I believe there is a missing link between graphics and player satisfaction. There are two primary schools of thought surrounding this discussion, between graphics and gameplay as being more important than the other. This is a Spartan/Athenian sort of divisive issue, with headstrong purists on both sides. I've played a lot of games, a lot with good graphics and some with bad graphics. I've played a lot of games with good graphics that didn't have all that great of gameplay. A lot of the best games I've ever played have had decent but mediocre graphics. But almost every horrible game I've ever played also had horrible graphics. They're tied together and they are not mutually exclusive. In fact they come together as one whole that we like to call a game. Individually they stand on their own. But neither one of them can carry a game by themselves. I thought about this problem for a long time and today I think I understand. Games are a visual medium. Gameplay design, scripting, artwork... It is ultimately presented to the user in a visual fashion. The goal of every game element is to enhance the visual effect, to achieve conveyance, to allow for a state of suspension of disbelief and flow. Color patterns, artwork design, scale, proportion, cleanliness and consistency of the artwork... If any of these are absent it breaks the state of flow it's like a brick wall in their face. It's like filming a movie and you have the camera boom in the shot, or one of the actors isn't pulling off their character... It doesn't matter how good the script is if it isn't delivered to the viewer in the proper fashion. This is my conclusion after many years of deep thought, take it and benefit or ignore it.