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

StewShearerOld

Geekdad News Writer
Jan 5, 2013
5,449
0
0
Crytek Boss Says Visuals Are "60% of the Game"



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

For decades the progress of videogames has largely been defined by how pretty they look. You could tell the NES was more powerful than the Atari 2600 because the games looked better. Likewise, when the Sega Genesis launched, its superior visuals were one of the eye-catching things it did that Nintendidn't. Recent years, however, have seen the emergence of developers experimenting with the presumed necessity of pristine graphics, opting instead <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/122966-Battlefield-4-Prioritizes-Gameplay-Over-Graphics>to focus on gameplay or employing a specific style of visuals that may not technically be the shiniest. Others would insist, however, that at the end of the day the game that looks the best is the one you want to play.

"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. It's always been about graphics driving gameplay. Graphics, whether it's lighting or shadows, puts you in a different emotional context and drives the immersion. And immersion is effectively the number one thing we can use to help you buy into the world. The better the graphics, the better the physics, the better the sound design, the better the technical assets and production values are - paired with the art direction, making things look spectacular and stylistic is 60 percent of the game."

While there are likely few out there that would argue that gorgeous visuals can't help elevate a game to greater heights, you could make a case that perhaps Yerli is looking at the issue from a slightly narrow scope. While the experience of the Crysis games have largely been defined by the franchise's devotion to excellent visuals, there are titles that employ different methods of immersion and styles of gameplay that arguably negate the necessity of good graphics. Likewise, the definition of eye-candy can vary wildly from person to person. Yerli might enjoy Crysis but I might personally point to Final Fantasy VI as the most beautiful game ever made. It's in the eye of the beholder, as they say.

Source: X360 Magazine



Permalink
 

InvaderTim

New member
Dec 9, 2012
49
0
0
I'd like to argue that gameplay is what makes a game stand out, not high fidelity polygons
 

Cyrromatic

New member
Mar 9, 2012
37
0
0
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.
 

Eric the Orange

Gone Gonzo
Apr 29, 2008
3,245
0
0
I would have to disagree. Graphics can help add to atmosphere but as long as you keep to a style that works for the game the graphics don't have to be "good".

I think his argument is based off the warrant that "realism is good", and graphics add to immersion. But I am a person who likes their games "gamey". Not all games need to make you feel lost in a world. Which is why I seem to be playing more indies these days as AAA seem to agree with Mr.Yeril.
 

Hagi

New member
Apr 10, 2011
2,741
0
0
60% seems a rather silly number.

But I do agree that Graphics matter. Say what you want about gameplay or style but there are some things that do require high-fidelity graphics and that do add a whole lot to a game and the immersion it provides.

They're not required for a good game of course, and having only great graphics whilst lacking everything else will make for a horrid game but they still help a whole lot.

The mountains and terrain in Skyrim with a few dozen HD graphics mods installed are an amazing sight to behold and definitely add to my enjoyment of the game, even if there's no gameplay at all involved in looking at them.
 

Sack of Cheese

New member
Sep 12, 2011
907
0
0
Are they justifying Crysis 3's sale? "Why does no one care about our game? Look at how much effort we put into the GRAPHIC GRAPHIC GRAPHIC!?"
 

Legion

Were it so easy
Oct 2, 2008
7,190
0
0
Well of course he is going to say that, he is trying to sell his games using the graphics more than anything else.

At any rate, raw graphical quality means very little in comparison to style. The Walking Dead and Team Fortress 2 are not advanced in their graphics, but their style makes them look a hell of a lot better than the average shooter with lots of polygons.
 

IronMit

New member
Jul 24, 2012
533
0
0
I played the original Deus ex game for the first time ever last christmas.

The graphics are pretty plain but it is instantly one of the best games I ever played and I can't even blame that on nostalgia eyes. I did add the new vision mod but that just makes the graphics closer to 2002 and are still much much worse then lets say Hitman 2.

That '60%' is rubbish. If that was the case Deus ex would be awful for a first time player today. I subsequently recommended it to a few friends who never played it before and they were pleasantly surprised too.

A more accurate statement would be ' graphics attribute to 60% of what drives sales'. There are enough graphics whores and first impressionists (like me) that will be quite impressed by a good graphics demo and buy. But that doesn't mean it's 60% worth of greatness.

Notice how he did not mention story, characters or AI.
 

josemlopes

New member
Jun 9, 2008
3,950
0
0
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
 

MrHide-Patten

New member
Jun 10, 2009
1,309
0
0
35% maybe, but that's being generous. 45 for gameplay, 40 for narrative/context, graphics can have what's left over.
 

Karadalis

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
That would explain the cookie cutter gameplay of their games, and the nonsensical storyline of crysis
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
lol. Really? Crytek, Crysis 2 and 3 sucked, they were generic shooters...especially Crysis 2. They looked nice but they are still generic. Yes graphics matter, you want it to look nice, but if you have is graphics and the rest of the game isnt good or interesting then overal the good looking graphics dont matter. Some of my favourite games have sucky graphics, but they made up for that in great story, interesting characters and fun gameplay.

But then, he is talking about the PC version im sure. lol
 

VladG

New member
Aug 24, 2010
1,127
0
0
Ah bullshit. I've had more immersion in Thief 2 than in any cryengine game you'd care to mention, and Thief 2 looks like it was made with bad origami.

Hell, I found Fallout 2 more immersive than any cryengine game and that thing is a horrible looking 2d isometric affair.


Setting, aesthetic and SOUND create immersion, not graphics.


Graphics MIGHT help create immersion once we manage to achieve true photorealism. And god, that will be boring.