Terrain versus snow conditions is not the black and white decision posed and instead there are many relative issues to consider. A more meaningful question would be to ask how much weight does one give when balancing those two parameters in order to make a decision on which resort to visit and what are those decisions based on?
I've skied the many Tahoe area resorts as a weekend skier for three decades so have long been playing the choose the resort game. There have always been quite a lot of skiers without much experience that tend to get hung up on always going to their favorite resort that has advanced terrain. In our area that resort would certainly be Squaw Valley. Mindless legions will flock to Squaw without narry a thought to how a skiing experience might be more enjoyable at another resort with better conditions. In fact many of those younger folks are rather chronically ignorant of current snow conditions thus categorize conditions simplistically as either new fresh snow or not new. That they don't really understand the elevations and general sun aspects of the different resorts and instead just see the bottom and top of each resort the same as the bottom and top of all other nearby resorts. After they ski for several years visiting different areas, they may eventually come to notice all fresh or older snow is not all the same. That some resorts just down the road especially with good shading snow protection and higher elevations can have far better snow.
Most resorts of reasonable size do have a mix of terrain from beginner through advanced. Of course some resorts have more of some of those general categories than others. And what a resort has at any of those levels can be considerably better than another resort with the same percentage or acreage of such terrain. That is especially true at advanced and expert levels. In fact some really large resorts that generally are known for their novice and intermediate slopes also usually have a few respectable advanced runs because almost all resorts need to have at least some advanced terrain in order to be interesting for the minor numbers of resort staff and locals that are often hard core. In some cases the amount of such terrain can cover as many acreas as other small resorts that are known for their advanced terrain. Accordingly one may choose terrain over conditions by going to a generally easy resort that has excellent conditions, end up narrowly skiing just the few advanced runs available, and be glad for doing so.
Also are cases where the terrain versus snow conditions decision is not so obvious because the snow conditions are really not that bad at either choice. Maybe better at one resort to a degree but not enough to give up skiing the terrain one prefers. On the other hand, if a high snow level wet storm has just passed through where the snow level was 7,000 feet, going to a resort where most of the interesting terrain is at or 6,000 to 7,500 feet is likely to result in an unpleasant day. If the counter choice is of another easy resort at 8,000 to 9,500 feet only the ignorant would choose the former regardless of terrain options. But if the other choice was a resort with elevations 7,000 to 8,500 feet, the decision might not be so clear cut. If a second storm came through with snow levells at 5,000, the lower resort with better terrain would be the sure choice. And if a third storm came through that dumped 24 inches of light fluff at the easy resort midweek when crowds were light while the lower resort with more interesting terrain just received a couple inches, the choice again for the easy resort terrain would take a moment to decide.