Crytek: Graphics are 60 percent of a game

And lol@ Cevat Yerli.

I think he's going mad because his studio,which was regarded as one of the greats not too long ago,is now irrelevant.

He was successful...now he's dirt.

It's a misquote by gamespot. In the article 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," Meaning all those thiongs together constitues 60% of the experience. I think that's fairly accurate for a lot of games. For some, like Assassin's Creed for example, it's prob closer to 75%Sushiglutton

I wouldn't say misquote, just selective quoting. Also I don't know how he lumped Sound/Audio in with the rest of those graphcis things to conclude saying they "make things look spectacular" 

If I had to pull some stats out of my ass, I'd say visual presentation generally makes 40% of the game for me.

50% would go to gameplay, and the remaining 10% for story, sound, etc...

There are plenty of exceptions to these "rules", though, especially while dealing with indie titles.

Rocker6

makes me wonder why SW doesn't have something like rpg kings, instead of the annual graphics king threads

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"]

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

If I had to pull some stats out of my ass, I'd say visual presentation generally makes 40% of the game for me.

50% would go to gameplay, and the remaining 10% for story, sound, etc...

There are plenty of exceptions to these "rules", though, especially while dealing with indie titles.

seanmcloughlin

Sound design is a huge thing for me too. 

I'd say 25 visual, 25 sound and 50 gameplay

But the reason MP2 felt so lackluster to play had nothing to do with gameplay. The games play pretty much the same (except a couple of additions like cover in MP3). But the animations and sound design in MP3 are just sooo much better that it radically changes the entire experience imo. I think many gamers would erroneously call this a gameplay difference, when it's really not.

I barely glimpsed the article, but I think the title may be misleading in a way. He went by the same judgment that we all make: graphics are a part of power, which is comprised of the things in the game in general. He shouldn't have really said it the way he did in the beginning, but he does make a far off point which was at the end of the article.

Seems like Cevat can't keep his damn mouth closed again.

"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.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."

While I do think visuals play a far bigger role in games these days than most care to admit, I think 60 percent is far too much. Crysis 3 did indeed have amazing visuals but it lacked good gameplay and story to back it up and if it really was 60% of the experience for games then it still should have been pretty well liked. 

Maybe for Crysis it's just 60% visuals cos it has fvck all else

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/crytek-graphics-are-60-percent-of-a-game-6406893

"People say that graphics don't matter, but play Crysis and tell me they don't matter," Yerli said.

seanmcloughlin

I have played crysis multiple times.

Graphics don't matter.

Graphics are important...real important. 

But when you try to break it down in precent form like that graphics wouldn't be anywhere near 60% for me. fail Crytek.

Crysis 1 was a graphical beast and it was very fun to play. Crysis 2 and Crysis 3? NOPE! And you know what made Crysis 1 fun to play? It was the amazing Nanosuit.

Switching through the nanosuit powers quickly as the scenario changed was a huge requirement in Delta. That made it fun! Crysis 2 and 3? The suit does the crap for you. NOT FUN AT ALL!

All Crysis games had crap story. But Crysis 1 had amazing graphics with super fun gameplay. The single player and multiplayer of Crysis 1 (and Warhead/Wars) was a billion times better than the turd of Crysis 2 and 3.

this is why crysis sucks, they focused to much on the graphics, while the gameplay ends up being mediocre

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

"People say that graphics don't matter, but play Crysis and tell me they don't matter," Yerli said.

call_of_duty_10

I have played crysis multiple times.

Graphics don't matter.

The guy is ignorantly wrong again. If the game is all about graphics and lacks decent gameplay and story, it's not a good game. The original Crysis did a good job balancing both graphics and gameplay, hence it is seen as an excellent game.

I do wonder when he will learn to shut up. I guess consolisation is getting to him.

and this is why crysis games are mediocre.

i'm trying to enjoy a game that is fun and a good time, not a photorealistic world simulator. The fact that the indie scene has exploded, i'm not the only one who feels that way.

Crysis is 90% graphics not so much else...:lol:

Graphics are 80% of a game because it sells well to peasants.

Importance wise, i would say 30%. I love eye candy. 

20% is reserved for the sound design/soundtrack - which enhanced the mood, creates a portion of the atmosphere, and overall sets the tone of the game. A game with crappy music and bad sound design will hinder the experience greatly for me.

And 50% is reserved to the gameplay. You can't have a good game without gameplay that isn't crap. 

Graphics are 80% of a game because it sells well to peasants.

PCgameruk

Visuals represent the vast majority of stimuli games give us, followed by audio, so he's not wrong :?

As far as I'm concerned, retro games would be far less appealing without the "retro" tag....

Exactly why Crysis games are forgettable. Only thing people remember about them is the graphics and never if the game is actually any good. Moving forward Crytek needs to eventually acknowledge, they can have awesome looking game but they need to make sure everything else in the game is awesome also.

No. 

No.

And since he didn't even specify VIDEO games, I'm gonna be a total jerk and say HELL NO!

In Diplomacy's case, it's a triple HELL NO because you don't really need the actual board, dice, miniatures, or anything other than a solid understanding of its rules and a group of reasonably intelligent friends to play. The map can be printed out, xeroxed, displayed on a screen or whatever and your troops can be represented by beans, rice, pieces of paper or whatever.

A game is a set of rules and, more often than not, depending on the type of game, a universe, an imaginary setting. If the rules delilver the goods and the setting (if it's the kind of game that requires one) is well made, you've got yourself a winner right there. 

Lol @ all these hermits saying graphics don't matter.Chrome-

Oh the irony!

If I had to pull some stats out of my ass, I'd say visual presentation generally makes 40% of the game for me.

50% would go to gameplay, and the remaining 10% for story, sound, etc...

There are plenty of exceptions to these "rules", though, especially while dealing with indie titles.

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"]It's a misquote by gamespot. In the article 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," Meaning all those thiongs together constitues 60% of the experience. I think that's fairly accurate for a lot of games. For some, like Assassin's Creed for example, it's prob closer to 75%seanmcloughlin

I wouldn't say misquote, just selective quoting. Also I don't know how he lumped Sound/Audio in with the rest of those graphcis things to conclude saying they "make things look spectacular" 

Play crysis then go play quake.....crysis is a clunky piece of shit in comparison.Consolessuck187

Lol @ all these hermits saying graphics don't matter.Chrome-

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

If I had to pull some stats out of my ass, I'd say visual presentation generally makes 40% of the game for me.

50% would go to gameplay, and the remaining 10% for story, sound, etc...

There are plenty of exceptions to these "rules", though, especially while dealing with indie titles.

Sushiglutton

You're not the only one. Proper sound design, especially in horror games, can be so much more important to the experience than the visual output. Ofcourse to an extent - playing the game as a text horror adventure, for example, wouldn't be cool.  

And playing a shoot 'em up with a adrenaline pumping soundrack that matches the fast gameplay is exhilarating. Playing the same shoot 'em up with a slow country style of a music is, again, not so cool on the enjoyment factor. 

Actually it can kill the game for me.  

[QUOTE="Chrome-"]Lol @ all these hermits saying graphics don't matter.Iantheone

If you can't do gameplay right and make it fun, You should Stop working on graphics and work little more on gameplay that matters more... 

 Then again all it seems is Crytek 3 can do is stupid trees 

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

"People say that graphics don't matter, but play Crysis and tell me they don't matter," Yerli said.

call_of_duty_10

I have played crysis multiple times.

Graphics don't matter.

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

If I had to pull some stats out of my ass, I'd say visual presentation generally makes 40% of the game for me.

50% would go to gameplay, and the remaining 10% for story, sound, etc...

There are plenty of exceptions to these "rules", though, especially while dealing with indie titles.

Sushiglutton

Sound design is a huge thing for me too. 

I'd say 25 visual, 25 sound and 50 gameplay

[QUOTE="Iantheone"][QUOTE="Chrome-"]Lol @ all these hermits saying graphics don't matter.Chrome-

And? 

Console gamers are literally only getting 40% of every game they buy. Subtract another 10% because you can't have fun without being physically prepared for it the way we are.

I really don't think Crytek should be talking about what makes a game when their past 2 have been so bad.

I think graphics are very important to the game but not as much as he thinks. Coming from the guy with a leading graphics engine, who wouldn't expect him to say that?

Crysis 1 was a graphical beast and it was very fun to play. Crysis 2 and Crysis 3? NOPE! And you know what made Crysis 1 fun to play? It was the amazing Nanosuit.

Switching through the nanosuit powers quickly as the scenario changed was a huge requirement in Delta. That made it fun! Crysis 2 and 3? The suit does the crap for you. NOT FUN AT ALL!

 

All Crysis games had crap story. But Crysis 1 had amazing graphics with super fun gameplay. The single player and multiplayer of Crysis 1 (and Warhead/Wars) was a billion times better than the turd of Crysis 2 and 3.

ShadowDeathX

Maybe thats why their games have awful stories.