Crytek's CEO Yerli: graphics are "60% of a game"

How did GS get away with writing that article header? We aren't talking about a an out of context quote to drive hits but a flat out fabrication of what he said. He did not anywhere state that graphics are 60%. And yet GS has the nerve to have the running title for the article read "Crytek: Graphics are 60 percent of the game". Article needs to be corrected ASAP.

Source

Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli has weighed in on the long-running discussion about graphics in games. Speaking to X360 Magazine, Yerli said graphics drive gameplay and better visual fidelity allows developers to create more believable and engaging experiences.

"People say that graphics don't matter, but play Crysis and tell me they don't matter," Yerli said. "It's always been about graphics driving gameplay."

Yerli pointed to Crysis 3 to back up his claim. He said the graphics are capable enough to show grass swaying in the wind, which allows players to detect when enemies are running towards them.

"Graphics, whether it's lighting or shadows, puts you in a different emotional context and drives the immersion," Yerli said. "And immersion is effectively the number one thing we can use to help you buy into the world."

For Yerli, it all comes down to graphics, which can make up 60 percent of a game, he said.

"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 per cent of the game," he said.

Gamespot

Seriously Yerli, 60% of a game? No wonder Crytek's latest efforts have been mediocre at best. 

Can't help but shake my head at this. It is 30% of a game. Possibly even 25%. Geez.

And now a bunch of people will try the very, very  futile exercise of trying to quantify their perceived % of the value of graphics. To try to counter that, here's a game:

Now here's the same game, without graphics:

Now tell me, in %, how much graphics matter.

And now a bunch of people will try the very, very  futile exercise of trying to quantify their perceived % of the value of graphics. To try to counter that, here's a game:

 

 

Now here's the same game, without graphics:

 

 

Now tell me, in %, how much graphics matter.

ReddestSkies

LMAO

This F*cking guy.

And now a bunch of people will try the very, very  futile exercise of trying to quantify their perceived % of the value of graphics. To try to counter that, here's a game:

Now here's the same game, without graphics:

Now tell me, in %, how much graphics matter.

ReddestSkies

Someone needs to make Pax-Txt into an actual game.

How did GS get away with writing that article header? We aren't talking about a an out of context quote to drive hits but a flat out fabrication of what he said. He did not anywhere state that graphics are 60%. And yet GS has the nerve to have the running title for the article read "Crytek: Graphics are 60 percent of the game". Article needs to be corrected ASAP.

Articuno76

I actually agree with his statements as I read them in context. The title of the article does borders on sensationalism.

After seeing the Journey get game of the year, I can see why we could say that.

Yep, the truth about their mediocrity is uncovered. What he said is exactly the reason why Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 aren't good games.

It's a shame how Crytek changed for the worse when they started consolising their games.

And now a bunch of people will try the very, very  futile exercise of trying to quantify their perceived % of the value of graphics. To try to counter that, here's a game:

 

 

Now here's the same game, without graphics:

 

 

Now tell me, in %, how much graphics matter.

ReddestSkies

It's not about percentages, throw them out the window; top of the line graphics are not a requirement to make a good game. That's a fact, as you have also proven with your pac-man graphic. 

Yep, the truth about their mediocrity is uncovered. What he said is exactly the reason why Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 aren't good games.

It's a shame how Crytek changed for the worse when they started consolising their games.

Cyberdot

Out of the three Crysis games I would say Crysis 1 was the worse.

[QUOTE="Cyberdot"]

Yep, the truth about their mediocrity is uncovered. What he said is exactly the reason why Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 aren't good games.

It's a shame how Crytek changed for the worse when they started consolising their games.

wiouds

Out of the three Crysis games I would say Crysis 1 was the worse.

Yeah, I know you're kidding.

Such percentages are entirely arbitrary but regardless, this is a visual medium and it is propelled by graphical fidelity.

Not only do improved graphics often facilitate improved gameplay but even those games that employ less than cutting edge technology often do so while still implementing an effective aesthetic and sense of style.

Without graphical progression, this medium would stall and eventually falter.

It's a shame how Crytek changed for the worse when they started consolising their games.

Cyberdot

The only difference between console FPS and PC FPS is a thin membrane of delusion propagated by people who think they are entirely dissimilar.  

Seriously Yerli, 60% of a game? No wonder Crytek's latest efforts have been mediocre at best. 

Vari3ty

None of the Crysis games are mediocre, though I will concede the original was most certainly the best and most innovative.

It's not about percentages, throw them out the window; top of the line graphics are not a requirement to make a good game. That's a fact, as you have also proven with your pac-man graphic. 

Blueresident87

Yawn. What if I tell you that they're not required, but they help?

Graphics are an integral part of hte experience, for sure. How important they are though, is going to vary on the responder.

Graphics are certainly a major part of any game, but I doubt they are the MOST important part. I suppose from a company perspective I can see their point: better graphics tend to drive more sales. Why is that? The package looks nice, so it entices people to buy it without much knowledge of substance. It's the same reason fast food places doctor the pictures on their menus. Visual appeal moves units.

Gameplay keeps people coming back for more afterwards. A game can look as shiny as it wants and still be a boring, unentertaining mess.

Seems like design and gameplay would rank as more important, since they both have a greater effect on the amount of enjoyment an end user gets out of a game. You would think that, but people here like their shiny graphics.

Of the complaints people voice about games now, how many are about graphics? You don't hear them all that often, and even when you do, they tend to be overshadowed by other issues. Aliens Colonial Marines didn't have the best graphics, and people complained, but they complained about the gameplay, design, and functionality a lot more.

I still love Crysis 2 and always will, regardless of how many stupid things Crytek says.

[QUOTE="Cyberdot"]

It's a shame how Crytek changed for the worse when they started consolising their games.

Grammaton-Cleric

The only difference between console FPS and PC FPS is a thin membrane of delusion propagated by people who think they are entirely dissimilar.  

I'd say 60% gameplay, and about 20% graphics and story each.

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

Seriously Yerli, 60% of a game? No wonder Crytek's latest efforts have been mediocre at best. 

Grammaton-Cleric

None of the Crysis games are mediocre, though I will concede the original was most certainly the best and most innovative.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree. Crysis 2 was one of my worst experiences with FPS's in recent years. 

Graphics can add a lot to the game. But I think saying its "60% of the game" is a gross exaggeration. There are some splendid games out there with weak graphics. And there are beautiful pieces of crap with great graphics but not much else.

Me to Crytek's CEO: you are missing 60% of your brain

With game graphics always constantly evolving, it is generally expected for developers to utilize that available technology as much as possible. But come on, 60 percent?

Righteo then. Nothing like a lifeless game with nice scenery...

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

And now a bunch of people will try the very, very futile exercise of trying to quantify their perceived % of the value of graphics. To try to counter that, here's a game:

Now here's the same game, without graphics:

Now tell me, in %, how much graphics matter.

Blueresident87

It's not about percentages, throw them out the window; top of the line graphics are not a requirement to make a good game. That's a fact, as you have also proven with your pac-man graphic.

No one's saying that top of the line graphics are a requirement for a good game. But they do unquestionably enhance the overall experience of a game.

And now a bunch of people will try the very, very  futile exercise of trying to quantify their perceived % of the value of graphics. To try to counter that, here's a game:

 

 

Now here's the same game, without graphics:

 

 

Now tell me, in %, how much graphics matter.

ReddestSkies

In a way he's right -- there are many games that live or die by their visuals. Take Doom 3, for example. I have no interest in playing Doom 3 again, but I played the hell out of it when it came out because it looked pretty and was a competent shooter with semi-interesting weapons. Now it's just a boring old has-been, sitting amidst the pile of modern FPS games with nothing substantive to keep them iconic. Ooooh a satanic plot! How original! Oooooh another BFG! How compelling! Monster closets! What amazing game design! I think we all know what the selling point of that game was, and if we're being honest, it's what sells most games.

What he doesn't go on to consider is that seeing as a game is reliant on graphics, the percentage of worth of the game DROPS as technology moves forward. A game that was cutting edge a year ago might be considered 40 or 50% effective then, and a year or two beyond that, only the 40% of its non-visual worth, and that's assuming it was perfect in all areas gameplay related -- most games, I'd argue, are middling at best when it comes to mechanics. It's quite easy to see why so many games become basically worthless  over time instead of better like art does. This is one of the reasons that games are not classic in the artistic sense most times -- you often can't go back and watch them like you can an old movie like Lawrence of Arabia. You can't go back and appreciate most games from an artistic sense like you could the Cistine Chapel. Instead of being rendered and limited only by the imagination and determination of their creators, games are rendered through the technology present at the time of their production. Games have to be remade to remain palatable most times -- just ask yourself why we have remakes and not simply reissues. He's admitting why Crytek games kind of suck a few years down the line, or why MGS4 doesn't have the impact it used to -- because the graphics aren't sizzling the senses any longer, and the meat of the game (the part that DOES remain timeless) is all the player has left to experience. 

Basically, what he's saying is accurate, and something I've known all along, that games are more disposable pop trash than art for the most part, simply due to their technological shelf life. Granted, there are some games that have aged exceptionally well, even entire genres, like 2D side scrollers and the like. 

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="Cyberdot"]

It's a shame how Crytek changed for the worse when they started consolising their games.

UpInFlames

The only difference between console FPS and PC FPS is a thin membrane of delusion propagated by people who think they are entirely dissimilar.  

I have to disagree. It is a fact that PC FPSs are deeper and more complex. No console FPS developer makes games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Red Orchestra or ARMA.

Crysis 2 was an awful game precisely because it was dumbed down. Crytek wanted to tap into the console Call of Duty crowd and made the game linear and simpler.

Rainbow Six stopped being a tactical shooter series the day that they started making them on consoles. The same was true for Ghost Recon (they actually made a PC-specific GRAW2 that was tailored for the PC crowd. Quote from the review Gamespot review: "That way, Xbox 360 gamers could get a third-person action game while PC gamers could get a hardcore first-person shooter.")

Arena shooters essentially stopped being made when developers started focussing on consoles. Epic understood, with its Unreal Championship games, that it couldn't just port Unreal Tournament 200X games to consoles and have people buy them, because these games were too fast, 3 dimensional and complex to be played with a gamepad. Instead, they made Unreal Championship 2, which is excellent in its own right, but I wouldn't even classify it as a FPS (iyam, it's better played in third person). And then they made the extremely boring UT3 which took out all the movement innovations of the former games. When that bombed, they switched to slow, sluggish, extremely boring games. They even got People Can Fly, which made the very excellent Painkiller, to make a FPS IN WHICH YOU CANNOT JUMP. I'll never forgive them for that. (Bulletstorm was good in its own right, but it's a clear example of trying to make a fast-paced FPS specifically for consoles: not enough buttons means not enough possibilities, ultra small corridor levels, etc.)

PC and console FPS share many similarities in 2013, but it's mostly because so many games are multiplatform these days. However, the FPS genre would have been infinitely better, deeper and more interesting if the focus had not been shifted from PC to consoles. For one, we still would have a decent amount of real tactical shooters and arena shooters, and less of that horrible, horrible, horrible "PRESS X TO HIDE BEHIND COVER" garbage.

[QUOTE="Cyberdot"]

It's a shame how Crytek changed for the worse when they started consolising their games.

Grammaton-Cleric

The only difference between console FPS and PC FPS is a thin membrane of delusion propagated by people who think they are entirely dissimilar.  

I have to disagree. It is a fact that PC FPSs are deeper and more complex. No console FPS developer makes games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Red Orchestra or ARMA.

Crysis 2 was an awful game precisely because it was dumbed down. Crytek wanted to tap into the console Call of Duty crowd and made the game linear and simpler.

I'm thinking many of you in this thread merely read the headline and ran with it or completely missed the context.

Yerli explained his points quite well. Regardless of one's opinion of CryTek, the genre of games that they produce demands both grpahics and gameplay. Environment driving gameplay isn't really unheard of in shooters. The 60% thing, whatevs. I'm having difficulty comprehending why anything he said was controversial in the slighest.

....compared to:

Yea.  

Graphics matter a hell of a lot.  The first three shots are from the "Midhrastic ENB" mod for Fallout 3 that overhauls pretty much the entire presentation, the fourth is vanilla.  The game looks drastically different in lighting, textures, and conveys an enormous sense of atmosphere that was severly lacking in the vanilla version.  The combat is much more satisfying, blowing Moira's head off never tires, and exploring has a whole new feeling to it.  And this is a game I've already played through numerous times.  How Yerli can come up with a specific percentage I don't quite understand, but I agree with everything he says 100%.

I really tire of this idealistic, nostalgia driven notion that gameplay is all that matters.  Good graphics make a game much more enjoyable and add immensely to the overall experience.  I'm enjoying my replay of Fallout 3 a lot more than my initial playthrough due to ENB and revised texture mods.  I still believe sound to be more important overall, but graphics are nothing to be disregarded when it comes to the enjoyment of any game.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="Cyberdot"]

It's a shame how Crytek changed for the worse when they started consolising their games.

UpInFlames

The only difference between console FPS and PC FPS is a thin membrane of delusion propagated by people who think they are entirely dissimilar.

I have to disagree. It is a fact that PC FPSs are deeper and more complex. No console FPS developer makes games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Red Orchestra or ARMA.

Crysis 2 was an awful game precisely because it was dumbed down. Crytek wanted to tap into the console Call of Duty crowd and made the game linear and simpler.

I can embrace the notion that some PC FPS enjoy a deeper scope and complexity but as a whole my point is that there is no massive gulf of disparity between the two.

A game like Far Cry 3, which really is one of the most innovative FPS I have ever played, demonstrates that consoles can enjoy deeper and more complex FPS constructs than the typical COD clone.

And while I agree that the first Crysis is the best, I don't think either 2 or 3 are anywhere near as bad as some have claimed, especially given the plethora of combat options made available to the player.

Incidentally, I recently nabbed a new PC and I am again dabbling in PC gaming and I am very, very impressed with Steam. I'm also planning on nabbing STALKER as I hear the game is top tier.

Is it as good as they say?

Graphics are definitely crucial for an engaging experience, never-the-less it goes: Gameplay > Story > Graphics without a doubt.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

The only difference between console FPS and PC FPS is a thin membrane of delusion propagated by people who think they are entirely dissimilar.

Grammaton-Cleric

I have to disagree. It is a fact that PC FPSs are deeper and more complex. No console FPS developer makes games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Red Orchestra or ARMA.

Crysis 2 was an awful game precisely because it was dumbed down. Crytek wanted to tap into the console Call of Duty crowd and made the game linear and simpler.

I can embrace the notion that some PC FPS enjoy a deeper scope and complexity but as a whole my point is that there is no massive gulf of disparity between the two.

A game like Far Cry 3, which really is one of the most innovative FPS I have ever played, demonstrates that consoles can enjoy deeper and more complex FPS constructs than the typical COD clone.

And while I agree that the first Crysis is the best, I don't think either 2 or 3 are anywhere near as bad as some have claimed, especially given the plethora of combat options made available to the player.

Incidentally, I recently nabbed a new PC and I am again dabbling in PC gaming and I am very, very impressed with Steam. I'm also planning on nabbing STALKER as I hear the game is top tier.

Is it as good as they say?

Incidentally, I recently nabbed a new PC and I am again dabbling in PC gaming and I am very, very impressed with Steam. I'm also planning on nabbing STALKER as I hear the game is top tier.

Is it as good as they say?

Grammaton-Cleric

Ah, that's pretty exciting. Steam is awesome.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl is one of the best first-person shooters I've ever played. It's rough around the edges (has some bugs and lacks polish and high production values), but the emergent gameplay, the atmosphere and sheer sense of vulnerability and dread are unlike anything I've played before or since. There is a STALKER Complete Overhaul mod that enhances pretty much everything. I haven't used it personally, but I've heard it works great. Call of Pripyat is great as well. Haven't played Clear Sky.

Stalker is a better horror game than it is a shooter, but its atmosphere is fantastic. Add me on Steam if you want (same username) there is a GGD club too.GodModeEnabled

I would say that it is a great shooter. It's a lot more realistic and slower paced than your average FPS and I loved it for that. I found the firefights extremely intense and satisfying.