Well, I think that's just a false dichotomy fallacy, breaking the game like that into such inherently codependent elements and then opposing them to each other.

It doesn't make any sense.

actually, to me your post makes no sense whatsoever. Can you elaborate on it? (oh, and I'm not trying to be a dick, just dont understand a word of what you wrote)

Functional illiteracy is your problem.

really? So you ARE trying to troll? I asked you a legit question, because you sprout grand words in order to sound sophisticated, but when called on it, you just turn to harrasment and belitteling?

Anyways - have fun in the basement today

there is no such thing as "grand words", you're dumb.

Arguing about the game is fine Hortz, but either get along with other users or you're gone.

It's not, graphics cost a lot of money and time to develop. Time and money that could be used for the gameplay. It's a trade-off, and in TBS people tend to prefer more gameplay and less graphics.

It's not a false dichotomy in any way.  There are resources involved in game development. THings like time and money..  Time and money spent in one place cannot be spent in the other.  THerefore spending a ton of time and money on some sort of graphical thing denies those resources to the gameplay thing.

Another aspect to look at; in order for the statement "Will not sacrifice gameplay for graphics" to resemble a false dichotomy, one of those two elements would have to be driven under a functional level.

Sinece there is no question that the gameplay and graphics will be at a functional level, the statement comes to represent that they will not spent undue amounts of time and resources improving graphics if it damages their ability to properly develope the gameplay.

Another thing to remember, Since this is a 4x game, its primary player base will be looking to play Elemental for years to come. Its gameplay being up to par and working properly is of tantamount importance while the game looking good is only a side thought. Engaging gameplay fades much slower than shiny graphics do.

This is the best game design philosophy I have ever read!  You should start your own company, and name it EA.

Feel the burn.

QFT (and bolded for further emphasis). 

There are games that literally came out 10+ years ago that I *still* play frequently.  This usually has very little to do with their appearance (or lack thereof), and all about mechanics and gameplay.

And you're in the very small minority.  People can still play StarCon2, but it's hardly making anyone any money.  If you want to compete in the market, you need to meet market expectations.  Talking about the tiny group of people who honestly don't care about graphics (or whatever) isn't really helping - unless the game wouldn't appeal to anyone else anyway, which is patently false.  Stardock games are interesting and complex, but they're not glorified spreadsheets like (say) HoI3, which will never have a broad appeal.

The reason '4X' games have a small market is because they're generally clunky, ugly and boring.  Stardock generally has well-designed and polished UI, so they have a chance of reaching people who don't own all seventeen Civilizations.  Growing the market = good.

Not that this has anything to do with the ridiculous OP wanting TEH RAD CUTZCENZ, of course, but going to extremes depreciating graphics is a bad idea.  Hell, if you put a new frontend on MoO it'd be playable - right now, no 'normal person' would even attempt to play it.

Oh there's no denying that graphics are important - they do give a rather large draw to the game. I for one find my self drawn to the cloth map and artistic style of the game - it invokes classic fantasy in my mind.

However I believe that one of the reasons Stardock games tend to be commercial successes is that they as a company realize that being a commercial success does not make a game good. The quality and level of support they have shown in their GC games show that off.

Or, in other words... Even in the games current state its looking very good - obviously unfinished but the quality should satisfy anyone who is not expecting crysis. I have no worries there.

pnakotus: Very true, and like Agent said, I don't think anyone want's us to ignore the graphical side of things. Impressive graphics are what get the mainstream players interested....they 'expand the marketplace', as your post talked about.

I think the locals are just annoyed with this random wave of gamers popping up pushing the notion that the success of a TBS game rides on it's graphical appeal, when the 5/5's for GC2 (not a graphical powerhouse) champion the opposite.

Come to think of it, the gfx-crowd must have a point since we're spending most of August getting the visuals up to speed before PAX, once again showing the tightrope that has to be walked between the key game development diciplines.

Back to making maps for PR screenshots

Yeah, as a business they're not interested in selling more copies of their games...?

 Saying such things is ridiculous.  They make neat games, but as others have said there's no reason why having crap graphics makes your game better, and a great game ten people play isn't a worthwhile investment of millions of dollars.  There is a reason GalCiv2 outsold GalCiv1.

I have to agree this isn't really applicable to Elemental, which already looks better than every other game in the genre (both quality-wise and polish) so it's a bit moot.  It's kind of funny that 'cloth map only' is supposed to be a big turn-off to keep kiddies out of the betas, but cloth map mode is... what people expect from a game like this.  The rest they have planned is just gravy.

I believe that a bad intro vid wont sell less games, but a good one will sell more.

Finally, a reasonable amount of reasonable posts, and don't forget that it's important to have clear language:

1.graphics is not animation

2.visuals=graphics+animation, there is nothing like solid detailed animation to make the game alive, immersive and far more fun to play

I disagree. Success of most games is their wide appeal. I was drawn in to Civilization from the age of 5. 

I'm sure Elemental will have some good intro, but to be honest, I'm really hoping it is an epic tapestry style intro. Not, what is these days, some bog standard CGI stuff that almost every fantasy game does. Doesn't need a voice over.

I remember playing Civ1 at 12 and having a blast just exploring and building my cities and roads.

Of course Abe Lincoln would always ruin the fun with his squadron of fighter jets (my canoes didn't stand a chance) but there's definatly something inherently visceral about the 4x model.

Yeah, I remember spending a lot of time with Civilization too, but after Supreme Commander I just can't enjoy the combat itself like before, too bad Supreme Commander doesn't have a metastrategic layer like Star Wars; Empire at war did, it was so close...

One area that I do believe graphical sizzle will make a big difference is in spell effects. I mean it doesn't have to jump off the screen at you, but something like that which is going to be looked at all the time I think should be a higher priority than a trailer that the average person might view a couple of times.

Also, if spell effects are good then gameplay trailers are alos going to look impressive - so a much better investment of time and resource than a glittery cinematic.

I agree. Spell affects should feel and look magical, not just a neat way to stack up damage or some other math based effect with fireworks. And putting said affects in a trailer would be worthwhile because it is worthwhile. I think some people are mistaking entertaining worthwhile trailer to some sort of trick of cinema where most the trailer isn't even game footage.

The OP may be a little rude, but he makes a point. Sure, most of us who have been following this game are not interested in the 'sizzle' but mainly the 'steak'. But having a great trailer for a game can only help sales, get the word out, and enlarge the community.

If this were my game, I would hire these guys to create a trailer for me:

http://www.blur.com/

If it is half as good as the one they did for TOR then I'd consider it a great investment.

Anyone that doubts that trailer raised word of mouth for TOR has blinders on.

https://forums.stardock.com/354567/

Why hire someone to make the trailer? The Demigod trailer kicked ass and was all ingame

But yeah TOR trailer also kicks ass. Another good company is pastic wax, they did the trailer for Dawn of War II, the trailer for Space Marine, and worked on Transformers: RotF (the game) and Ghostbusters (the game)