Crytek CEO says Graphics are "60% of the game"

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by GDB

Agreed. The only graphical boost after PS3 that I'd really care for is realistic virtual reality, ala Sword Art Online/Accel World. Until then, I'm content.

I've always believed (and by always, I mean for the past 6 years) that the next significant graphical revolution would "entering" the game world yourself, so to speak. And no you don't count Virtual Boy! But seriously, at this point, how significantly, noticeably better can graphics really look?

[chaos_alfa]

Originally Posted by Xagzan

I've always believed (and by always, I mean for the past 6 years) that the next significant graphical revolution would "entering" the game world yourself, so to speak. And no you don't count Virtual Boy! But seriously, at this point, how significantly, noticeably better can graphics really look?

That sounds a bit like the Oculus Rift, but it does sacrifice some graphics quality for a higher responsiveness.

It also seems some developers already got their hands on it and are developing games for it.

[Eragon]

WTF? Who the hell cares if the grass is moving or not when you're shooting the hell outta of the enemy? And why does an FPS even need such graphical detail? Unless it entails your enemies heads blowing up in different graphical ways. I thought FPS was about killing shit not watching whether the grass moves or not. Good graphics is okay. Including details to a fault is stupid.

In my view, that kind of scenery porn is more suited for RPG's since you can explore the world at your own leisure. Not that I want such a thing in RPG's either - I'm already aware that my laptop won't be able to run DA III. It already can't even run DA II if I set any graphics parameter to the max.

[Haikea]

Environments should be much more modifiable and changes should stay forever, if it is desired. Good physics means little if they are not used widely. Also I would like to see higher resolution textures and higher drawing distance without that annoying level of detail popping.

AI is something which always fails in complex situations. I don't know if it is because lack of calculation power or because programmers can't code good enough. Sound environment is still living in "sprite" age meaning there is not really any realtime sound simulation. Just bunch of sound files which are running through various filters. I consider it as "2D" audio. True "3D" audio means realtime simulation.

Steady smooth frame rate without tearing or random stuttering is something which I consider very important. I haven't seen that since NES/SNES/Mega Drive gaming console. Also LCD screens made this thing impossible to execute. You either get fast screen with full of flaws in image quality or slow screen with near perfect image quality.

[Waven]

Originally Posted by Xagzan

I've always believed (and by always, I mean for the past 6 years) that the next significant graphical revolution would "entering" the game world yourself, so to speak. And no you don't count Virtual Boy! But seriously, at this point, how significantly, noticeably better can graphics really look?

The current best graphics still look just like that - graphics. The highest (and maybe unattainable) goal is to make it indistinguishable from reality or, in case of sci-fi/fantasy, how something would look like if it was part of the present real world.

As Jazzrat mentioned, it's good that there are some developers working on pushing the boundaries so that we can have games with both, deep an plentiful content as well as high graphic fidelity. Most of the time games with extensive content don't sport graphics as good as the current best graphical generation but they pick up a level 1-2 generations past and still look good. I'm pretty positive that in a few years we could have something like a content-rich, open-world RPG with the Crysis 3 level graphics.

Also, with all the talk about shallow, yet good-looking fps vs deep RPG, I'm wondering why no one has brought up The Witcher 2, which combines the best of both worlds.

Bottom line: Games neither have to look good nor look worse than what is currently possible to be good games. Not that this is news to anyone.

[Kimidori]

I think while this can be true, it only true to some games.

for example, Prince of Persia 2008, its beautiful dreamy graphic is what draw me into the game.

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by Waven

The current best graphics still look just like that - graphics. The highest (and maybe unattainable) goal is to make it indistinguishable from reality or, in case of sci-fi/fantasy, how something would look like if it was part of the present real world.

Eh, I'm not so big on complete photo-realism, particularly for genres whose very names are the antithesis of what devs are trying to achieve. Fiction, Fantasy. Reality. It's a nice goal, but I don't think it should be such a primary concern that a fictional world look exactly like ours, limiting artists' imaginations to what they can see in front of them.

[Tempester]

I've never played any of Crytek's games, but I'm under the impression that a major, if not the main appeal of Far Cry and Crysis is their top-notch graphical detail. This is not to say that nearly all AAA games don't put a lot of effort into high-quality graphics, but Crytek goes the extra mile in this regard and has turned it into a selling point.

This is not in itself a bad thing.

Different games have different kinds of appeal to them. I could play a Final Fantasy game for the story, a Resistance game for the gameplay, and a Hyperdimension Neptunia game for the cute characters. Likewise, I could play Crysis for the spectacular graphics.

There are plenty of modern games that lack great graphics but excel in other qualities. Granted, these are usually made by individuals or smaller game companies, but less centralization is a good thing. You just have to look harder and seek out the kind of game you want instead of relying on marketing to push it on your face.

The Crytek CEO's statement may be blatantly wrong when applied to games in general, and I truly think he should have said it in a different way, but it probably holds true for Crytek's own games. His words appropriately embody Crytek's approach to game design, not the game development world as a whole.

[demino_hellsin]

The thing is, realistic graphics call for realistic everything.

You want to make perfect graphics Mr. Crytek CEO? Then you need to make everything perfect in realism. Indeed I may just be repeating the uncanny valley argument but the issue is the disconnect between what you see, what you hear and what you logically process. For example, MW shift to MW2, not the best example but yeah. MW1 was solid in my opinion, everything was fairly realistic and to some extent, fun balanced content until everyone decided to be a dick and sniper camp it out. MW2 had better graphics, but the weapons suddenly got wacky, weird and to some extent, ludicrous. Again it's not a bad thing. But there is a disconnect from realism to just going gungho crazy. A sort of bottlenwck occured for me that came into the "narm" effect.

So I'm just saying if he wants realistic graphics then make everything perfectly realistic too.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Tempester

The Crytek CEO's statement may be blatantly wrong when applied to games in general, and I truly think he should have said it in a different way, but it probably holds true for Crytek's own games. His words appropriately embody Crytek's approach to game design, not the game development world as a whole.

That's the whole problem with his statement, and the first thing I thought when I first read that.

It's as if he isn't aware of the huge variety of different successful games that currently exist in the market under various format. His statement might be true for a certain kind of games and a certain kind of gamers, but for all games in general? That's simply retarded.

[saravis]

While I disagree with him placing a percentage value on the worth of graphics in a game and that his percentage suggests that graphics are the most important thing to a game, I do agree that graphics are important to a game. They lie in the same area of importance as audio and story. Graphics, audio, and story aren't things that are the most important to making a good game, but they are important as they compliment a good game, making a good game better. If these things weren't important, we'd all still be playing Pong and Zork.

[GDB]

I really don't think audio is that important. Plenty of people play handhelds muted so they can either not disturb others or listen to others/the TV while they play.

[hyl]

Originally Posted by GDB

I really don't think audio is that important. Plenty of people play handhelds muted so they can either not disturb others or listen to others/the TV while they play.

Some type of games games like horror rely on both on the visual as audio effects to create suspense though

[Roger Rambo]

Does anybody remember the days in video games when you really could get knee deep in the dead of your enemies? So many games now a days seem hung up about having corpses die seconds after falling to the ground.

Originally Posted by GDB

I really don't think audio is that important. Plenty of people play handhelds muted so they can either not disturb others or listen to others/the TV while they play.

There's a difference between not hearing the sound, and actively hearing weak sound effects. Weak sound effects for people who can play their game with sound can get really annoyed by weak sound effects.

[Tempester]

Originally Posted by hyl

Some type of games games like horror rely on both on the visual as audio effects to create suspense though

Not only that, the audio can be essential to playing the game.

In Amnesia: The Dark Descent, your first warning sign against monsters is the growling sound they make, and its followed by foreboding music that pretty much tells you that you need to hide. I've read of deaf people playing this game, and it plays like a trial-and-error jump scare horror for them, not to mention their character dies a pitiful number of times.

[T-6000]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2012...all-of-gaming/

Crytek's CEO is part of the problem--the huge, huge problem that may end up killing the gaming industry.

This is what my brother and I have been fearing for years now. With the costs of game development increasing with each generation, and with no sign of slowing down, it may eventually get to a point where game development will be plainly too expensive. Well, at least with traditional Big Budget AAA games. And games of today have to literally sell millions or it will be (most likely) deemed a commercial failure. Years ago, if a game sold over a million copies it was deemed a commercial success. But with games of this current generation that's really just peanuts. The first Crysis sold over 3 million copies, and yet Crytech were aiming to sell more than that to recuperate development costs on making Crysis (especially developing the advance engine Crysis was developed on). Also, Expansion Packs have been done away with in favor of DLC, which many developers have been focusing on nowadays. Even "Day 1" DLC is becoming more common. And these past couple of years some developers have been increasingly vocal against used games sales. There were also some rumors late last year that next generation games would cost over $60 upon release. So far it seems that games will still be selling for $60 upon release, but I don't think it would be out of the ordinary to see game prices increase to $65-$70 later in the next generation console cycle. Even Bethesda have lately spoken of "Concerns" over used games sales lately, though it was stated that they make up the loss of sales through DLC.

http://gamepolitics.com/2013/04/16/b...n#.UW3vnsrQtdQ

As far back as 2010, I underwent a heated debate in an online forum where people stated that we're lucky games aren't $100 today. Some even stated that the industry *should* charge $100 per game on release. I argued that developers and publishers couldn't raise their prices that high, and making them too expensive for the average gamer to buy. Then people spouted out such nonsense as "If they can't afford the price of games then they should look for a different hobby" and "That is why poor people shouldn't be gamers", and other ridiculous comments bashing the poor. But there is a reason why developers and publishers haven't raised their games at such high levels (despite the increase in game development), because not as many people wouldn't be buying them on day 1. In fact, it is becoming more and more common for people to hold off on purchasing games until a price drop, and Steam sales have become more popular amongst gamers online.

Simply put, Publishers and Developers will have to find a way to work around the increasing costs of development. Otherwise, the Game industry may face another collapse, due to the rising costs of game development. Independent developers are already working around the problem of costs. Many Indie developers merely have to sell a few thousand copies of their games to recuperate the costs of developing their games, and they rely more on word of mouth than spending thousands (or millions) on promoting and advertising their games.

[synaesthetic]

Games went up to $60 because they had to. The budgets are just getting bloated and absurd. There was a time, 90s and early to mid 2000s, when the industry-standard release-day price of a PC game was $49.95.

People may blame EA for the price hike--and while EA's influence definitely, er, influenced it--the reason they're charging so much is because they have to. They would charge more if they could, but the market clearly won't bear any higher than $60, which is one of the reasons day-one DLC exists.

I bought Mass Effect 3 on release day, and then a day later I bought the From Ashes DLC. I would have bough the CE, but it was sold out everywhere (sucks for me I suppose). I ended up paying $60 for the game plus $10 for the DLC. I was, at the time, annoyed that they released a DLC on day one, but as I learn more about the internal workings of the industry, I realize that day one is probably the best time to release a DLC.

It paid off for Bioware, at least from me, since I did in fact buy it. For later-release DLCs, like the DLCs for Fallout New Vegas, I didn't buy them on release. I waited until they went on sale on Steam and bought two for $5 and two for $2.50. That's $25 the developer lost because I only spent $15 on $40 worth of DLC.

[creb]

Originally Posted by cronnoponno

I know my Gamestop isn't the center of the world, but it's pretty heartwrenching to have a little less than 10 people reserve Tales of Graces F

I'm a JRPG nerd (from the house of Xenogears is the best JRPG of this generation). I'm a moderate Tales Fan. I think Tales of Graces F (or even just without the F) was complete shit.

I really don't think graphics were the primary reason why it sold as few copies as it did.

[Chaos2Frozen]

Thats funny, I've considered myself all of those things as well as I had lots of fun with Graces F.

But you're right in the sense that it isn't the graphics; JRPG isn't exactly that big of a genre in the west, except for Final Fantasy.

[Wild Goose]

On the subject of games, I would say improving the enemy AI counts for a lot more than graphics, although if you can pair them together then hell yeah, go for it.

I still regularly play FEAR (as heart-stopping and terrifying it may be), even with the dated graphics, because it's a blast, and because the Replica AI were so well done. And the Replica AI, touted for its brilliance, was actually a happy accident; the devs coded the AI to make small decisions (always taking cover, flanking, grenade usage, etc) and then were stunned when those small decisions added up into one helluva enemy. Even today, the Replica AI still hold up well.

This brings me to Far Cry 3. It's a gorgeous game - I can get lost in the scenery - and I can totally believe it, because at some parts, there are sections of Rook Island that look exactly like the tropical jungle village I grew up in.

And the AI is phenomenal, especially when you throw problems like animal attacks into the mix.

What I want is something like Far Cry 3; great graphics (and really, this is one of the best looking games and if games stay at that level I think it's okay), great gameplay, great AI.