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

[Valkrex]

*reads article*

Okay, short answer to this: No

Long answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Graphics are NOT the end-all be-all of immersion.

Look at Tell Tale's The Walking Dead. One of the most immersive experiences I have ever played, and its a cell-shaded comic book style looking game. Not incredibly realistic.

Silent Hill. The game is PIXELATED and uses polygon models. Still draws me in every time.

Any Final Fantasy game before X. (not bashing X, but that game had what could be considered the beginning of modern graphics). VII has the characters looking like a bunch of blocks stitched together with spiky hair. Still incredibly immersive.

Darksiders II. This game really drew me in as well. While it wasn't particularly strong in graphical fidelity, it oozes style, and the world is fantastic.

Dark Souls. Granted this is a pretty good looking game, but it is a bit dated in terms of visuals. It has a FANTASTIC atmosphere, a mysterious story, and gameplay that when mixed with the previous two items, is capable of grabbing a player and never letting them go.

They Bleed Pixels... its in the title. Its a pixelated action-platformer, that was INCREDIBLY entertaining, and really got my attention.

So no. Graphics are NOT essential for immersion. Can they help? Yes they can. But games that are fairly new but don't look amazing still immerse me in the world, and games that are over a decade-and-a-half old can still achieve this. In the end, its all about graphical style , solid gameplay, and a strong story that creates immersion. Not graphical fidelity.

 

[lunavixen]

While graphics can certainly help a game (dependant on the game) it's definately not 60% of the game; for me, a game has to have gameplay, sound certainly matters, and depending on the game, a good story. I'd much rather have an ugly looking game that has a great story.

 

[Robot Number V]

Well of course HE said that. He's the CEO of Crytek. Their games ARE 60% visuals.

 

[Kai Holwerda]

Since graphics are the only thing that CryTek has going for their games, he would be doing his studio a bad service if he didnt emphasize on the importance of graphics. If CryTek ever makes a good game, I'm sure the good man will change his opinion.

 

[Lovesfool]

Can someone please give Crytek a "heads up" that visuals are not 60% of the game? The most important thing, usually, is gameplay, hence the name videoGAMES. It would help then sell a bit more and actually have a commercial success with one of their games, sometime, maybe, perhaps...

Then again, they are not trying to sell their own games, but a GRAPHICS ENGINE, which is why is makes business sense to argue that graphics (produced by CryEngine, no doubt) would amount to 60% of the game.

 

[poiuppx]

To forget the purpose of a game is to be played is to forget what will make the difference between your company still being award-winning in ten years, and being an obscure trivia answer. Crytek should do well to remember that 'amazing graphics' is markedly subjective and entirely based around the genre in question. No puzzle game sells based on graphics alone. The chief complaint people had about Final Fantasy XIII was not 'the graphics sucked'. Skyrim did not sell on pretty visuals alone, and indeed, had the gameplay been equally amazing probably could have achieved similar numbers with Oblivion-level graphics.

But then, it's Crytek. The man is effectively attempting to define his company as the pinacle by which to be judged. It's fair horse sense to define the competition in such a way that you are leading the pack. But it's abject stupidity to do so in a public forum where he can be mocked by we merry gamers. There's an old saying; never say in public what you wouldn't want attributed to you in the future. A certain Microsoft ex-employee Twitter user could attest to this.

 

[xdiesp]

Only 60%? More like 90%!

Most of the games today are vastly more limited in scope than those of 10, or 20 years ago: shorter, less complex, deeply tutorialized. Kids don't care: as long as they see that something is not HD, they will say it looks like s**t and quit it. And the reviewers whose job is selling them said games, will echo the same.

 

[verdant monkai]

And that's why he made a shit game.

Dont get me wrong. A well rendered game but still a shit one.

 

[Insane_Foxx]

I'd like to thank Crytek for finally making me understand why i've been enjoying FTL so much. It's the graphics.

 

[Hutcher]

I might just Devil's Advocate this one. I'm not disagreeing with the majority here, but I can say this; in the current generation, bad gameplay is probably more noticeable than bad graphics by most gamers, especially hardocre ones. What I'd like to say is that graphics are probably much more important to our immersion than we realize. It's one of those things that you only notice when they're done wrong. Still think 60% is too high, but the actual number is probably higher than most of us might think.

 

[Connor2224]

in other news 78% of statistics are made up on the spot

seriously though i would much rather play a game like wonderboy than i would cod, gameplay is and always will be more important than graphics

 

[RolandOfGilead]

Only 60%! Crytek's really backed down over the last few years.

 

[Jamous]

This simply isn't true. Sure, Graphics are nice. In some cases they might even be worth this much. But overall? You need only look at quite a few people's Steam libraries to see this isn't the case. I know mine is full of older games without gorgeous graphics, or maybe more modern indie games that look nice, sure, but aren't up to the standards of fucking Crysis. I think maybe functional graphics are up to 60% of the game. After all; you need to be able to see where you're going without horrible glitches in textures, the world just turning black, etc. etc. But frankly I think we're (mainly) past that now.

 

[Norix596]

Newsflash: CEO of company best known for good graphics claims graphics are the most important. There is certainly some truth to the role graphics play, the sweeping vistas of Skyrim would have been less impressive on PS1 technology but graphics also age the fastest. Deus Ex (ie the original) floored me with unparalleled level design with no nostalgia factor - I played it for the first time last year... and it looks hideous. By contrast, who is going to be amazed by or even playing Crysis 3, 12 years from now or 5 or even in a few months? There will be better graphical technology from studious that don't even focus on graphics just because technology gets better. Good design never ages no matter how many new generations and tiers of technological advancement show up afterwards. A game that holds 60% of its value in graphics is a game that will lose 60% of its worth as a product within a few short years.

 

[TheSchaef]

Sonic '06 is graphically superior to Sonic 1 or 2, by leaps and bounds.

IT'S NO USE!

 

[WouldYouKindly]

While I have no problem if you want to focus on graphical fidelity, don't cut other parts of the budget to fund it. You just end up with a very pretty but bland game.

There's also the matter of imagination. I have one and don't need everything to be shown to me in glistening photo realistic detail.

 

[Malkav]

So you're saying if the game had the best graphics up until now, but basically had the gameplay and music of 1D tetris (one row), then the game wasn't half bad?
There's a difference between games, movies, tech demos and benchmark tools. That guy was apparently talking about the latter two.

 

[spartan231490]

This is one of the most ignorant comments on gaming I've ever heard. Books are 100 times more immersive than games, and they have no visuals at all. Pokemon yellow and crystal are still two of the most immersive games I've ever played, I can lose myself in them for hours, no matter how many times I've played them or what's going on around me. Graphics can enhance some stories, but there are so many different ways to accomplish that which don't rely on graphics.

 

[AuronFtw]

That would explain the cookie cutter gameplay of their games, and the nonsensical storyline of crysis

This was my first thought. Coming from the makers of the thoroughly mediocre crysis series with pretty much no redeeming qualities as games, he seems an odd choice to tell us what makes games good or immersive. Maybe when he manages to make a single good release I'll pay more attention.

 

[Strazdas]

"People say that graphics don't matter," said Cevat Yerli, CEO and president of Crytek. "But play Crysis and tell me they don't matter.

I played Crysis. It was a mediocre shooter that while fun first time i wouldnt want to play again. Graphics still dont matter.