@Stogin Imagine something like Far Cry 3 with better graphics and you tell me.

@Stogin Most people are misinterpreting Yerli's comments. Yerli's comments only make sense if you interpret him to be saying that better graphics enable more immersive games, which is something everyone agrees with - it's not a radical statement at all.

If he hadn't made the stupid 60% quip, nobody would be whining.

@GOGOHeadray @The_Beanster Crysis 3 also isn't open world...

Crysis 3's faults have nothing to do with the fact that it has great graphics.

@MalakTawus If the 60% thing is his main point he's an idiot. You can't break games down that way and even if you could, no one thing would be weighted that heavily ... games are compositions of too many things.

@GOGOHeadray That's because most gamers are too young to have played Far Cry.

And Crytek went backwards in many ways with graphics after Crysis 1... it wasn't until Crysis 3 that they surpassed Crysis 1 in visuals.

@Kawaii_Uguu @The_Beanster Well either your PC sucks or you're an idiot for trying to use 8xMSAA

@Stogin You mean except for the reviews that universally praised it as a good game?

@GOGOHeadray You could argue just as well that open world shooters is what got them their name.

This idea that Crytek only does graphics is a Crysis 2 and later idea (discounting the minority of Crysis haters).

@Stogin Huh? I never said Far Cry/Crysis had great story.

I said that Far Cry and Crysis were very good games. And they are. They also happened to be cutting edge graphically at their respective releases. You cannot explain Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 being a flop by using the "they just focused on graphics" explanation.

@megaspiderweb09 I agree. Everyone is flipping out in these comments about his 60% number (which granted was a stupid thing for him to say), but conceptually he is not saying anything very radical here at all.