Graphics are '60% of the game,' Crytek CEO says

[cmdrdredd]

Doom did something few games can reproduce, and that is creating an atmosphere.

While companies like Crytek focus on graphics over gameplay, creating an enjoyable atmosphere is forgotten about.

It is?? Metro 2033 begs to differ, the original F.E.A.R as well. Both had graphics to coincide with the atmosphere built up.

 

[_Rick_]

Graphics matter a lot in simulations. But that's because they are the only kind of "game" solely designed to emulate the real world.
Outside of those, graphics matter much less and game mechanics are more important.
Presentation still matters though - you can destroy the best of games, by being bland in your presentation.
It's much like board games, actually. A good board game is based on its atmosphere, the competition between the players, and the different, but equally viable strategies. If the game pieces or map or cards aren't adequately illustrated, the game does become less enjoyable, because it loses some of its soul.
In a computer game good graphics can make for better atmosphere, but sound is almost equally important, and in the end graphics design often trumps pure geometry performance.

Of course, in computer games, game design has been basically shelved. Very few new concepts have been shown in the last few years, even less so by big studios.
Some concepts were ruined by weak presentation (spore? :awe, others were made by having their own flavor to presentation (mine craft)

 

[Texashiker]

It is?? Metro 2033 begs to differ, the original F.E.A.R as well. Both had graphics to coincide with the atmosphere built up.

Ok, and? I did not say good games are not being made.

The ratio of good games : junk games has been going downhill for at least a decade.

There are some good games being made, but there is also a truck load of junk being dumped on the market.

For every metro2033 and skyrim, there are a bunch of brink and call of duty3.

 

[TechBoyJK]

I actually liked Crysis 3. Graphics were nice, the environment was crazy, and the sound was awesome. I'm a cryEngine fanboy, but not necessarily of Crysis. Crysis 2 was meh for me.

That said, Cervat has said before that 'graphics' isn't just ultra high tech stuff. It's also the things that make the atmosphere. He's trying to say that the better the graphic capabilities at your disposal, the more accurate you can make your environment. You can use shadows, lighting, etc. to your advantage.

For instance, look at Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon. Same engine as Far Cry 3 and mostly same assets, but they used the graphic capabilities of the engine (which is actually a fork of the original CryEngine) to make the environment. Awesome lazers, lighting, effects, etc. It truly made the environment.

 

[SlitheryDee]

In a computer game good graphics can make for better atmosphere, but sound is almost equally important, and in the end graphics design often trumps pure geometry performance.

This is an important distinction I think. Due to playing Bioshock Infinite I had the desire to fire up the original Bioshock to see how it held up. Honestly it was technically poor compared to modern games. The textures are extremely low res and the enemy movement is not fluid. The whole thing felt kind of cramped and fuzzy for want of a better term, like I was looking at the game through a cloudy and distorting lens. Yet for all that the game still looks really good. It's because everything is in the right place and is more or less the right shape, color, and texture than anything else. I remember being on a wooden walkway and noting how the boards glistened wetly due to the mapping on the texture. Up close it looked like crap, but the overall effect was really good. This was apparent on nearly every surface. The whole world was coherent and immersive in a way that belied it's graphical deficiencies. On that same walkway there was something that looks like a tie-off point for a boat. It had really bad textures, but the thing itself looked like it belonged there to the point that you don't notice the textures. That kind of thing was prevalent throughout the game, which I went on and played all the way through again for the umpteenth time.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Ok, and? I did not say good games are not being made.

The ratio of good games : junk games has been going downhill for at least a decade.

There are some good games being made, but there is also a truck load of junk being dumped on the market.

For every metro2033 and skyrim, there are a bunch of brink and call of duty3.

You must not have a good memory...how much shovel ware did you find in the DOS days, SNES and Sega genesis days, commodore 64 days, or nes days. There was more junk released then with no demos and no videos to watch online and sometimes no reviews than there is now. At least today if you buy a bad game with all the information out there, you have only yourself to blame.

 

[Sleepingforest]

You must not have a good memory...how much shovel ware did you find in the DOS days, SNES and Sega genesis days, commodore 64 days, or nes days. There was more junk released then with no demos and no videos to watch online and sometimes no reviews than there is now. At least today if you buy a bad game with all the information out there, you have only yourself to blame.

Agreed. Giant Bomb's database says 5412 games were released between 1990 and 1999. That's more than a game a day. You just don't remember all the drivel because it's not worth remembering.

Likewise, we will look back 10 years from now and be unable to differentiate between all the CODs and BLOPs and MWs and whatever. They'll all blend together as "oh those shooters." Give it 20 years and I doubt they'll be remembered in gaming as much more than "the popular but bad games at the time."

 

[Texashiker]

You must not have a good memory...how much shovel ware did you find in the DOS days, SNES and Sega genesis days, commodore 64 days, or nes days.

There was so much junkware released for the nintendo 64 I lost count.

 

[Aikouka]

Poor guy. Spending should absolutely go in the following order: music > main PC gear (for a gaming rig) > audio playback gear (for the PC) > other PC peripherals. Also, if you haven't been bitten by some of the bad Ozzy and Black Sabbath remasters, or clipping and compression BS David Bowie has done to his old stuff in re-releases, I don't want to know you .

I currently use a Logitech 5.1 setup, but in the past, I've been tempted to kick it up a notch and go with a setup more designed around a home theater. For example, I could go with bookshelf speakers, a receiver, etc., but the biggest problem that I run into... space. I may have a 70" L-Desk, but I just don't have the room with everything else that's on my desk.

Effing lazy devs...those that claim that graphics > all are just dumb unimaginative devs. Pushing graphics is easy but delivering great gameplay and awesome story is another thing.

I really don't think that's correct. Maybe making an engine that can output pretty graphics isn't hard or doing things that make graphic cards crawl isn't hard, but putting forth a good presentation is not easy. For example, even if people don't like aspects of Bioshock Infinite, I don't think anyone will tell you that the game is not absolutely beautiful (on the PC)! The texture work and such that's done with the game is really good, but it's still using a relatively archaic yet modified Unreal 3 Engine.

Think Baldur's Gate series, Planescape Torment, FF4/6 to only name those two games...those were overall pieces of art.

Keep in mind that those AAA games would look a lot different if they were created today. Imagine how awesome Final Fantasy IV or VI would look if it were made today! :awe:

 

[Agent11]

Really, square needs to do that instead of wasting resources on fail mmo's.

 

[Childs]

I think its because most people at the PC have pretty cheap stereo setups--there was one guy on the video card forum showing off his SLI GTX Titan setup with triple high end monitors and all he had was $20 logitech speakers. When I asked him about it he said he wasn't an audiophile. I think that's how a lot of gamers think these days.

Problem with high end audio is many people live in apartments or environments where they can't make too much noise. A good set of headphones is realistically the best they can do.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Agreed. Giant Bomb's database says 5412 games were released between 1990 and 1999. That's more than a game a day. You just don't remember all the drivel because it's not worth remembering.

Likewise, we will look back 10 years from now and be unable to differentiate between all the CODs and BLOPs and MWs and whatever. They'll all blend together as "oh those shooters." Give it 20 years and I doubt they'll be remembered in gaming as much more than "the popular but bad games at the time."

Yet, everyone will remember Crysis. Because of how real the graphics were at the time. I mean.. especially with mods (most of which simply take advantage of features of the engine that were too intense for the game at the time, but could have been there from the beginning), Crysis 1 can still be argued as the prettiest game.. Just a few more years, it's a 10 year old game. That's a pretty sick achievement in the gaming world, imho.

 

[alcoholbob]

Problem with high end audio is many people live in apartments or environments where they can't make too much noise. A good set of headphones is realistically the best they can do.

You dont have to turn it up to appreciate quality, just like you don't need higher resolution or a bigger screen to appreciate going from medium to high details in a game.

 

[jaqie]

Yet, everyone will remember Crysis. Because of how real the graphics were at the time

The only thing I will remember crysis for is being a pita to play to the point where it was basically unplayable. on easy, single player, a gunship followed me for 3 missions with no way to kill it. On easy!

Make whatever excuse you want, there is no reason whatsoever for that kind of sloppiness and lack of "difficulty catch and recover" in the game. That game was so full of this kind of problem that playing through it was incredibly painful and I am so very glad I tossed it aside, I would never play it again.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Yeah, pretty much. "CRYSIS 3 WILL MAKE YOUR VIDEO CARD MELT it's still just a generic FPS game though"



I agree graphics are important... but not 60% important.

I just finished metro 2033, and I thought it was a great game. I would rate the game in this order: story, gameplay, graphics.

I played the game on a HD7770, so I was playing on med/high. The graphics were only a small part of the game to me. It was the suspense and creepy atmosphere that drew me in, as well as the character of the protagonist. I guess up to a certain point I consider graphics important, but after that not so much.

For instance, Metro I feel would have lost something if I were playing on a low end card at lowest settings, low resolution, and a terrible framerate. But I am not sure I would have enjoyed the game that much more if I had been running it on a high end rig at highest settings, including full AA.

I have been trying to play some older RPGs and I do find the low resolutions distracting on those games (Baldur's gate, Icewind Dale).

Note: for those that demand ultimate graphics, I have no problem with that. I just dont wish to put that much money into gaming and it is not that important to me, past a certain point.

 

[Sleepingforest]

I agree with frozentundra 100%. I played Assassin's Creed on the Nvidia 330m. That's only got 182 GFLOPS of power. It was a slideshow during more demanding scenes, the animations lagged behind the audio, and I had to turn down every setting to the mimimum. I still loved it, because it's a great game. I was unfortunately unwilling to finish it because the non-game part (the cutscenes) were too awful to continue sitting through (especially as I tried a mission for the 10th time) even though the actual sneaking and fighting was fantastic.

Fast forward a few years. I'm playing on a full-fledged GTX 670. Now I can have every setting all the way up, including supersampling. Is the gameplay magically better? Not really. It's actually less enjoyable during combat because I can easily see when attacks are coming--when the visuals lagged behind the game on the 330M, I had to learn what each enemy sounded like before the attack, which added some realism to my Assassin's seemingly magical ability to block attacks from behind. On the other hand, the cutscenes are now FAR more enjoyable, and I find myself more engaged with the plot.

Basically, graphics are not the end all be all. Gameplay is far more important--though looking pretty and running well are somewhat helpful.

 

[Childs]

You dont have to turn it up to appreciate quality, just like you don't need higher resolution or a bigger screen to appreciate going from medium to high details in a game.

To get sound with sufficient detail you typically need to crank it up to a decent level. I use a receiver and bookshelf speakers for my PC, and during the day/early evening 15-20% volume is fine. Any lower and you'll miss details. But at night if there is something like a series of explosions I know my neighbors will hear it, so I have to switch to headphones. I dont think I've ever had my audio volume over 50%, unless the source audio was very low for some reason.

 

[Sohaltang]

Played ffxi for 5 years. Damn sure was not because of the graphics. If I had not sold my account I would play it today.

 

[MikeyLSU]

for anyone saying graphics are not 60%, think of this.

Lets take a game, how about the latest battlefield just for example. It sold pretty well.

Now instead of that being released, lets say battlefield 3 was released with the graphics of battlefield 1942. How much do you think it would have in sales? I'd say way less than 60%. Why? Because graphics are one of the most important things selling a game.

 

[futurefields]

Playing Crysis 3 right now... Crytek CEO is right, graphics are the only thing good

 

[futurefields]

for anyone saying graphics are not 60%, think of this.

Lets take a game, how about the latest battlefield just for example. It sold pretty well.

Now instead of that being released, lets say battlefield 3 was released with the graphics of battlefield 1942. How much do you think it would have in sales? I'd say way less than 60%. Why? Because graphics are one of the most important things selling a game.

well one thing you are missing is that in 2013 if a "battlefield style" game comes out with Battlefield 1942 level graphics, its probably a crappy game/developer trying to cash in on a genre.

having good graphics is one way to showcase coding prowess, and to say "we know what the feck we are doing"

that being said, if all graphics stayed pretty much where they were in 2007-2008, i'd be happy.

But graphics dont stay the same, they advance, and i like to keep up with the advances. Keep in mind video games are primarily a visual experience so yes graphics are very important.

 

[Cerb]

for anyone saying graphics are not 60%, think of this.

Lets take a game, how about the latest battlefield just for example. It sold pretty well.

Now instead of that being released, lets say battlefield 3 was released with the graphics of battlefield 1942. How much do you think it would have in sales? I'd say way less than 60%. Why? Because graphics are one of the most important things selling that game.

Fixed. SC2 and Diablo 3 seem to have sold pretty well, and their graphics are nothing to write home about. Well done, but nothing that wasn't done about as well years prior, either. OTOH, it's important for them to play reasonably well on IGPs, and low-end mobile discrete GPUs. For that matter, however, they are both sequels to games which have had long tails: SC1 was still very popular when SC2 was being made, as was Diablo 2, which you can still buy at major retailers, today.

The latest SOS FPS might need really fancy graphics for selling it. Not all do. All video games benefit from well-done graphics, which help create an atmosphere, but ever more detail and the like are not prime selling points for everything.

 

[ImpulsE69]

for anyone saying graphics are not 60%, think of this.

Lets take a game, how about the latest battlefield just for example. It sold pretty well.

Now instead of that being released, lets say battlefield 3 was released with the graphics of battlefield 1942. How much do you think it would have in sales? I'd say way less than 60%. Why? Because graphics are one of the most important things selling a game.

No, that's what sells THAT game. There's a difference. Saying graphics is 60% of a game is basically saying, the game isn't that good, but it sure looks pretty....which is pretty much my opinion of Crysis 1. That's not to say graphics are a bad thing, but as someone said, if FF6/7 were made today, they'd look pretty, but they'd be FF13..not 6/7, and I think FF13 is a good example of good graphics and shit game.

I think a better way to for them to put it would be to say, if you didn't grow up with older gen games, graphics are what are important above all else (which....they try to say is their market..but it really isn't).

 

[cmdrdredd]

Played ffxi for 5 years. Damn sure was not because of the graphics. If I had not sold my account I would play it today.

Lol I had 8 years into that game and over 4 years real game time (found by using the command to check for play time). I gave my account away once they merged servers because they tossed new people into a server which already had a good number of linkshells doing dynamis during our normal time and doing sky during our normal time and doing sea farm runs during our normal time. It got bad. There were 7 major linkshells and a few minor ones that were competing on one server, then we merged with another server that had another 5 or 6. It was unworkable. Plus I got seriously tired of grinding to level up. I did Samurai, Ninja, and Ranger to 75 then maxed merits for strength, archery, great katana skill, threw some into marksmanship etc. Did all the job specific merits that mattered. Now I needed like 40k to get another level? I was sick of it...got so boring. I could fall asleep while the bard pulled mobs and I got to weapon skill it twice before it died and I targeted the next one. Or when I had TP and my timers reset I would solo one while the party killed another. After so much of that, same monsters over and over...ugh. I couldn't do any more levels. I think I took my SAM to 80 and my RNG to 78 before I gave up.

 

[SMOGZINN]

You most good games have a average mix of graphics, story, and gameplay. But any one of those items taken to an extreme can make for an excellent game.

We have games like Zork which is literally NO graphics, but great gameplay and story.
Then there are the Roguelike games, that have great gameplay, some story, and very little graphics.
Or 10,000,0000 that is almost all gameplay with no real story, and minimal graphics.
Then there is Peggle that is mostly gameplay with a good amount of graphics but almost no story.
There is Tetris that has all gameplay and no graphics or story.
Crysis is mostly graphics, with a little story and gameplay.
Fifty Flights of Loving is all story and little graphics or gameplay.
Dear Esther is almost all story with moderate graphics, and no gameplay.

How ever you mix it you can come out with a good game. It is not nearly so simple as saying graphics/story/gameplay make the game.