Crytek Boss Says Visuals Are "60% of the Game"

[dumbseizure]

Does this make the Crytek CEO 60% of an idiot?

There are amazing games that look like complete ass, but play wonderfully or tell a story extremely well.

Saying graphics make up that much of a game is stupid.

 

[AxelxGabriel]

Why is it game developers can't wrap their head around this? Angry Joe said it best, if the gameplay is shit, the graphics don't count for ANYTHING.

 

[Zhukov]

Only if your game is an insipid alien-shooting bulletfest with nothing else going for it.

Hurr hurr.

I actually agree that graphics are important in many ways, but "60% of a game" is ridiculous.

Name one game that is considered a classic/great based on graphics alone. One.

 

[Elate]

Aesthetics matter, and they can be achieved without graphical fidelity.

 

[Dr.Panties]

Relax, everybody. It's just brain parasites. I mean, how could anyone seriou-

-TALLESTREESCATCHTHEMOSTWIND-DEALWITHIT-GRAPHICS60%OFGAMES-DEALWITHIT-SIMCITY4ISANMMOCAN'TBEPLAYEDOFFLINE-DEALWITHIT

-sly take such statements at-DEALWITHWIND- face value. Has to be brain parasites.

No other phenomenon-TALLESTGRAPHICSWITH60%DEAL- fits.

-TREESDEALWITH60%WINDDRMGAMES-

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

I feel I need to come in here and correct Cevat's statements.

"Graphics make up 60% of Crysis games". Just Crysis games, not all games.

The whole Crysis franchise has been about pouring resources into visuals/artistic design and forcing them to compensate for the mediocre story/gameplay. Graphics is the PILLAR holding up the entire Crysis series and anyone who feels otherwise is free to stick their head into a toilet, because for the last 5 years Crysis has been mostly used as a benchmarking tool and modding sandbox, I've seen Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 treated the same way.

It IS possible to force certain aspects of the game to compensate for other aspects, and the Crysis series has been all about forcing visuals to compensate for everything else. That is what I believe Cevat is saying, he's simply advertising Crysis 3 because visuals aside the SP is miserably short, stupidly easy and has zero replay value. Most of the $60 you're paying went towards the visuals and soundtrack.

But if Cevat is seriously implying that graphics should ALWAYS be the compensation factor for EVERY game then the man is fucking delusional.

 

[Evil Smurf]

I'd say the graphics is just as important as anything else. At the end of the day, beautiful looking shit is still shit.

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

Funny that my my current favorite game (Dragon`s Dogma) isn`t even close to any of the crytek games graphicwise. It isn´t even stylish compared to the mentioned Sly games. Fun and gameplay is what matters most. Style provides that the game will look good even in the next years. I could imagine that when i look at certain games in 10 years i`ll say that they still look nice. Crytek games are more like fast food to me and i`m sure that i won`t touch them again. They are just a showcase and good rentals. I won`t go there and say they are bad but there`s nothing long lasting in them, especially if you lay your focus in graphics only (or 60%, doesn`t matter). One of the reasons people still like/love and play Tetris.

 

[MrBenSampson]

"Cevat Yerli, the CEO of Crytek, says that great graphics are the key to immersion in a videogame."

Tell that to every Morrowind player. Even Silent Hill 1 stomps on Crysis in the immersion department, and that game is FUGLY.

I'm going to have to agree that artstyle is more far more important than graphics, especially to help a game age. The Spyro games from the Playstation still look great, and those games are around 15 years old. By the year 2020, Team Fortress 2 will look a LOT better than the Crysis games.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Only if your game is an insipid alien-shooting bulletfest with nothing else going for it.

Hurr hurr.

I actually agree that graphics are important in many ways, but "60% of a game" is ridiculous.

Name one game that is considered a classic/great based on graphics alone. One.

Ironically the original Crysis.

But it was considered great due to its CPU/GPU melting abilities and as a benchmark rather than any sort of actual content so your point still stands.

 

[Zhukov]

Only if your game is an insipid alien-shooting bulletfest with nothing else going for it.

Hurr hurr.

I actually agree that graphics are important in many ways, but "60% of a game" is ridiculous.

Name one game that is considered a classic/great based on graphics alone. One.

Ironically the original Crysis.

But it was considered great due to its CPU/GPU melting abilities and as a benchmark rather than any sort of actual content so your point still stands.

I... wasn't aware that the original Crysis was considered great or classic.

I've always just thought of it as "that pretty game that gives the PC gamers superiority boners."

 

[Raggedstar]

Aye, graphics certainly do help, but it's a little more complicated than that. Considering 60% means it automatically matters over story, audio, and gameplay combined puts up some flags from me. I'm a HUGE sucker for cel-shaded graphics in games like Wind Waker, Okami, No More Heroes, Klonoa, Sly Cooper, etc. Personal preference, but even the best looking cel-shaded game doesn't have near the muscle some games have...and most of those games were past generation. I may have a limit to what level of "ugly" I can tolerate in older games, but considering that I can still enjoy myself despite how Final Fantasy 7's in-game models looked like shit even back then, I would consider myself pretty flexible. Amnesia is immersive as hell, but it doesn't look that great. It's also the audio and general design that gets to you.

Though I still hold that my favourite best-looking games this gen are Ratchet and Clank Future: A Crack In Time, Journey, Sonic Generations, Bastion (...meh, I'll count it), Limbo (meh, counting it too), Bioshock/Infinite, Super Mario Galaxy, and Rayman Origins.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Only if your game is an insipid alien-shooting bulletfest with nothing else going for it.

Hurr hurr.

I actually agree that graphics are important in many ways, but "60% of a game" is ridiculous.

Name one game that is considered a classic/great based on graphics alone. One.

Ironically the original Crysis.

But it was considered great due to its CPU/GPU melting abilities and as a benchmark rather than any sort of actual content so your point still stands.

I... wasn't aware that the original Crysis was considered great or classic.

I've always just thought of it as "that pretty game that gives the PC gamers superiority boners."

Well it enabled Cevat Yerli and Crytek to become become big names in the games industry, to the point where articles involving him spread far beyond the original host.

Captcha: save our bluths

 

[Frotality]

i think the existence of rougelikes far more immersive than anything crytek ever put out kind of makes him sound like a babbling child. what is it with big time bosses making self-destructive opinion pieces? the only thing saying this accomplished is further alienating you from your own customers. is the old saying "any press is good press" really being taken to heart lately? cause it seems to me that a lot of industry players are making whatever asinine comments they can to get attention.

 

[anthony87]

Okay Crytek boss, I'll go back and play Crysis to marvel at the graphics. Just don't expect me to go back and play Crysis 2 and 3 because they may look pretty but they're fairly crap compared to the first one.

 

[Gorrath]

I don't know how the community feels about Crysis, but personally I found it to be so boring I thought my brain was going to implode in order to save me. Graphical fidelity is not even top three on my list of things that get me immersed in a game. I found Hotline Miami to be gripping because of the way it kept me interested in its gameplay, the way it unfolded its bizarre story and because of the music that added to its sense of chaotic urgency. Graphical fidelity means nothing at all if the rest of your game is paper thin.

 

[Knight Templar]

That is ridiculous, absurd.
Sure visual design matters but I am more immersed by Dragon Age, which is no head turner in the graphics department, than I am by Battlefield 3.
Visuals to not drive immersion more than interactivity. The world responding to you in a way that makes sense for the game will do more to immerse you and draw you in than the best looking tech demo ever could.

I shouldn't be surprised, Cevat Yerli has a history of saying stupid and wrong things.

Name one game that is considered a classic/great based on graphics alone. One.

Ironically the original Crysis.

Its not considered either of those things. Technical achievement? Sure, but thats not relevant.

 

[SecondPrize]

Seems about right. I felt Crysis 2 was a low D after quitting a few hours into it because it offered no challenge.

 

[grey_space]

Random Internet Guy says: 'Ctytek comments are 80%' bullshit. '

Silly comment is silly.

I played Crysis 3 and even though I'm terrible at shooters I played it for like about three hours before dying and then promptly went to the shop and traded it in for Tomb Raider. It was just so boring. And easy. And boring and easy.

Bad Crytek. Talking nonsense on the interwebs. You should know better...

*slaps wrist

No.

 

[DEAD34345]

I think we all know this is bullshit, and I just find it hilarious that the only person so far removed from reality to believe such a thing is the CEO of a game development company. I have no doubt that great graphics mean a lot to some games, and maybe they're even indispensable for some people altogether. For many other people though, this simply isn't true.

Spoiler: By far the most immersive video game I've ever played

Spoiler: One of the best games I've ever played