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

[shiajun]

Really? Really? Have we really got this thread without mentioning this?


At the end of day, the amount of polygons that you can furiously force into your engine is completely irrelevant to how much you enjoy that game. It's all about what you do with them. There are 8-bit games that I can look at and still love. However, any pile of steaming shit is still going to be ugly, no matter how well your render it.

I cannot agreee more with the guys over at Extra Credits, and I'm thankful you put it up. But careful, there is segment of the population on these forums that's starts foaming at the mouth whenever that video series is mentioned. I've been on the receiving side of that discussion when I've linked or quoted them.

I for one am no longer swayed by the pretty graphics. It's like blockbuster movie trailers. It's all veneer unless there's some substance to hold the experience up.

 

[FoolKiller]

He's right. They are very important to the game. I just think he misses the mark in terms of how they are important. His error is to think that realistic imagery and individually rendered blades of grass are important.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

What utter bollocks.

Gameplay makes a game. Atmosphere makes a game. Depth makes a game. Graphics are nothing more than a nice optional extra - and I say optional because of text and ASCII games. If graphics were indeed 60% of the gaming experience then would he care to explain the impact and appeal of games like Rogue, Nethack, ADOM, Dwarf Fortress and even Minecraft (to name but a prominent few)? I will agree that all games rely on a certain amount of aesthetic flavour to add to their charm, but graphical fidelity is only one (quite shallow) form of this.

 

[Flunk]

This explains a lot, the Crysis games have always been all about flash and no substance. He doesn't know anything about good games, people need to stop giving this Michael Bay wannabe money.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Yeah, you and David Cage, Cevat. You guys just keep blaming lack of computer power for why you can't make a truly fantastic game.

Well it wouldn't be so bad if they used that power for anything other than making things shinier. Seriously, I would argue that the power of the PS3 and 360 was pissed away due to people not really doing anything with them besides more meaningless details in the environments. Gunpei Yokoi is probably spinning in his grave from all the potential that has been wasted this gen.

 

[Snotnarok]

I think we all value different things when going into a game but graphics always matter no matter how hard people want to think it. Nintendo fans with their Wii were saying graphics don't matter, then got super excited when Zelda Ocarina of Time was getting a texture and now Wind Waker is getting a slight touch up and it's the same deal.

On the flip side, thing that a slight graphical touchup is generally enough. That doesn't really say much about the importance of graphics.

I think it does when someone is willing to rebuy the game at full price (for that device) that says that they're willing to spend the extra money for something that adds nothing to the game beyond visuals. There isn't anything wrong with that, but if visuals are important to someone like that then ...just say it vs in forums like this telling people theyre silly for taking visuals.

 

[Nepenthe87]

I thought visuals were one of the most important part of video games. I know the interactivity is the most important part, but I, personally have never played a video game that I couldn't see.

The guy isn't wrong about visuals being important to the game, but It's not about having the highest fidelity you possibly can. It's about what you can convey to the player aesthetically with the visuals that you have. that's the big disconnect i think some developers have with graphics vs. aesthetic. trying to make everything as real as possible doesnt make your game better better, it's how you use the visuals to create the setting for the player.

 

[ChickNaney]

I'd have to disagree. One of the most immersive games I've ever played was Morrowind (on the Xbox!), and I didn't play that until after I played games like Oblivion, Halo 3, and Mass Effect. I think everyone can agree that those games are miles ahead of Morrowind when it comes to graphics.

 

[Adon Cabre]

[HEADING=1]Don't be Hypocrites, Escapists[/HEADING]
As long as everyone keeps lapping up shallow Triple-A games, then we can't argue. As long as everyone, and that includes gaming media websites, keep putting up videos comparing x & y titles on the consoles, we can't argue. Like the phone industry's increasing GHz processor, this industry is built on the bread and butter of graphics. Game-play always comes second.

[HEADING=3]In fact, graphics have always evolved
faster than gameplay mechanics, narrative development,
and characterization in big titles.[/HEADING]

[HEADING=3]Mass Effect[/HEADING]
This Story isn't very good, or reaching to any depth, and anyone who finds an emotional connection with Sheppard is using a large part of their brain to fill in the gaps of vague characterization. Not to mention that the game's presentation is so awkward. It substitutes a false sense of choice in exchange for losing a major piece of narrative perspective. What do I care which world I visit first, as long as there are things to shoot at and allies to make in this story about galactic war.

We play this game for its lush environments, for its curvaceous female character models (Miranda anyone?), for its unique weapons, and its beautifully rendered sci-fi powers -- we play this game for the graphics.

+1 Cevat Yerli

[HEADING=3]Assassin's Creed[/HEADING]
This series just thinks the world of itself, but Assassin's Creed mainly relies on rendering a past world. The actual assassination part of the game started going out with Revelations, and now the series itself is just lost in the tide, selling itself on next gen graphics and a larger world scale. There's nothing substantive or gratifying about Assassin's Creed, nothing moving about it's characters or vapid world design. It just looks good.

+1 Cevat Yerli

[HEADING=3]HALO[/HEADING]
Like Mass Effect except with an even more incomprehensible arc to go along with its repetitive gameplay. It's basically Battlefield/COD in a (beautifully rendered) outer space. (And naked Cortana.) We play this game to gawk at the enemy's amazing polygon count as we shoot them.

+1 Cevat Yerli

[HEADING=2]Triple A Games haven't been very good[/HEADING]
Their combat usually summarizes an old trend, and most narratives
serve only to point the gamer in the direction to shoot at. There's
often very little fluidity, and very little risk taking. Almost every big
title trumps on it's graphics. And we lap it up.

[HEADING=3]Final Fantasy[/HEADING]
How is this series still a major player in 2013? Re-hashing the same cast of JRPG trope characters in what feels like an ever increasing hope to build the most awkwardly dressed 3d model. For goodness sake, Lightning is wearing her Final Fantasy XIII jacket for pants in Lightning Returns. Not to mention all of the Mommy and Daddy complexes that resemble the Freudian case that is Japanese culture. No one plays this game for the story, or even the uninvolving gameplay. We play it for the spectacular graphics and beautifully rendered movies.

This series would be a horrible introduction to anyone new to video games. And yet XIII-2 sold over 2 million units!

+1 Cevat Yerli

[HEADING=3]Metal Gear Solid[/HEADING]
And here is a title so thoroughly convinced of it's greatness. But MGS's lore is as convoluted as it's adoration for breaking in engines (Fox Engine) has become. And not to discount those 40+ minute movies with stiff motion acting and sleep inducing dialogue. This game claims a sci-fi stealth/action game and yet has us using Ak105's and 1960's M16's. Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfare had more innovative weapons at your disposal. Hideo Kojima would be the absolute mastermind of gameplay if he pulled his eyes from drafting those 100+ page scripts.

+1 Cevat Yerli

[HEADING=1]Games are all about graphics[/HEADING]
You'd be silly and hypocritical to say otherwise about this male driven industry.

I freely admit to buying Metal Gear Solid IV because it looked amazing in 2009. I bought Final Fantasy XIII because it looked absolutely gorgeous in 2010, and still remains unbeaten in the aesthetic dept. for the Playstation 3. I bought Gran Turismo 5 because the car models looked impressive! I Bought Uncharted 2 because the Demo "Urban Warfare" level was so vivid to look at.

For me, one of the main selling points of Halo 1
happened when my friend zoomed into the grass and it looked almost
real! Or how about following the Halo ring up into the sky!

[HEADING=2]Don't be Self-righteous[/HEADING]
Just admit that he is right and move on.

Update: Mass Effect's BOLD commentary slightly altered from "all" to "a major piece...".

 

[Knight Templar]

[HEADING=3]Mass Effect[/HEADING]
This Story isn't very good, or reaching to any depth, and anyone who finds an emotional connection with Sheppard is using a large part of their brain to fill in the gaps of vague characterization. Not to mention that the game's presentation is so awkward. It substitutes a false sense of choice in exchange for losing all narrative perspective. What do I care which world I visit first, as long as there are things to shoot at and allies to make in this story about galactic war.

We play this game for its lush environments, for its curvaceous female character models (Miranda anyone?), for its unique weapons, and its beautifully rendered sci-fi powers -- we play this game for the graphics.

+1 Cevat Yerli

I can't tell if you're making a poor joke, or honestly this foolish.

If its the latter, you are wrong and you don't get to tell me why I do things. If it is the former, you're more insulting than funny.

 

[faefrost]

Graphics don't matter. Visuals matter. And there is a difference that Mr. Yerli as the purveyor of the big hi end hi fidelity graphics game engine fails to make. Photorealism doesn't matter. High poly count does not matter. Fancy lighting and particle effects do not matter. Presentation of the game making the best use of what you have is what drives immersion. Art counts more for immersion than tech. Design counts more for immersion than tech. Do the characters move properly? Do they tell a believable story.

Actually tech is far more prone to kill immersion. That ever talked about "Uncanny Valley". The better the graphics get the less believable the game or presentation. You want some degree of wow factor in your graphics. But really the key things are more sypathetic well designed characters and environments, and smooth responsive motion and gameplay.

Mr. Yerli's company has done more to prove the opposite of his graphics hypothesis. His Crysis games are technically spectacular, and probably the best looking games ever made. But they are souless, and it shows in gamer responses to them.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

>snipped for oh so many reasons<

See, what you've done there is to lump everyone into your view of gaming. If you want to re-write your post so that every 'we' reads 'I' then that's fine, no-one is attacking gamers who put graphics first. But to assert that just because you put graphics first we must all be being hypocritical by saying otherwise is every shade of wrong. You buy games for their looks? Good for you. But don't you bloody dare say that I or anyone else who has voiced an opinion here is being hypocritical just because there are people out there that judge games differently to you.

 

[Adon Cabre]

snip

I can't tell if you're making a poor joke, or honestly this foolish.

If its the latter, you are wrong and you don't get to tell me why I do things. If it is the former, you're more insulting than funny.

Mass Effect 2 shows a bad habit of squandering momentum in exchange for that freedom of travel. It's a problem that most open world games have, and its a flaw that begins at the very beginning, when the creative director is trying to integrate a world and its story. Linearity vs Sandbox. It's tough to find a balance. Even Red Dead Redemption struggled in this part; it's why some main missions were just boring, because they had to progress characterization. And good writers always become slaves to the story.

Anyways, I digress.

Mass Effect is a culmination of a lot of good ideas, and that should have been organized in a linear story; but instead, there was a decision to make everything a choice. Why is there a main-mission choice if you have to play all their main-missions at some point? All that this does is make the plot more vague in exchange for flexibility in travel, and that's the beside the unaccounted loss of momentum with each completed mission. Mass Effect has at it's core a strong narrative, where characterization is crucial to understanding this universe, but Mass Effect hold's itself back because of a design decision, and which, unfortunately, helped ruin it's ending in the third installment. This is one narrative, and it should only have one ending. Which means that every choice you made across the 3 games and 50+ hours didn't even matter, because everyone died at the end -- that is, except for two characters. Slaves to the story.

But I thought this would be easy to understand.

Mass Effect brings nothing revolutionary, but finds the same pitfalls of every other game trying to balance both the linearity and sandbox genres.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

That must be why all my PS2 games seem to give me more enjoyment than 90% of the current gen games. First people are saying that its the story is the most important, now graphics. Why do people seem to forget these are games? Which we play to have fun, a factor that is mainly decided by gameplay?

 

[Adon Cabre]

>snipped for oh so many reasons<

snip

Taking my argument out of context. I was talking about posters who scoffed at the Crytek boss.

I never even hinted toward all games, or all gamers. But my emphasis was on big budget titles. Because that's what this article is about: how big budget titles have ALMOST always been about graphics. But from what I hear, triple-A title Bioshock Infinite has recently broken that trend with a strong narrative focus. About time.

Good for them.

 

[lacktheknack]

Oh, quit acting outraged, everyone. This is Crytek talking. What did you expect them to say? "Games that look like Minecraft have the potential to be better than what we make"? While we're at it, were you expecting the Democrats to suddenly decry abortion and the Green party to talk about how useful coal is as an energy source?

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

>snipped for oh so many reasons<

snip

Taking my argument out of context. I was talking about posters who scoffed at the Crytek boss.

I never even hinted toward all games, or all gamers. But my emphasis was on big budget titles. Because that's what this article is about: how big budget titles have ALMOST always been about graphics. But from what I hear, triple-A title Bioshock Infinite has recently broken that trend with a strong narrative focus. About time.

Good for them.

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...

 

[Danial]

60% of a game is visuals, Just like 95% of Crysis 3 is pretty much Crysis 2 (the other 5% is the bow)


But as that other guy says, Style is what gets you not pure polly count, Crysis 3 has better graphics than say Borderlands 2, but we all know which one looks better.

But yeah he has a point, without good grapics no game can ever do well, And with that back to Minecraft.

 

[Something Amyss]

I think it does when someone is willing to rebuy the game at full price (for that device) that says that they're willing to spend the extra money for something that adds nothing to the game beyond visuals. There isn't anything wrong with that, but if visuals are important to someone like that then ...just say it vs in forums like this telling people theyre silly for taking visuals.

I think it's naive to paint it as the only reason. People will buy an unretouched rerelease just so they can play it again. See Final Fantasy VII.

Hell, I bought Skies of Arcadia Legends, a graphical DOWNGRADE. I know it didn't sell THAT well, but a lot of other people did too.

Zelda could be repackaged as-is and I doubt it would impact sales much, if any. It's ZELDA.

 

[Something Amyss]

But as that other guy says, Style is what gets you not pure polly count, Crysis 3 has better graphics than say Borderlands 2, but we all know which one looks better.

I'm not sure about "looks better," but I know which I'd rather play. Spoilers: It's BL2.

Also, props on your avatar, but that's neither here nor there.