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

[robinkom]

There's difference between graphics and aesthetics. Crysis goes for a realistic aesthetic, therefore, it demands high-end graphical capabilities. Minecraft is stylistic retro in 3D, therefore it demands less robust hardware to get it's visual message across. It just depends what you're setting out to create. And none of that will matter if your gameplay is programmed like shit. You can make a game as pretty as you want but if it's unplayable, you supremely failed at prioritizing your development tasks.

And it varies on the consumer end by personal preference. I love me some Skyrim for PC with mods that pushes the graphics well beyond what they were meant to be... conversely, I could go hook up my ColecoVision and play Pepper-II and Donkey Kong Jr. all day, it wouldn't matter to me. That was my first console ever, I'm not picky about visuals. If it's fun for me, I'll play it.

 

[Adon Cabre]

snip

I'm really the wrong person that you should be talking to. You're argument is directed at Mass Effect's Creative Director Casey Hudson. My reasons are spelled out in a perfectly assembled paragraph; there's nothing more I could possibly add to show you the pitfalls of Mass Effect.

And now you're just being a contrarian for the sake of it.

I take it you have utterly forgotten what the actual point of the discussion was? Ok, having you talk at me sure was bloody fruitful.

Absolutely not. Mass Effect was practically marketed as a pop-culture (Transformers-like) movie. It was marketed as a big budget good looking title in outer space. It looks pretty. But it isn't deep. It has choices and +/- decisions, but no multiple endings. It isn't even open world. You're the one who keeps diving into other subjects while I provide context for my explanations.

 

[Knight Templar]

Absolutely not. Mass Effect was practically marketed as a pop-culture (Transformers-like) movie. It was marketed as a big budget good looking title in outer space.

Care to back up your claim?
The back of the box for example touts its interactive elements and makes no mention of visuals.

It looks pretty. But it isn't deep. It has choices and +/- decisions, but no multiple endings. It isn't even open world. You're the one who keeps diving into other subjects while I provide context for my explanations.

What are you raving about?
You go on a pointless diatribe about mass effect, failing to get basic facts right, and want to turn around and say me pointing out almost nothing you said was true or relevant is diving into other subjects?


Best of all you're suddenly trying to argue the game lacks multiple endings and isn't open world, two rather core points to your previous post. You're not all that coherent, that might be where some of your problems are coming from.

 

[Adon Cabre]

Absolutely not. Mass Effect was practically marketed as a pop-culture (Transformers-like) movie. It was marketed as a big budget good looking title in outer space.

Care to back up your claim?
The back of the box for example touts its interactive elements and makes no mention of visuals.

It looks pretty. But it isn't deep. It has choices and +/- decisions, but no multiple endings. It isn't even open world. You're the one who keeps diving into other subjects while I provide context for my explanations.

What are you raving about?
You go on a pointless diatribe about mass effect, failing to get basic facts right, and want to turn around and say me pointing out almost nothing you said was true or relevant is diving into other subjects?


Best of all you're suddenly trying to argue the game lacks multiple endings and isn't open world, two rather core points to your previous post. You're not all that coherent, that might be where some of your problems are coming from.

No, I don't have the problem, but you don't like the example I picked of the run-of-the-mill triple-a games. You don't like that I have possibly debased what many feel to be a strong point for big budget titles and games as an art in general. ME is a nice game, but nothing innovative. Like I said way back when -- Triple-A titles are all about rehashing old ideas, safe ideas, and pandering to the trend of the last three years. That's all.

This article was about triple-A games being dictated by their engines. Which is right. To argue anything less is to ignore the obvious patterns of this industry.

 

[MrBaskerville]

Like I already said on the other thread:

A lot of people here are saying that graphics dont matter but they actually do. A lot of gameplay mechanics can only work if displayed correctly, imagine if Portal didnt let you see through the portals or if Alan Wake didnt had dinamic light. Kings Field is Dark Souls on the PS1 (by the same guys) and look how functional it is:

Not considering the visual beauty but the fact that visually the gameplay found in Dark Souls could never be possible to achieve with those graphics.

They matter if they can be used to improve a game, just because a 2D 8-bit game can be fun to play doesnt mean that every game can be fun even in 8-bit. Just dont go all over the place with stuff that doesnt matter all that much like "knowing that an enemy is coming by the way the grass moves", really? How about looking at the dude?

PS: The part about the grass is something that the Crytek guy also said, and that was kind of dumb of him

Did you ever play Kings Field? (Just out of curiousity) i foud it to be a very cool experience and i was deeply immersed (i hate that word...) for hours upon hours. It is slow as fuck, but when you´re in the right mood, it´s pretty good. You could easily achieve what Dark Souls achieves with less graphic, it´s all about gameplay mechanics, and there are no gameplay mechanics in Dark Souls that couldn´t be replicated on a ps2 or less .

If Kings Field was bad, it was bad because it was slow, something it didn´t need to be if they had designed it in another way. It´s not like the ps1 wasn´t capable of rendering 3D enviroments smoothly, it´s just that From Software fucked up.

 

[josemlopes]

Like I already said on the other thread:

A lot of people here are saying that graphics dont matter but they actually do. A lot of gameplay mechanics can only work if displayed correctly, imagine if Portal didnt let you see through the portals or if Alan Wake didnt had dinamic light. Kings Field is Dark Souls on the PS1 (by the same guys) and look how functional it is:

Not considering the visual beauty but the fact that visually the gameplay found in Dark Souls could never be possible to achieve with those graphics.

They matter if they can be used to improve a game, just because a 2D 8-bit game can be fun to play doesnt mean that every game can be fun even in 8-bit. Just dont go all over the place with stuff that doesnt matter all that much like "knowing that an enemy is coming by the way the grass moves", really? How about looking at the dude?

PS: The part about the grass is something that the Crytek guy also said, and that was kind of dumb of him

Did you ever play Kings Field? (Just out of curiousity) i foud it to be a very cool experience and i was deeply immersed (i hate that word...) for hours upon hours. It is slow as fuck, but when you´re in the right mood, it´s pretty good. You could easily achieve what Dark Souls achieves with less graphic, it´s all about gameplay mechanics, and there are no gameplay mechanics in Dark Souls that couldn´t be replicated on a ps2 or less .

If Kings Field was bad, it was bad because it was slow, something it didn´t need to be if they had designed it in another way. It´s not like the ps1 wasn´t capable of rendering 3D enviroments smoothly, it´s just that From Software fucked up.

Im not saying that Kings Field was bad but it didnt show its full potential because of technical limitations. The Crytek guy is talking about visuals and that also means animation and such. Kings Field was just used as an example because its vision is eeriely close to what Dark Souls is and it is obviously held back due to a lot of technical limitations.

The Portal and Alan Wake examples were better though

 

[JudgeGame]

In other news: Apple boss says buttons are lame.

 

[Nieroshai]

Eternal Darkness is better than Crysis. Its graphics suck. Go home Crytek, you're drunk.

 

[romxxii]

He's right, just not in the way he thinks. See, nearly every successful game, be it on your PC, console, or mobile, succeeded not because of the gameplay, but because of its unique visual style. Think about it. Plants vs. Zombies? You can't make tower defense simpler than that. And yet because of its cutesy art direction, it captured the hearts and wallets of millions. Same with Angry Birds, which became far more successful than the game it was aping (I forgot its name, which is kind of my point). Or how about recent runaway success Bioshock Infinite? True, in the end everyone stayed for the reality-bending story and touching interplay between Booker and Elizabeth, but what drew most people in? The visuals.

Is it the best? Hell no; I'd say from this year alone, Crysis 3 and Tomb Raider looked much better. What Infinite did have was a unique visual style that, in a single heartbeat, told you what kind of world you were in.

 

[Knight Templar]

No, I don't have the problem, but you don't like the example I picked of the run-of-the-mill triple-a games.

No I pointed out that it actively worked against your point and in favor of mine, I explained how. You have offered nothing to substantiate your argument, even when directed asked.

You don't like that I have possibly debased what many feel to be a strong point for big budget titles and games as an art in general. ME is a nice game, but nothing innovative. Like I said way back when -- Triple-A titles are all about rehashing old ideas, safe ideas, and pandering to the trend of the last three years. That's all.

True or not, none of that is even relevant.

This article was about triple-A games being dictated by their engines. Which is right. To argue anything less is to ignore the obvious patterns of this industry.

That is not what the news story is about, and that is not the point you have been failing to argue anyway. Is english your second language, is that what's going on here?

 

[ecoho]

60% is a bit too high i would say its an even split of 35% gameplay and 35% graphics, 10% story, and 20% style/asstedics.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

>snipped for oh so many reasons<

snip

snip

Well speaking as one of those posters who scoffed at the Crytek boss it did kinda seem that I was one of those people your post was aimed at, and I'm sorry but 'hypocrite' has always been a hot-button insult for me.

I suppose the initial developer comment would have been slightly less inflamitory if it hadn't come from Crytek, who are (at least in my view) known for style over substance.

Thanks for the clarification, but I hope you can see your use of the term 'we' could be misconstrued to mean 'gamers' as a whole. That being said I'll hold my hand up to a confrontational reaction.

Gotta love Internet misunderstandings...

Oh it's perfectly fine. Crysis lives and breathes because of consoles [http://www.destructoid.com/crysis-2-huge-success-xbox-360-dominates-sales-197396.phtml]. PC users will find themselves counted out of the best that the industry has to offer as triple A publishers elect not to port them over [http://www.destructoid.com/and-you-wonder-why-developers-hate-pc-gamers--193957.phtml].

But I'm guessing the Smartphone market will pick up steam in about six years. Imagine 70 million smartphone users owning an iPhone 9 or Galaxy S7 with a 2.8 GHz ________ processor, virtually unlimited cloud servicing and other hardware goodies. As ludicrous as it is to exaggerate, it's even worse to underestimate the future. (Nintendo certainly did so.) And when this incremental shift happens, you can pretty much forget about consoles, or PC gaming.

See, I thought we had resolved our differences. I thought we'd moved in an adult way towards mutual understanding. But then you hit me with a hellish vision of future gaming. Why do this to me? WHY?!!?

It's an interesting idea, and I have no doubt that one day Smartphones will catch up to modern day PC gaming rig specs, but surely a dedicated gaming rig will always surpass a multi-media device. I can kinda see where you're coming from - if I'd been told ten years ago that my phone could run GTA3 I'd probably laughed so hard I'd've died of multiple organ failure, but look at where we are now - but I can't see a future in which PCs aren't at the cutting edge.

Sorry for the late reply by the way.

 

[Adon Cabre]

snip

[HEADING=1]You didn't read the whole article[/HEADING]
Are you freaking kidding me! Go back and finish reading it before you make anymore errors in judgement. What a waste of time to argue with someone with only half the facts because they're too lazy to digest the column before playing the contrarian.

 

[Adon Cabre]

>snipped for oh so many reasons<

snip

snip

snip

snip

See, I thought we had resolved our differences. I thought we'd moved in an adult way towards mutual understanding. But then you hit me with a hellish vision of future gaming. Why do this to me? WHY?!!?

It's an interesting idea, and I have no doubt that one day Smartphones will catch up to modern day PC gaming rig specs, but surely a dedicated gaming rig will always surpass a multi-media device. I can kinda see where you're coming from - if I'd been told ten years ago that my phone could run GTA3 I'd probably laughed so hard I'd've died of multiple organ failure, but look at where we are now - but I can't see a future in which PCs aren't at the cutting edge.

Sorry for the late reply by the way.

No, you're absolutely right, but like all current topics, they invariably highlight other important subjects, and such as forecasting technology. This is what SONY & MICROSOFT have spent so much time trying to do; to make their console as flexible and affordable as possible for when these incremental shifts start happening.

I never said the Smartphone would out do a PC, just an old pc (as these consoles are themselves, closed last gen PCs). The phone that my mom is waiting to get already has a marginally better processor than my old netbook. And of course, games are made on a computer so there's no scare there. The future is going to be in smart phones: whether it is streaming games and movies, to making one phone a hotspot for an entire house.

Spoiler

9:00 Minute Mark

 

[Knight Templar]

You didn't read the whole article

I did, remember you are not explaining yourself in such a way that you can be easily understood.

A game engine isn't just the graphics, those are simply the only immediately visible aspect to the casual outside observer.
So when you say that a game is driven by its engine that is not furthering your point or mine.

contrarian.

You're not using that word accurately.

 

[MysticSlayer]

For Crysis, this might be true. But then again, that is a franchise that takes technological prowess to an extreme. The thing is, though, whether or not Crysis is better for it is another matter. I did enjoy Crysis 2 quite a bit (not so much the first game and I haven't played the third), and while I was certainly marveling at the jaw-dropping visuals, especially during the approach to Central Park at the end, the gameplay was hardly made better for it and the story was...wait, was there even a real story to the game? Essentially, it was a nice sightseeing tour with a decent twist on the generic shooter, where photorealistic graphics actually matter. I can't say the experience wasn't improved due to the visuals, but it just didn't aid the whole product the way he seems to think it does. Consequently, declaring it as being 60% of the game probably isn't a good thing. You're making a game, not a virtual tour of New York during a hypothetical alien invasion.

 

[aba1]

Style > graphics any day in my book. I never even finished Crysis 2 because I found it incredibly repetetive and boring alongside its visuals. I don't want to play a game the same way I look at some relative's holiday pictures.

Graphics are a part of the style but ya I know what you are getting at and I agree. He says graphics are insanely important and that is both wrong and right the VISUALS are extremely important. Graphics only matter as much as the dependence on the aesthetic.

I think a lot of people forget games are divided three ways at its core. The three parts being visuals, programming and the audio. The audio is interesting cause its importance can be varied much more depending on the game compared to the other categories.

 

[likalaruku]

Well I can't disagree; games are a visual media, otherwise we'd just be playing MUDs & text adventures. I tend to PREFER dated & 2D/2.5D/polyjag graphics. Can't really say how a remake done in a style I didn't like would effect my enjoyment. I can say that I don't judge new games for dated graphics, but I will point out low res textures when I see em. I would say that aesthetics & colors are more important than bland monochrome realism. I'll take LSD Dream Emulator & Katamari Damacy over any brown shooter. I guess if the story & characters were good enough, I could still overlook that.

Well, most of the games I play have graphics that look like this:

But I can't deny that I have a great fondness for the style.
& I can't say the dated jaggy polygonal graphics take away from replay value.

But I also can't deny that I just really prefer cartoony style over realistic.

 

[null_pointer]

Simply put, Crysis and its ilk are not games. It's benchmarking software. I know my fair share of gamers, and I have yet to meet a single person who actually enjoys the story and gameplay of Crysis. Its popular because the people who have spent exorbitant amounts of money on their computer can use it as an excuse to justify their bankruptcy. The people who want to see great graphics will continue to buy Crysis, or any future permutation of the series. But as far as games go, anyone who wants to sit down with an engrossing experience will continue to look elsewhere.

 

[el_kabong]

This is probably why I've never been 100% positive about a Crytek game.