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