Crytek: Graphics are 60 percent of a game

[QUOTE="AznbkdX"][QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]Well that analogy sucks because a game engine is not an assistant :PNot to sound snobby, but the analogy truly does make more sense when you consider the engine as the canvas. :P In fact it may only make sense that way.A game engine is what you build a game in much like a canvas is what you paint on. Each game engine is different in what it provides in terms of AI functionality, lightning, physics, etc much like a paper canvas is different from painting on the side of a building, or whatever.On top of that the actual definition of the word "graphic" is "visual representation" :P It's not something you put your vision onto. It actually is the vision.Ly_the_Fairy

[QUOTE="FPSfan1985"]I agree. Graphics are a huge part of gaming. Anyone saying less is full of crap. Just look at the millions of graphical debates on this forum alone.aroxx_ab

So that is why crap-looking games as Minecraft doing so well?

look how many people disliked this and hated because of the graphics and the fact they said it ran on UE4

NoodleFighter

Gameplay >>> Story/characters > artstyle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graphics > Music

Vatusus

[QUOTE="Vatusus"]

Gameplay >>> Story/characters > artstyle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graphics > Music

FPSfan1985

this continues to enforce my belief that most gamers have no clue about the developer side of the gaming world

NoodleFighter

Hilarious, Yerli has obviously misssed the mark hugely. Graphics are nice but if they drive the game then the game is going to suck in the long run. Graphics of that level are only icing, not the cake.

I'm putting money that Homefront 2 is gonna suck now.

.

Graphics are nice, but physics, AI and interactivity with the environment are all better uses of processing power.

Graphics are nice, but physics, AI and interactivity with the environment are all better uses of processing power.

scoots9

[QUOTE="FPSfan1985"][QUOTE="Vatusus"]

Gameplay >>> Story/characters > artstyle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graphics > Music

parkurtommo

During development yes graphics are 60% of your product but the end product is not crysis proves a game can look beautiful and still have a shit storyline and gameplay.

You can have good looks but im not gonna be interested if you have no brain or personality.

During development yes graphics are 60% of your product but the end product is not crysis proves a game can look beautiful and still have a shit storyline and gameplay.

You can have good looks but im not gonna be interested if you have no brain or personality.

WilliamRLBaker

[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]

What does the other 40 percent go into then? Gameplay?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Get the f*ck out, Cevat.

Ly_the_Fairy

He didn't say that.

No he didn't say that. I did.

Weren't you paying attention to my comment?

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]

[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]

What does the other 40 percent go into then? Gameplay?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Get the f*ck out, Cevat.

Goyoshi12

He didn't say that.

No he didn't say that. I did.

Weren't you paying attention to my comment?

You're questioning what he said, and I'm saying that's not what he said.

[QUOTE="k2theswiss"][QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

look how many people disliked this and hated because of the graphics and the fact they said it ran on UE4

NoodleFighter

exactly but those idiots don't care they just assume since it's UE4 everygame made on it will instantly look like this

this continues to enforce my belief that most gamers have no clue about the developer side of the gaming world

Pretty much. Its not the engine that makes games, its the people that make games. Perfection won't just pop up out of nowhere.

[QUOTE="Vatusus"]

Gameplay >>> Story/characters > artstyle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graphics > Music

FPSfan1985

Its true you cant have one without the other but they aren't the same thing...

substitue "graphics" by "great graphics" and you get a better picture. Anyways, you knew what I meant. No need to be overly technical about an obvious meaning :|

[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]

He didn't say that.

Ly_the_Fairy

No he didn't say that. I did.

Weren't you paying attention to my comment?

You're questioning what he said, and I'm saying that's not what he said.

*Rhetorical questioning

[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]

What does the other 40 percent go into then? Gameplay?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Get the f*ck out, Cevat.

Ly_the_Fairy

He didn't say that.

Everyone in this thread seems to think that Crytek is implying that better, more photo-realistic graphics are what matters.

He's saying graphics are 60% of any game, and he's not wrong. I mean maybe you can't put a number value on it, but he's right in saying that graphics are a humungous part of immersing you in a world, and that world can be 8-bit, imaginative, artsy, or photo-realistic. It doesn't really matter. 

He actually said at the end that its a part of the whole spectrum, not in itself.

Graphics are computer models, but I have a feeling he was talking of the whole picture, which has mutual art style, sound, etc. In that case I think he isn't wrong about the implications of graphics to power since more power can definitely lead to more artificial enhancements, or maybe even natural. I don't agree though that he put it in a separate leagure before that though.

[QUOTE="FPSfan1985"][QUOTE="Vatusus"]

Gameplay >>> Story/characters > artstyle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graphics > Music

Vatusus

Its true you cant have one without the other but they aren't the same thing...

substitue "graphics" by "great graphics" and you get a better picture. Anyways, you knew what I meant. No need to be overly technical about an obvious meaning :|

Graphics are technically not art style. Its just the models and any bells and whistles associated with them.

Art style is a tie in to graphics but they are not mutual.

During development yes graphics are 60% of your product but the end product is not crysis proves a game can look beautiful and still have a shit storyline and gameplay.

You can have good looks but im not gonna be interested if you have no brain or personality.

WilliamRLBaker

[QUOTE="Vatusus"]

[QUOTE="FPSfan1985"] Artstyle and graphics are the same thing. Can't have one without the other.AznbkdX

Its true you cant have one without the other but they aren't the same thing...

substitue "graphics" by "great graphics" and you get a better picture. Anyways, you knew what I meant. No need to be overly technical about an obvious meaning :|

Graphics are technically not art style. Its just the models and any bells and whistles associated with them.

Art style is a tie in to graphics but they are not mutual.

[QUOTE="Vatusus"]

[QUOTE="FPSfan1985"] Artstyle and graphics are the same thing. Can't have one without the other.Ly_the_Fairy

Its true you cant have one without the other but they aren't the same thing...

substitue "graphics" by "great graphics" and you get a better picture. Anyways, you knew what I meant. No need to be overly technical about an obvious meaning :|

But, again, Crytek stated that graphics are a fundamental part of every game, big or small, photo-realistic, or 8-bit, artsy, imaginative, futuristic, or whatever.

For instance every genre, outside of text adventures, could not exist without graphics. On top of that there are a ton of gameplay features that have a heavy reliance on graphics. Things like the Portal gun in Portal, for instance.

On top of that graphics are also a fundamental part of immersion in games. The reason a game like Silent Hill looks scary, and Super Mario does not, despite both being 3D games, has everything to do with the graphical assets of the game. The graphical assets of Silent Hill allow the game to be more atmospheric, more immersive, and this in turn helps drive the story.

And that's what Cevat is talking about. He's not saying graphics are 60%, gameplay is 20%, music is 10%, and story is 10%. He's saying that graphics are a fundamental part of nearly every aspect of a game no matter what the game looks like (because he is not implying a game must be photo-realistic)

I have a feeling he is mixing up the terms tbf. Graphics are NOT art style and are greatly beneficial (probably more than 60% actually since without graphics you don't have a game), but there is always a ton of misinformation on the matter.

No.

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]

[QUOTE="Vatusus"]

Its true you cant have one without the other but they aren't the same thing...

substitue "graphics" by "great graphics" and you get a better picture. Anyways, you knew what I meant. No need to be overly technical about an obvious meaning :|

AznbkdX

But, again, Crytek stated that graphics are a fundamental part of every game, big or small, photo-realistic, or 8-bit, artsy, imaginative, futuristic, or whatever.

For instance every genre, outside of text adventures, could not exist without graphics. On top of that there are a ton of gameplay features that have a heavy reliance on graphics. Things like the Portal gun in Portal, for instance.

On top of that graphics are also a fundamental part of immersion in games. The reason a game like Silent Hill looks scary, and Super Mario does not, despite both being 3D games, has everything to do with the graphical assets of the game. The graphical assets of Silent Hill allow the game to be more atmospheric, more immersive, and this in turn helps drive the story.

And that's what Cevat is talking about. He's not saying graphics are 60%, gameplay is 20%, music is 10%, and story is 10%. He's saying that graphics are a fundamental part of nearly every aspect of a game no matter what the game looks like (because he is not implying a game must be photo-realistic)

I have a feeling he is mixing up the terms tbf. Graphics are NOT art style and are greatly beneficial (probably more than 60% actually since without graphics you don't have a game), but there is always a ton of misinformation on the matter.

A "graphic" is a picture, and no matter what a picture looks like it's still a graphic, and in turn no matter what a game's art style is it's still composed of "graphics".

[QUOTE="AznbkdX"]

[QUOTE="Vatusus"]

Its true you cant have one without the other but they aren't the same thing...

substitue "graphics" by "great graphics" and you get a better picture. Anyways, you knew what I meant. No need to be overly technical about an obvious meaning :|

FPSfan1985

Graphics are technically not art style. Its just the models and any bells and whistles associated with them.

Art style is a tie in to graphics but they are not mutual.

Graphics tend to get mixed up with art style. Its not really the same.

Graphics are computer animated models. Its a prototype stage of the process and is dependent more on how you frame it. Art style is to graphics to make graphics look so called "crisp" or gives it that flair.

Thats just the way I look at it. I may be in the minority considering that their is always misinformation or things tend to compound onto one another.

May be a little off topic but I feel that it applies here. Realism is actually an art style believe it or not. It may look like "good graphics" and are normally cast away from other artsy games, but the only way to know for sure is to know the mechanisms behind it. It uses different models but its up to the people to make the art style for those models. 

[QUOTE="AznbkdX"]

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]

But, again, Crytek stated that graphics are a fundamental part of every game, big or small, photo-realistic, or 8-bit, artsy, imaginative, futuristic, or whatever.

For instance every genre, outside of text adventures, could not exist without graphics. On top of that there are a ton of gameplay features that have a heavy reliance on graphics. Things like the Portal gun in Portal, for instance.

On top of that graphics are also a fundamental part of immersion in games. The reason a game like Silent Hill looks scary, and Super Mario does not, despite both being 3D games, has everything to do with the graphical assets of the game. The graphical assets of Silent Hill allow the game to be more atmospheric, more immersive, and this in turn helps drive the story.

 

And that's what Cevat is talking about. He's not saying graphics are 60%, gameplay is 20%, music is 10%, and story is 10%. He's saying that graphics are a fundamental part of nearly every aspect of a game no matter what the game looks like (because he is not implying a game must be photo-realistic)

Ly_the_Fairy

I have a feeling he is mixing up the terms tbf. Graphics are NOT art style and are greatly beneficial (probably more than 60% actually since without graphics you don't have a game), but there is always a ton of misinformation on the matter.

A "graphic" is a picture, and no matter what a picture looks like it's still a graphic, and in turn no matter what a game's art style is it's still composed of "graphics".

That's true. I didn't say otherwise. Graphics are graphics, and are normally included with everything. Originally though they are models, and are implanted with art style. That's what I mean, so graphics are very important because without the canvas, you don't have the game, but without the paint you don't have "good" graphics.

[QUOTE="FPSfan1985"][QUOTE="AznbkdX"]

Graphics are technically not art style. Its just the models and any bells and whistles associated with them.

Art style is a tie in to graphics but they are not mutual.

 

AznbkdX

Graphics tend to get mixed up with art style. Its not really the same.

Graphics are computer animated models. Its a prototype stage of the process and is dependent more on how you frame it. Art style is to graphics to make graphics look so called "crisp" or gives it that flair.

Thats just the way I look at it. I may be in the minority considering that their is always misinformation or things tend to compound onto one another.

May be a little off topic but I feel that it applies here. Realism is actually an art style believe it or not. It may look like "good graphics" and are normally cast away from other artsy games, but the only way to know for sure is to know the mechanisms behind it. It uses different models but its up to the people to make the art style for those models. 

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]

[QUOTE="AznbkdX"]

I have a feeling he is mixing up the terms tbf. Graphics are NOT art style and are greatly beneficial (probably more than 60% actually since without graphics you don't have a game), but there is always a ton of misinformation on the matter.

AznbkdX

A "graphic" is a picture, and no matter what a picture looks like it's still a graphic, and in turn no matter what a game's art style is it's still composed of "graphics".

That's true. I didn't say otherwise. Graphics are graphics, and are normally included with everything. Originally though they are models, and are implanted with art style. That's what I mean, so graphics are very important because without the canvas, you don't have the game, but without the paint you don't have "good" graphics.

Graphics aren't the canvas.

The engine is the canvas, the graphics are the paint, and the art style is simply what you paint, but both the graphics and art style are still paint.

How do you come up with that number? Why not 50? 70? It's all a bunch of bullsh*t, he's just trying to hype up the how good their game will look.

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"][QUOTE="AznbkdX"]That's true. I didn't say otherwise. Graphics are graphics, and are normally included with everything. Originally though they are models, and are implanted with art style. That's what I mean, so graphics are very important because without the canvas, you don't have the game, but without the paint you don't have "good" graphics.AznbkdX

Well that analogy sucks because a game engine is not an assistant :P

Not to sound snobby, but the analogy truly does make more sense when you consider the engine as the canvas. :P In fact it may only make sense that way.

A game engine is what you build a game in much like a canvas is what you paint on. Each game engine is different in what it provides in terms of AI functionality, lightning, physics, etc much like a paper canvas is different from painting on the side of a building, or whatever.

On top of that the actual definition of the word "graphic" is "visual representation" :P It's not something you put your vision onto. It actually is the vision.

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"][QUOTE="AznbkdX"]

The engine is the assistant and the guy handing you royalties, the canvas is the graphics you work on and is where you make your overall vision, and artstyle is the paint and what you do with it.

Eh either way, they are the same. At the same time they aren't.AznbkdX

The analogy doesn't make sense because a graphic is not a model, it's not physics, it's not poly count, it's not lighting, it's not particle count, it's none of that.

A graphic is the culmination of anything, and everything someone puts into an image. You do not put art onto graphics. The art is the graphics.

Crytek games: 60% graphics, 0.8% story, 1.7% gameplay, 37.5% NOTHING.silversix_

The Irony of it all is amazing, someonequick post a screenshot praising the graphics of a game not on PC and see what game PC fanboys use to counter ...

[QUOTE="silversix_"]Crytek games: 60% graphics, 0.8% story, 1.7% gameplay, 37.5% NOTHING.Quad4Life

 

The Irony of it all is amazing, someonequick post a screenshot praising the graphics of a game not on PC and see what game PC fanboys use to counter ...

Zaibach

i don't understand your "irony". Crysis 3 graphically still beats the sh1t out of everything even if the game itself is not good. So it is obvious when people talk about graphics they are going to mention it.

Now, how important are graphics?, that depends on each person. Ipersonally loved Red dead redemption but i cringed every time i saw those graphics.

Come on now, graphics aren't overemphasized enough? Crytek should keep their mouth shut..

Not that it matters since this is probably just self-promotion by Crytek and nothing more. The leader in console and PC graphics saying graphics are important? You don't say..

This statement depends on the game. For example, is Tetris really 60% graphics? Compared to a game that depends on graphics to set a mood. For example, that movie-game that's like reading a book on the PS3. I can't remember the name. 

This statement depends on the game. For example, is Tetris really 60% graphics? Compared to a game that depends on graphics to set a mood. For example, that movie-game that's like reading a book on the PS3. I can't remember the name. 

trugs26

Come on now, graphics aren't overemphasized enough? Crytek should keep their mouth shut..

Not that it matters since this is probably just self-promotion by Crytek and nothing more. The leader in console and PC graphics saying graphics are important? You don't say..

final_lap

He's saying graphics are 60% of the overall experience of a game. He's NOT saying they need to be photo-realistic, nor is he breaking a game up into chunks like that.

He's saying graphics are key to a game's immersion, atmosphere, and subsequently story-telling by way of making believable worlds, and characters.

On top of that certain gameplay elements actually rely on the graphics at hand, and even entire genres may be based around the graphics they use. Something like a third person shooter couldn't exist prior to 3D, for example.

It's not about pushing graphics tech. That's not what he's saying. He's just saying that any game, big or small, artsy or photorealistic, 2D or 3D, or anything in between, has a huge reliance on graphics to draw a player into the world, and allow gameplay elements to flow smoothly.