Crytek: Graphics Are “60% Of The Game”

[goopit]

I think a lot of us here are confusing or lumping together graphics with art direction.

It'd help if the discussion of people distinguish between the two.

 

[Agent_Blue]

I think a lot of us here are confusing or lumping together graphics with art direction.

It'd help if the discussion of people distinguish between the two.

I see your point.

However, the argument Cevat Yerli is trying to make - and at this moment I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with him - is that, with regards to FPS in general and Crysis in particular, graphics in the purely technical sense of the word drive a whole range of other game aspects. Let me pull up the quote:

In Crysis 3 it’s the grass and the vegetation, the way the physics runs the grass interact and sways them in the wind. You can read when an AI enemy is running towards you just by observing the way the grass blades.

Here he's de facto lumping together gameplay, physics, sound and AI, all unified and driven by the graphics powerhouse. Again, without endorsing his thesis, what I find disingenuous is the attempt to portray his words as an all-purpose cross-genre prescription. He is clearly talking about FPS in general and Cryssis in particular.

I would imagine Yerli would have said quite different things about cRPGs, Space Quest adventures or the graphically brilliant 2D platformer Limbo.

 

[Daywalker30]

My priorities in a video game from most important to least important.

1) Good, enjoyable gameplay

2) brilliant story telling.

3) graphics, and that is a very low three at that.

For me it is

25 % Graphics/overall atmosphere
25 % Sound/Music
25 % Gameplay
25 % Story

 

[username_2635215]

It seems like quite a lot of people seem to think that it is unintelligent behavior to like games because of their graphics. "You destroyed our great gameplay experiences because you wanted graphics. It's your fault we have Call of Duty 34 and not Baldurs Gate 3!!1112"

No, it's not. People are different. I love Crysis (1). I don't only love it because of the gameplay, but because I wanted to explore this beautiful world. I also love Minecraft because of it's gameplay.
Would I have less fun if the Witcher was a 8- or 16-Bit game? Yes. Would I still play it? Probably not. Am I a stupid person because of that? I don't think so.

Inner values count, but you don't fall in love with inner values on the first sight.

 

[Agent_Blue]

It seems like quite a lot of people seem to think that it is unintelligent behavior to like games because of their graphics. "You destroyed our great gameplay experiences because you wanted graphics. It's your fault we have Call of Duty 34 and not Baldurs Gate 3!!1112"

No, it's not. People are different. I love Crysis (1). I don't only love it because of the gameplay, but because I wanted to explore this beautiful world. I also love Minecraft because of it's gameplay.
Would I have less fun if the Witcher was a 8- or 16-Bit game? Yes. Would I still play it? Probably not. Am I a stupid person because of that? I don't think so.

Inner values count, but you don't fall in love with inner values on the first sight. />

Hear, hear.

 

[Aditya]

To be fair the Crytek CEO is talking about his own games in which case the notion that graphics are 60% of the game is very much true. Graphical quality is what made the Crysis games as well known as they are, that's simply a fact because without those graphics the games aren't that good honestly. I liked them though even without considering the graphics but not a huge amount.

As far as I am concerned tough the perfect game should be a combination of amazing graphics, story and gameplay. All woven in together to form a perfect tapestry of artistic excellence.

This. While I agree, graphics are important, but not more than gameplay and storytelling and it's a blend of the three which makes a great game great. Crysis was more of a elongated good looking movie than a game, but that doesn't make it 'bad' maybe just not upto the mark.

I would never have played Crysis if it was not what it is in terms of it's look. Like Benzenzimmern mentioned above, wouldn't have played the witcher if it was something 8 bit too. Why not play all games in lowest settings? It's weird I find people who all go "playing games for graphics is like watching porn for story." In reality it's this immaturity which is the problem.

As for this article, when did the opinion of on person mattered anyways?

 

[Mataresa]

Well I for example like to differentiate between graphical fidelity as the quality of graphics, like texture resolution, anti aliasing, lighting, animation quality. All depending on what kind of art style you are using. Visual quality doesn't mean necesarily lifelike graphics. This is more of an objective thing, although not compeltely, cause it is much easier to put into numbers, how good the fidelity actually is (resolution, texture size, polygon number, artifact size, etc.).

And then there is art direction or maybe someone can come up with a better term. I mean, that the graphics are appealing to me on a personal level, cause I like the art style. This is higly subjective and non debatable really, cause everybody has their own preferances. It also often depends on, if somebody likes the setting and the world design.

 

[Agent_Blue]

Well I for example like to differentiate between graphical fidelity as the quality of graphics, like texture resolution, anti aliasing, lighting, animation quality. All depending on what kind of art style you are using. Visual quality doesn't mean necesarily lifelike graphics. This is more of an objective thing, although not compeltely, cause it is much easier to put into numbers, how good the fidelity actually is (resolution, texture size, polygon number, artifact size, etc.).

And then there is art direction or maybe someone can come up with a better term. I mean, that the graphics are appealing to me on a personal level, cause I like the art style. This is higly subjective and non debatable really, cause everybody has their own preferances. It also often depends on, if somebody likes the setting and the world design.

It's an important distinction alright.

But the higher the base graphical fidelity the wider the gamut of possible art direction styles and the greater the ability to fully realize them. To help put graphical fidelity into perspective though, I cannot praise Limbo high enough. It's 2D. It's black and white. It's absolutely gorgeous.

 

[username_2635215]

True. I just played Age of Empires 2 again and saw the first video of Project Eternity and I think they both look stunning. I love "lifelike" graphics like in Crysis and The Witcher, but I also appreciate different styles when I see that someone put effort in it. If you "feel the love" for the thing they're doing. And I think you see that on the first look.
"Limbo" looks bad from a technical standpoint, but you know that the developers made these graphics for a purpose and they fit the atmosphere of this game perfectly - I just don't like this new "we are an indie company, let's do pixel graphics because it's the "new thing"". Or the "hey, let's do cel-shading comic style." It fits games like XIII, this prince of persia or Borderlands, but just look at The Elder Scrolls Online and this "half-comic style". You don't have to be a genius to see that they're doing it to appeal to a broader audience and quite frankly, I don't like the art direction.

So if you ask me what I want from The Witcher 3's graphics the most? Give me real expressive faces. I think this was the only thing I found lacking about the graphics of the Witcher 2. Just imagine Triss' face moving like the face of Alyx in Half-Life 2.

 

[Agent_Blue]

As for this article, when did the opinion of on person mattered anyways?

Well, I'm still pondering on the merits or lack thereof of what he said.

But in the sense that it's the opinion of the CEO of one of the top Dev out there, I'd say he's in a position where his opinion matters more than most because it bears fruit, whether or not we happen to like it.

 

[Agent_Blue]

True. I just played Age of Empires 2 again and saw the first video of Project Eternity and I think they both look stunning. I love "lifelike" graphics like in Crysis and The Witcher, but I also appreciate different styles when I see that someone put effort in it. If you "feel the love" for the thing they're doing. And I think you see that on the first look.
"Limbo" looks bad from a technical standpoint, but you know that the developers made these graphics for a purpose and they fit the atmosphere of this game perfectly - I just don't like this new "we are an indie company, let's do pixel graphics because it's the "new thing"". Or the "hey, let's do cel-shading comic style." It fits games like XIII, this prince of persia or Borderlands, but just look at The Elder Scrolls Online and this "half-comic style". You don't have to be a genius to see that they're doing it to appeal to a broader audience and quite frankly, I don't like the art direction. />>

So if you ask me what I want from The Witcher 3's graphics the most? Give me real expressive faces. I think this was the only thing I found lacking about the graphics of the Witcher 2. Just imagine Triss' face moving like the face of Alyx in Half-Life 2.

I concur.

I do not like TES online art direction the least bit. It seems to have swerved towards Kingdoms of Amalur atrocious style, in my opion, albeit not to the same extreme. In fact TES online is quite relevant to the discussion, as TESO devs explicitly stated they opted for that art style precisely because they were unable to deliver Skyrim's level of graphical fidelity in a MMO context. So, ladies and gentlemen, here we have a game that could not fully realize its original artistic vision but instead had to settle for second rate style because of a little technicality known as graphical fidelity. Thanks for bringing that up. You could have not picked a better example to illustrate this point. About Project Eternity, let me take this opportunity to dispel some confusion.

I think it looks brilliant.

Probably the best looking 2D isometric game I have ever set my eyes upon. What probably will be keeping me from buying the game is its indirect combat, which I do not fancy, especially in isometric perspective, which just compounds the problem.

But art direction wise, oh boy, Project Eternity sure is a thing of beauty.

 

[Username.]

Well he's full of shit, and seems to be defending the fact Crysis games have always had mediocre gameplay.

Not always, Crysis 1 was a pretty good game.

 

[AsTheDeath]

I'd like to play Crysis 3 once, though not 60% because of the graphics but 100% because of the graphics. Fortunately enough people have already pointed out that as always, graphics/art design/gameplay tends to be more complicated and more personal than a specific percentage.

It depends on the game whether graphics/art design play a very important role or not. Visually speaking, art design IMO is more important than graphical fidelity (see Crysis 2 or BF3/BF4 as examples of games with excellent graphical fidelity that still look absolutely dull), but (especially in 3D games) low-resolution assets don't do much good for the art (think Dishonored, Bioshock Infinite).

Gameplay is arguably most important, but (and this is what Yerli was referring to) video games are a very visual medium, which means the visual side of a game can be very important (although not measurably in a percentage). The more immersive/beautiful (NOT realistic) the graphical presentation the more enjoyable the game will be.

 

[Agent_Blue]

Good to see common sense and a fair, balanced and unbiased take on Yerli's words are taking the lead around here. His ideas are quite questionable but there's no need to misrepresent them. I also wouldn't take that percentage at face value. He obviously means that, in his opinion, in games like Crysis 3 graphics play a predominant role. 60% implies predominance but not absolute dominance.

Having said all that, some of Crysis 3 stylistic choices border on the pinchbeck. Take the introductory monologue. It's just a compendium of clichés stringed together and voiced by what appears to be a suffocating Labrador. Such an inauspicious start.

In the end, I have to ask, why do you believe devs with design approaches as different as Obsidian, Bethesda and CDProjekt all place a good deal of emphasis on graphics? What's supposed to be the common root cause of their alleged misunderstanding?

 

[Demut]

Wow, with a mindset like that it’s no wonder that Crysis 1 is still the best one of the bunch.

 

[Windebieste]

Pah! Just another corporate graphics whore, pushing an agenda; methinks.

'TETRIS': With nothing but gameplay and no graphics to brag about, but it will always rule yer ass.

Can't call yourself a gamer if you haven't played 'TETRIS'. Can't say the same for 'CRYSIS'.

 

[Username.]

Wow, with a mindset like that it’s no wonder that Crysis 1 is still the best one of the bunch.

Crysis 1 was the most graphically impressive game for a long time.

 

[80maxwell08]

Crysis 1 was the most graphically impressive game for a long time.

It still is in a way. Between the pure graphic fidelity, destruction physics and just the sheer size being rendered it still is one of the best looking games on the PC. Pity 2/3s of that was dropped for the sequels.

 

[Username.]

It still is in a way. Between the pure graphic fidelity, destruction physics and just the sheer size being rendered it still is one of the best looking games on the PC. Pity 2/3s of that was dropped for the sequels.

I think Crysis' visuals were hurt by the lack of proper AA support, but nowadays you can just downsample it

 

[IsengrimR]

Em...
I disagree with Crytek a lot.
For me a good ratio is:
Story - 30 %
World Design - 40 %
Music - 20 %
Graphics - 10 %.

Which is why I like Witcher 1 a bit more than W2.