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

[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.

 

[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.