graphics", and when talking resolution if there is a good art style used the resolution doesn't matter.

Good visual style and design is more important than either, although I guess it could be considered part of graphics.