X360: Crytek has always pushed the visuals of its games but in the great graphics Vs gameplay debate, Cytek boss, Cevat Yerli, believes graphics win and actually account for ’60% of the game’ and its immersion.
If you're speaking technically, then yes. If you're saying they're 60% of the fun, then no lol. Just no...
"“People say that graphics don’t matter,” says Yerli, “but play Crysis and tell me they don’t matter. It’s always been about graphics driving gameplay." And therein lies the problem. It should always be about the gameplay driving not only the graphics, but the physics, sounds etc. I understand where he is coming from though and if you see Crysis running on a high spec PC you really have no choice but to be wowed by what is on-screen. The visuals do pull you into the world but the driving force is always the gameplay. If the graphics are 60% of your game, you're doing something wrong.
I agree with you septic. So if graphics are 60%, so would that mean gameplay is 20% and story is 20%. If so that's tuuuurrible..
you guys know what einstein was famous for? Its all frekin relative. 1 Crysis has terrible gameplay but relative to me its great gameplay. 2 Crysis has Incredible graphics but relative to me they could be better 3 Crysis has great physics but relative to me they took the update speed from c1 and cut it into a 3rd on the physics end 4 Everyone in this "small" culture on n4g seems to live in a bubble one where the crysis series is a terrible franchise known only for what they seem to think is horrible unoptimised code. but relative to the rest of the world crysis is a game like any other and some people are gonna like it and others aren't, 5 Crysis series is an overall bad game besides the graphics cause they should only be like 20 percent of the game. but relative to anyone exposed to the outside world n4g is a ps3/4 circle jerk and anything that technically wipes the floor with all of the exclusives you guys are used to rubbing in the faces of say x360 owners must be attacked logically or illogically and rationalized one comment after another and you all are about to prove it (-_-)
@Autodidactdystopia I don't think Einstein's theory of relativity means what you think it means. What you're looking for is the word "opinion", I believe.
Dude Relativity literally means Relativity. Einstien perfected the math. Relativity in short is how two people reconcile their world if their relative nature to the thing they are observing is different. cant believe you dont see the metaphore. 1 person in the n4g ecosystem sees the world one way one person more predominantly exposed to the outside world sees the world another way.(obvious differences in preference and taste aside) 1 person inside a high energy state for example say the speed of light sees time as as literally stopped. One person more predonminantly not traveling at the speed of light experiences time "relatively" (theres that word again) slowly. Why exactly do you think it is called the theory of relativity and what exactly do you think that that means? I see you took the illogical route.----------------Click Here-----↓
yes, everyone has a different opinion, I don't know why you felt compelled to bring Einstein into this, it doesn't make you more right. he discovered relativity in physics. I'm pretty sure people were aware of relativity of opinion way before him. Edit: your username is relevant...
Minecraft sold more than his "60%" better game.
And therin lies the reason that Crytek are a second tier developer instead of an elite one. Until you understand the balance of graphics and gameplay you'll never make a game regarded as one of the greats. Heres a hint. Its not 60% graphics. Crytek make decent games, but they'll never make anything that would be considered a game of the year contender with their current attitude.
@Autodidactdystopia I don't mean to put you in your place, because you obviously think you're a very pedantically inclined mind, but your insistence on incorrectly using Einstein's relativity into this conversion is a gross misuse of the terminology. If, for discussion purposes, you wanted a more apt reference (one that speaks more dynamically to the inclusion of fun versus graphics versus gameplay versus perception of the aforementioned) you would have sided toward's Immanuel Kant's apriori, to which a certain individual's taste in knowledge or experience (intrinsic or otherwise) would determine the outcome of their perception of a thing. Ultimately, I still love the original X-Com even though the graphics were never good (even back when it released). However, it was the intention of a foreboding atmosphere and outcome of a terrifying alien invasion fused with the deep gameplay mechanics that made it worthwhile. For people who don't like or appreciate the experience of the [game's] mechanics or the play experience itself, then the garbage Yerli is spouting holds some weight.
@cyguration He was in his right to bring Einstein's name into his discussion, so much as it was for dramatic effect. Kant's apriori???? You mean his idealism. Which is actually due more uncontrollable acts of the mind interferring with sensory information more than ones taste.
I don't know. I play games not so much because they offer some sort of gameplay hook, but more because they are these amazing virtual worlds to explore and immerse myself in. Sound and graphics are extremely important in achieving this.
Forget Kant, Thales nailed this issue 2 milenia ago.
Without good graphics, Crysis series sucked. With good graphics, Crysis series STILL sucked. Fact.
Crytek: Graphics Are “60% Of The Game” Yeah...Crytek's story writers better remember that. They probably spend more time under Cevat Yerli's desk, waiting for the graphics to finish up before Cevat will let them out.
I played Crysis fully maxed out and it seems like graphics are much more then 60% of that game. Which is why I never finished it.
Graphics only give a first impression. Without great gameplay and a great story you'll lose interest quickly. Are graphics why Angry Birds so well? What about Diablo III and Minecraft? Even a game like Gran Turismo 5 has awesome graphics but people buy it mainly for the gameplay. Crysis is not excelling in any area besides graphics which is why gamers are getting bored with it. The graphics did carry it on the PC because people wanted to test their systems.
Angry Birds and Minecraft have a charming art style. They are easy on the eyes. Graphics are extremely important for impressions and appeal.
I'd maybe put it at about 15% of my enjoyment.
" “but play Crysis and tell me they don’t matter. It’s always been about graphics driving gameplay." " Well i did and your Crysis games are quite boring and uneven in quality . I'm usually a advocate that graphics , art and presentation are as important as gameplay . But good graphics with absence of real artistry and with a just ok gameplay dont do it for me
Same here, I've played all the crysis games on PC Maxed out, and I've gotten bored of them, I still haven't beaten the first one, it's just a horribly written and boring game, and the graphics are not all that good when maxed out...sorry fanboys, it was an poorly optimized game and that's about it, and for Crysis 2 and 3, I maxed them out, there are some amazing looking parts for sure especially in the 3rd...but holly shit was I ever just begging for the game to end, not to mention the series has never had great animations, or sound design...
You cant play Graphics. Gameplay is 100% of the game. Graphics is in the Video part. I know gameplay is more important too because you dont need great visuals to play a good game, but wont usually play a crappy one that looks good. I think his percentage is off a bit. I stopped playing crysis 2 SP at the beginning when it was boring. It was right around the time some enemies chased me and I thought they were being smart and not following but when I looked they were just bunched together stuck at the bottom of the stairs because tehy couldnt walk up 5 stairs. Maybe its because I played on xbox instead of pc, but Im sure xbox can handle ai that can walk up stairs.
Ever notice that this team has never made a noteworthy game in their entire career?
That's a rather ludicrous statement. The original Crysis was and still is a beast. Edit: May I add that I'm not excusing the other poor-effort games they've made, but to say they've never made a noteworthy game seems harsh.
yeah man, thats not really true at all.
Not really they still made Farcry . Was a graphics beast AND TONS of fun , unlike crysis .
Yeah, Crytek put out crappy games. The original Crysis is the best thing that they've ever done, and even then it was just average at best.
Graphic are important and good but only when is coming from Sony. Sony4G
Pointless comment i removed.
All I here from these eye candy idiots is graphics graphics graphics. Visually they look great but they have no soul or originality. Crytec is a company of tech demo engineers, hardly game developers.
Crysis is a fun game though and a good looking one
Which is why Crytek has yet to make one game that immerses me in any way at all.
Ok so now some won't like this but that's true maybe not 60% but at least 50% Gameplay matters but having great graphics makes playing more fun, MGS4,UC,Infamous some of the best games of this gen for me personally had great graphics Now fallout is my favorite and graphics weren't top notch yet the game was a lot of fun(fallout 3, FO:new Vegas not as much for me personally) If graphics don't matter than why do game companies show tech demoes of what is possible during console reveals? Newer engines always means better graphics and more horsepower
like Sandra answered I'm alarmed that some one can make $8756 in 4 weeks on the computer. have you read this web link::::::::::>:) http://qr.net/kh4s
well ... that explains why their AI development is worst xD
I think i'm with him on this one, graphics do drive gameplay, especially when it comes to immersion. Otherwise why would we all be so excited about the next-gen and the endless list of new possibilities it provides.
um because of physics, bigger player counts etc...
Minecraft, Terraria, Journey (style was great), and others come to mind, all of which have done better than Cryteks games.
You mean to tell me journey doesn't look stunning?
lol, most essential part of the game is GAMEPLAY, after that Story and after those sound/graphics ! Gameplay and Story are 90% of the game .
Nothing is 90% of the game.
So where is the other 40% in Crysis games? I knew it was missing something.
they are coming in DLCs
Yes it is important but not 60% important. Truth is all aspect of a game is important. From gameplay to story to sound to graphics to physics etc. You guys have have only graphics or only gameplay games. I want all.
Graphics do matter, but gameplay is just as, if not more important. Unfortunately for Yerli, his games lack great gameplay. -_-
Borderlands 1 or 2 or Far Cry 2 or 3, both have "worse" graphics (as stated by several people) and are 100 times the games either Crysis' are. As I have always said, these guys just dont know when to shut up. "Look at our coolest bestest engine which will melt your faces" "Our games will burn houses down because of how hot your elite uber PC will struggle to run our horribly optimized game" Now that their games have failed to be the best thing since sliced bread, "oh but graphics are only about 60% important..." GTFO
Agree completely. It comes down to personal opinion. If the 60% 40% whatever was working then more should be playing the game. The gameplay in the long run is what keeps people coming back. If you don't have that with the eye candy then it doesn't matter how great the graphics are.
Worse graphics , only in the technical still . Part of graphics isnt just raw horsepower and effects . The art and design count as much and all those games provides that in spades compared to crysis
So how comes games from the 90's entertain me 100% more than 90% of crytek games. Im sorry but graphics is down to personal opinion, i do love a graphically rich game but gameplay is no1 for me if something is not enjoyable to play then how can you then appreciate the other concepts thereafter.
Agreed. Infamous is a perfect example. Not the best looking game but holy smokes I couldn't put down the controller. It led me to day 1 purchase on the 2nd one and a purchase of FoB. Good devs get my money. Games like Crysis; red box gets my money.
Of course graphics are important, but that doesn't mean they have to be super ridiculously realistic like Crysis. It all depends on what kind of game you want to make- not all games have to be realistic. For instance, the grahpics in Chrono Trigger are lovely, evocative and so memorable, but they're only like 16-bit. Then you have games like El Shaddai and Okami- not as realistic as Crysis obviously, but they still achieve a very memorable and beautiful game. Crytek seem to think that graphics HAVE to be as complex as their own, but that's really narrow-minded and just not true. There are plenty of games with much more effective and memorable visuals than Crysis will ever have. Design and imagination is also a key part of this. Crysis games pretty much epitomise the problem plaguing this generation of games- lots of surface and spectacle- barely any substance (that or the substance is pretty subpar)
God Damn Crytek...so lazy in only making 60% of a game and selling it!
Without graphics, there would be no gameplay. That's true. And he's sort of right in what he's saying, like it or not. But you shouldn't be developing gameplay around your graphics or just to show off your technical prowess; the graphics should be defined by the kind of game you want people to play. Games like Wind Waker get this sort of thing perfectly right. Obviously, a realistic shooter should strive for a realistic presentation on-screen, but Crysis is just tech-porn. The game is designed around them trying to show off as much of their engine's capabilities as possible; the gameplay is seemingly an afterthought, it's only there so you have some sense purpose as you "OOH" and "AHH" at the pretty things they want to show you. That said, people like Crytek are important because they really try to push the boundaries of what we can do technically with the best hardware available. They may not make the best games in the world, but they keep us moving towards that horizon and can sometimes inspire other developers to try harder with their own presentation (by either trying to best them technically or demonstrate the superiority of stylization over photo-realism). There's a reason why I still play Megaman and back things like Shovel Knight: these games still have great visual design and feedback on-screen and this is additive to the gameplay experience, despite being technically dated. The graphics suit the gameplay perfectly, no more, no less. If Crytek want to make better games, they should take note.
See it is this sh*t right here that I am talking about. A perfect example is going from Crysis 1 to Crysis 2. Look how you went from open world with graphics and gameplay to corridor enclosed worlds with graphics driving the game. I enjoyed both games but liked Crysis story, gameplay and graphic combination over the sequel.
Graphics are just icing on the cake. A game with great graphics, but horrendous gameplay is like; 'Food which looks great but tastes horrible. '
No, its not the graphics that allow for better gameplay, its the engines that allow for better gameplay. You can have a game that looks like a PSone title with the same exact gameplay that we see on games like BF3 or Crysis.
No. Graphics are like 1% of the game. They don't mean shit. Suuure don't get me wrong i like if a game has nice graphics but still they don't mean anything. Good story comes always first.
Borderlands 1 had a pretty weak story but it was still a great game. I think if they had gone for realism like first intended it would of been much less fun.
Basically this translates to "The most important part of a game is the part we say it is. PLEASE BUY CRYSIS, LOOK AT ALL THE GRAPHICS"
50/50 for me
No not really gameplay comes before everything followed by story which is equally important. Graphics do NOT make a game, good story will sell the game and good gameplay will keep gamers playing.
Exactly. That is why many gamers have MGS or FF7 on their top 5 games and almost none have Crysis on their top 5 games. Personally I never saw anyone putting Crysis on their top 5 or even top 10 games.
crytek aren't very good handling and understanding percentages guys, you've got to excuse Yerli.
Is that so? Than why i've had moreeee fun playing Demon/Dark Souls, Bioshock, or Persona 4 than playing Crysis.