What’s your track record on travel like this in the past? Are you the kind of person who is frequently surprised by how much better things are up close and personal? Or have you found yourself saying “yep, I didn’t think I would be interested, and sure enough, now that I’m here I’m still not interested?”
I suggest basing your decision on your previous travel experiences.
I agree with the general point made by several posters that if it’s a choice between interesting thing A and interesting thing B, go with your tastes and instincts rather than what other people (or books) say you ought to be interested in.
But at the same time I’d offer a little extra food for thought. I’ve been lucky enough to see many famous sights and landmarks, and in every single case I’d say the actual first-hand experience of being there is completely different (in a good way) from anything you can get from reports, books, videos or whatever. There’s really no comparison, and no substitute for first-hand experience. Secondly, don’t be too hasty to pass up chances like this. You never know when the day will come that you no longer have the option. I’d rather go somewhere, not like it much, and be able to tell people about it from my own experience than miss the chance and, years later, think 'I wonder what would it would have been like… '. I had a good friend who was based in New Orleans, and I’d thought about attending Mardi Gras for years. One year, everything was set up just perfectly… my friend even had another friend’s apartment that I could stay in for free. I passed, and decided to do other things. Then Along Came A Hurricane. Chance gone forever.
By all means, go and see it. Who knows when you’ll have a chance to be in Peru next, if ever?
I’m going myself next week, taking my parents, brother and sister-in-law. Most people who live here any length of time go two or three times, and most of us don’t feel it gets old. All the short time tourists I talk to chalk that up as one of, if not the, highlight(s) of their trips.
How easy is it for you to get there now v. in the future?
And are you ever going to look back and think “I could have gone to Machu Picchu and I stupidly decided to ___________ instead”?
There is some truth to you-may-not-appreciate-it-now,-but-you-will-someday thing; it isn’t an absolute, and if you really, truly will be more blown away by Titicaca (which is a matter of personal taste) then do that. But it isn’t the type of thing you want to miss frivolously.
Having just attended the first post-Katrina Mardi Gras this year, I have to disagree with you. Lord knows we’re still rockin’ down here. 
I actually discovered something else to do - the Virgin del Carmen fiesta is taking place on the exact days that I have free in a town about a four hours’ drive from Cuzco. I’ll go to that first, and if I have time I’ll hit Machu Picchu afterward, sicne it’s much closer to Cuzco. Thanks for the advice!
I just Wiki’d it. Dang. I’d go.
I’d go. Pre-judging something is always a bad idea.
Even if you’re disappointed, it will be worth a trip just to be able to say how disappointing it was.
I’m another vote for things being more impressive in person. When I went to France with family, I wasn’t any more enthused to see Notre Dame than I was any of the other sights on our itinerary. But once we got there, the feel of the place was very impressive. Pictures and reading paled in comparison, far moreso than most of the other places we went (except for Mont St. Michel, which was my favorite stop of the trip).
[hijack] I’ve always thought it would be fun to open up a chain of fried chicken restaurants located near the various Central & South American ruins. I would, of course, name the chain “Chicken Itza”. [/hijack]
I think you should do whatever appeals to you most. That said, I hiked the Inca Trail back in 1998, and Machu Picchu was absolutely magnificent. Then again, I majored in archaeology, specializing in South American archaeology, so I’m a tad biased.
Did you do any field work? If so, where? I went the Mesoamerican route and did field work in northern Belize. I always love hearing stories from the field.
Yes, although a lot of my fieldwork was not actually in South America. I worked at an Anasazi site in New Mexico in the Sandia mountains and at Cahokia in southern Illinois. Some of the work I did in South America involved a site in the north near the Atacama. It was really exciting, probably the most exciting of all the sites I’ve worked on. It was what convinced me that I’d like to specialize in South American archaeology (before that, I was oscillating between South American and Southwestern). The site involved lithics and pottery from several caverns. The artifacts were dated to about 16,000 years ago and were some of the first to prove that there were probably people in South America far earlier than previously thought. I worked in conjunction with the Natural History Museum of Santiago, Chile.
My work involved not just digging, but a lot of lab analysis - electromagetic dating and mass spectrometry. Some of the lithics still had blood on them and we were able to date them using the electromagnetic spin of the electrons in it. It was so cool! I also did translations from Spanish to English for archaeological conferences, though I don’t think that really counts as fieldwork. What sort of fieldwork were you involved in in Belize? I’ve never gotten to that area and I’ve always wanted to.
I wouldn’t worry about it, tsarina. I can’t stand Pokemon either.
I went to Machu Picchu in March and really liked it. My sister went last year and was nonplussed. I think it would be a shame not to see it, but I have heard good things about Lake Titicaca. Who am I to say what you should do?
Of course Tiwanaku is on, or rather near, Lake Titicaca. I would love to see Tiwanaku, it is a pretty cool site.