Crytek Boss Says Visuals Are "60% of the Game"

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Crytek Boss Says Visuals Are "60% of the Game"

image

Cevat Yerli, the CEO of Crytek, says that great graphics are the key to immersion in a videogame.

For decades the progress of videogames has largely been defined by how pretty they look. You could tell the NES was more powerful than the Atari 2600 because the games looked better. Likewise, when the Sega Genesis launched, its superior visuals were one of the eye-catching things it did that Nintendidn't. Recent years, however, have seen the emergence of developers experimenting with the presumed necessity of pristine graphics, opting instead to focus on gameplay or employing a specific style of visuals that may not technically be the shiniest. Others would insist, however, that at the end of the day the game that looks the best is the one you want to play.

"People say that graphics don't matter," said Cevat Yerli, CEO and president of Crytek. "But play Crysis and tell me they don't matter. 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. And immersion is effectively the number one thing we can use to help you buy into the world. 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 percent of the game."

While there are likely few out there that would argue that gorgeous visuals can't help elevate a game to greater heights, you could make a case that perhaps Yerli is looking at the issue from a slightly narrow scope. While the experience of the Crysis games have largely been defined by the franchise's devotion to excellent visuals, there are titles that employ different methods of immersion and styles of gameplay that arguably negate the necessity of good graphics. Likewise, the definition of eye-candy can vary wildly from person to person. Yerli might enjoy Crysis but I might personally point to Final Fantasy VI as the most beautiful game ever made. It's in the eye of the beholder, as they say.

Source: X360 Magazine

Permalink

I'd like to argue that gameplay is what makes a game stand out, not high fidelity polygons

Style > graphics any day in my book. I never even finished Crysis 2 because I found it incredibly repetetive and boring alongside its visuals. I don't want to play a game the same way I look at some relative's holiday pictures.

I <3 sprites

I would have to disagree. Graphics can help add to atmosphere but as long as you keep to a style that works for the game the graphics don't have to be "good".

I think his argument is based off the warrant that "realism is good", and graphics add to immersion. But I am a person who likes their games "gamey". Not all games need to make you feel lost in a world. Which is why I seem to be playing more indies these days as AAA seem to agree with Mr.Yeril.

60% seems a rather silly number.

But I do agree that Graphics matter. Say what you want about gameplay or style but there are some things that do require high-fidelity graphics and that do add a whole lot to a game and the immersion it provides.

They're not required for a good game of course, and having only great graphics whilst lacking everything else will make for a horrid game but they still help a whole lot.

The mountains and terrain in Skyrim with a few dozen HD graphics mods installed are an amazing sight to behold and definitely add to my enjoyment of the game, even if there's no gameplay at all involved in looking at them.

Cyrromatic:
Style > graphics any day in my book. I never even finished Crysis 2 because I found it incredibly repetetive and boring alongside its visuals. I don't want to play a game the same way I look at some relative's holiday pictures.

I have to agree on this one.
I don't care about super high tech shaders and high resolution textures. I remember games like BioShock, Dear Esther and will remember BioShock Infinite. It's the style that makes those games memorable in the graphics department.

That being said, for once I'd like to see a game that realizes a style like those games I mentioned by using this super high tech technologies. A game that has both, the style and the technology, should be a great experience.
I think the closest to this is those scenes one guy made, where he recreated parts of BioShock in the CryEngine. They look absolutely mind-blowing.
http://scotthomer.co.uk/#Bioshock

Whilst the graphics for The Sly Collection are well and outdated, the design was made so that it can still be enjoyed today as an entertaining and immersing experience. Not only through design, but through gameplay and story. So, yeah, Crytek is only excusing their own mistakes by fabricating lies. Or they are heavily diluted people.

I do agree graphics matter, especially towards immersion. However they are not THE defining thing for a game. True, in his example technology DOES help gameplay. Seeing the way grass moves and therefor seeing where the enemy most probably is, is a good example. However art direction and visual direction is important too. For an example, TF2 is not even close to Crysis 3 when it comes down to tech, however it is in a position in which it will MOST deffinitely look good even in 10 years time. Hell with only some tweaks, its visuals may hold up forever :D .
With that being said, here are examples where grahics help IMMERSION :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkLR2tYRubw&list=PLD2B82E405CF9650C&index=4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAYLHAPPkvw&list=PLD2B82E405CF9650C&index=8
See? It does add to the game. However the balanced art direction is important too. If I put Crysis 3 objects in TF2 like that I will make the game ugly. If I put TF2 objects just like that in Crysis it will be the same thing.
So here is what counts:
1. Technology. It can help
2. A chosen art direction.
3. Balancing that art direction so it looks appealing.

P.S. Before the "Crysis was all about graphics"crowd of the Escapist comes, let me say that Crysis 1 is in reality one of the better shooters, if not one of the best on the market when it comes down to gameplay.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y5KiJt9oxg&feature=player_detailpage&list=PLFB61EEB46299B48B
Crysis 2 also had decent gameplay though not as good, but a better story (and worse level design). Crysis 3 looks stunning, it has a GREAT desgin, I mean New York looks incredible, but it kinda messed up in many other areas.

Are they justifying Crysis 3's sale? "Why does no one care about our game? Look at how much effort we put into the GRAPHIC GRAPHIC GRAPHIC!?"

I'll come back to you when I'm done playing through my GOG collection.

Well of course he is going to say that, he is trying to sell his games using the graphics more than anything else.

At any rate, raw graphical quality means very little in comparison to style. The Walking Dead and Team Fortress 2 are not advanced in their graphics, but their style makes them look a hell of a lot better than the average shooter with lots of polygons.

I played the original Deus ex game for the first time ever last christmas.

The graphics are pretty plain but it is instantly one of the best games I ever played and I can't even blame that on nostalgia eyes. I did add the new vision mod but that just makes the graphics closer to 2002 and are still much much worse then lets say Hitman 2.

That '60%' is rubbish. If that was the case Deus ex would be awful for a first time player today. I subsequently recommended it to a few friends who never played it before and they were pleasantly surprised too.

A more accurate statement would be ' graphics attribute to 60% of what drives sales'. There are enough graphics whores and first impressionists (like me) that will be quite impressed by a good graphics demo and buy. But that doesn't mean it's 60% worth of greatness.

Notice how he did not mention story, characters or AI.

Like I already said on the other thread:

A lot of people here are saying that graphics dont matter but they actually do. A lot of gameplay mechanics can only work if displayed correctly, imagine if Portal didnt let you see through the portals or if Alan Wake didnt had dinamic light. Kings Field is Dark Souls on the PS1 (by the same guys) and look how functional it is:

Not considering the visual beauty but the fact that visually the gameplay found in Dark Souls could never be possible to achieve with those graphics.

They matter if they can be used to improve a game, just because a 2D 8-bit game can be fun to play doesnt mean that every game can be fun even in 8-bit. Just dont go all over the place with stuff that doesnt matter all that much like "knowing that an enemy is coming by the way the grass moves", really? How about looking at the dude?

PS: The part about the grass is something that the Crytek guy also said, and that was kind of dumb of him

35% maybe, but that's being generous. 45 for gameplay, 40 for narrative/context, graphics can have what's left over.

That would explain the cookie cutter gameplay of their games, and the nonsensical storyline of crysis

lol. Really? Crytek, Crysis 2 and 3 sucked, they were generic shooters...especially Crysis 2. They looked nice but they are still generic. Yes graphics matter, you want it to look nice, but if you have is graphics and the rest of the game isnt good or interesting then overal the good looking graphics dont matter. Some of my favourite games have sucky graphics, but they made up for that in great story, interesting characters and fun gameplay.

But then, he is talking about the PC version im sure. lol

Graphics making up most of the game? You really think that pretty graphics makes a good game?

Excuse me for a moment... *picks up phone*

Hello...

...

Yes; I'll tell them. *puts hand over microphone* Thomas Was Alone is on the phone, they would like to have a talk with you

Ah bullshit. I've had more immersion in Thief 2 than in any cryengine game you'd care to mention, and Thief 2 looks like it was made with bad origami.

Hell, I found Fallout 2 more immersive than any cryengine game and that thing is a horrible looking 2d isometric affair.

Setting, aesthetic and SOUND create immersion, not graphics.

Graphics MIGHT help create immersion once we manage to achieve true photorealism. And god, that will be boring.

Does this make the Crytek CEO 60% of an idiot?

There are amazing games that look like complete ass, but play wonderfully or tell a story extremely well.

Saying graphics make up that much of a game is stupid.

Why is it game developers can't wrap their head around this? Angry Joe said it best, if the gameplay is shit, the graphics don't count for ANYTHING.

Only if your game is an insipid alien-shooting bulletfest with nothing else going for it.

Hurr hurr.

I actually agree that graphics are important in many ways, but "60% of a game" is ridiculous.

Name one game that is considered a classic/great based on graphics alone. One.

Aesthetics matter, and they can be achieved without graphical fidelity.

Relax, everybody. It's just brain parasites. I mean, how could anyone seriou-

-TALLESTREESCATCHTHEMOSTWIND-DEALWITHIT-GRAPHICS60%OFGAMES-DEALWITHIT-SIMCITY4ISANMMOCAN'TBEPLAYEDOFFLINE-DEALWITHIT

-sly take such statements at-DEALWITHWIND- face value. Has to be brain parasites.

No other phenomenon-TALLESTGRAPHICSWITH60%DEAL- fits.

-TREESDEALWITH60%WINDDRMGAMES-

I feel I need to come in here and correct Cevat's statements.

"Graphics make up 60% of Crysis games". Just Crysis games, not all games.

The whole Crysis franchise has been about pouring resources into visuals/artistic design and forcing them to compensate for the mediocre story/gameplay. Graphics is the PILLAR holding up the entire Crysis series and anyone who feels otherwise is free to stick their head into a toilet, because for the last 5 years Crysis has been mostly used as a benchmarking tool and modding sandbox, I've seen Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 treated the same way.

It IS possible to force certain aspects of the game to compensate for other aspects, and the Crysis series has been all about forcing visuals to compensate for everything else. That is what I believe Cevat is saying, he's simply advertising Crysis 3 because visuals aside the SP is miserably short, stupidly easy and has zero replay value. Most of the $60 you're paying went towards the visuals and soundtrack.

But if Cevat is seriously implying that graphics should ALWAYS be the compensation factor for EVERY game then the man is fucking delusional.

I'd say the graphics is just as important as anything else. At the end of the day, beautiful looking shit is still shit.

Funny that my my current favorite game (Dragon`s Dogma) isn`t even close to any of the crytek games graphicwise. It isnīt even stylish compared to the mentioned Sly games. Fun and gameplay is what matters most. Style provides that the game will look good even in the next years. I could imagine that when i look at certain games in 10 years i`ll say that they still look nice. Crytek games are more like fast food to me and i`m sure that i won`t touch them again. They are just a showcase and good rentals. I won`t go there and say they are bad but there`s nothing long lasting in them, especially if you lay your focus in graphics only (or 60%, doesn`t matter). One of the reasons people still like/love and play Tetris.

"Cevat Yerli, the CEO of Crytek, says that great graphics are the key to immersion in a videogame."

Tell that to every Morrowind player. Even Silent Hill 1 stomps on Crysis in the immersion department, and that game is FUGLY.

I'm going to have to agree that artstyle is more far more important than graphics, especially to help a game age. The Spyro games from the Playstation still look great, and those games are around 15 years old. By the year 2020, Team Fortress 2 will look a LOT better than the Crysis games.

Zhukov:
Only if your game is an insipid alien-shooting bulletfest with nothing else going for it.

Hurr hurr.

I actually agree that graphics are important in many ways, but "60% of a game" is ridiculous.

Name one game that is considered a classic/great based on graphics alone. One.

Ironically the original Crysis.

But it was considered great due to its CPU/GPU melting abilities and as a benchmark rather than any sort of actual content so your point still stands.

Ed130:

Zhukov:
Only if your game is an insipid alien-shooting bulletfest with nothing else going for it.

Hurr hurr.

I actually agree that graphics are important in many ways, but "60% of a game" is ridiculous.

Name one game that is considered a classic/great based on graphics alone. One.

Ironically the original Crysis.

But it was considered great due to its CPU/GPU melting abilities and as a benchmark rather than any sort of actual content so your point still stands.

I... wasn't aware that the original Crysis was considered great or classic.

I've always just thought of it as "that pretty game that gives the PC gamers superiority boners."

Aye, graphics certainly do help, but it's a little more complicated than that. Considering 60% means it automatically matters over story, audio, and gameplay combined puts up some flags from me. I'm a HUGE sucker for cel-shaded graphics in games like Wind Waker, Okami, No More Heroes, Klonoa, Sly Cooper, etc. Personal preference, but even the best looking cel-shaded game doesn't have near the muscle some games have...and most of those games were past generation. I may have a limit to what level of "ugly" I can tolerate in older games, but considering that I can still enjoy myself despite how Final Fantasy 7's in-game models looked like shit even back then, I would consider myself pretty flexible. Amnesia is immersive as hell, but it doesn't look that great. It's also the audio and general design that gets to you.

Though I still hold that my favourite best-looking games this gen are Ratchet and Clank Future: A Crack In Time, Journey, Sonic Generations, Bastion (...meh, I'll count it), Limbo (meh, counting it too), Bioshock/Infinite, Super Mario Galaxy, and Rayman Origins.

Zhukov:

Ed130:

Zhukov:
Only if your game is an insipid alien-shooting bulletfest with nothing else going for it.

Hurr hurr.

I actually agree that graphics are important in many ways, but "60% of a game" is ridiculous.

Name one game that is considered a classic/great based on graphics alone. One.

Ironically the original Crysis.

But it was considered great due to its CPU/GPU melting abilities and as a benchmark rather than any sort of actual content so your point still stands.

I... wasn't aware that the original Crysis was considered great or classic.

I've always just thought of it as "that pretty game that gives the PC gamers superiority boners."

Well it enabled Cevat Yerli and Crytek to become become big names in the games industry, to the point where articles involving him spread far beyond the original host.

Captcha: save our bluths

i think the existence of rougelikes far more immersive than anything crytek ever put out kind of makes him sound like a babbling child. what is it with big time bosses making self-destructive opinion pieces? the only thing saying this accomplished is further alienating you from your own customers. is the old saying "any press is good press" really being taken to heart lately? cause it seems to me that a lot of industry players are making whatever asinine comments they can to get attention.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here