"Games are 60% graphics"

[muse108dc]

Crytek CEO: graphics are "60 percent of the game" | News | PC Gamer

I think this is a lot of what is actually wrong with gaming today. Yes graphics are important but I would weigh them in at 15/20% maybe. Graphics do do a lot for immersion but at the same time there are games from 5, 10 years ago that I still play because I think they are better overall regardless of their extremely low resolution textures. Just looking at what else is part of a game, AI, gameplay, challenge, story, music, voice acting, and there is definitely more.

I think its a shame that this is the opinion of any developer out there. The focus has been heavily put on graphics over the past years and components like AI and actual gameplay have not progressed the way they should have.

Now that we have these graphics engines which are stunning, there is no denying that, maybe we can get back to some of the elements that really matter to games.

[sswilson]

That's just sad. They should design the content/gameplay first and then throw in whatever graphics you can on top of it.

Yes, back in the days that we didn't have the ability to render realistic graphics I can see the quality of graphics being part of the appeal.... games like myst and oblivion are (IMO) games that really pushed quality graphics to the limits and the games were much better for it. OTOH, I could care less how realistically a blade of grass is flowing in the wind if it means that I'm only going to get 15 - 20 hours of gameplay. Hell.... the only time I'm going to see that blade of grass is when my body is lying dead on the ground...... ;)

[Soultribunal]

Originally Posted by muse108dc

Crytek CEO: graphics are "60 percent of the game" | News | PC Gamer

I think this is a lot of what is actually wrong with gaming today. Yes graphics are important but I would weigh them in at 15/20% maybe. Graphics do do a lot for immersion but at the same time there are games from 5, 10 years ago that I still play because I think they are better overall regardless of their extremely low resolution textures. Just looking at what else is part of a game, AI, gameplay, challenge, story, music, voice acting, and there is definitely more.

I think its a shame that this is the opinion of any developer out there. The focus has been heavily put on graphics over the past years and components like AI and actual gameplay have not progressed the way they should have.

Now that we have these graphics engines which are stunning, there is no denying that, maybe we can get back to some of the elements that really matter to games.

I've gotta agree, luckily for some of us those niche Indie game exist still.

Endless space is a good contender really IMO. Though the Graphics are, nice...they aren't stunning. The game play is what sells the game. And I think they have done pretty damn well.

-ST

[YoungMan]

Originally Posted by sswilson

Yes, back in the days that we didn't have the ability to render realistic graphics

This is a great point. When graphics weren't something you could easily make amazing, you had to make something else stand out so your game would sell. Story, gameplay, etc.

[JD]

The last question asked in the article "Are really pretty graphics the main reason you play games on PC?" pretty much nails it on the head I'd say. Beside's graphics, the only other thing PC offers is keyboard/mouse support, though XBOX360 and PS3 both have ways of connecting those to them as well, so it's slightly a moot point.

I think graphics do contribute to a more immersive gameplay. The more realistic it looks, the easier it is to let your mind go and fall into that reality. Granted if the story is lacking content and isn't relatable, then graphics don't matter either. It's a fine balance I'd say. 60/40 seems about right, though 40/60 would work too.

[clshades]

game play is everything in my humble opinion... without it graphics mean next to nothing. Part of that game play for me comes from publishers actively removing cheaters from multiplayer on a regular basis and fixing bugs. There's been very few titles over the years that have done this especially in the FPS front.

[AkG]

Yeah I agree. Lets take Bioshock 3 vs Crysis 3. Crysis 3 is much prettier and 'realistic' looking...yet the game was meh. I played through it twice (all told maybe 10hrs of gameplay) and havent been back since. Bio 3...while not perfect (and far from great on game mechanics) is much more FUN and i can see returning to it - like I do Bio 1 - again and again in the coming years. Same with borderlands 1 & 2. Midling graphics...great story and game play.

IMHO 60% story/game play, 25% sound (music score, voice acting, etc) and 15% graphics is a better blend than 60% graphics!

[Fudd Rucker]

This is why my love for gaming is almost non existent. Pretty much the same reason my love for being a PC hobbyist is dying. Everything is about looks and catering to the slope browed lowest common denominator.

[FreeKnight]

Originally Posted by JD

The last question asked in the article "Are really pretty graphics the main reason you play games on PC?" pretty much nails it on the head I'd say. Beside's graphics, the only other thing PC offers is keyboard/mouse support, though XBOX360 and PS3 both have ways of connecting those to them as well, so it's slightly a moot point.

I disagree. Prettier graphics push some people, but a lot of PC gamers choose PC for mods, patches (and unofficial patches), speed (loading from SSD in particular), and even cheating (Cheatengine, trainers). I think you'd be surprised by the diversity of answers for the 'main' reason people go PC.

[bliz]

To me,graphics are important but they are not the most important thing.It is true that i would not play farcry 3 with ugly graphics too,because you spend all your time in the forest :P but crysis 3 pretty much sucks,because it is not an open world,and it's too short.

So lame that they make the same mistake over the years,succesful games are ALMOST ALWAYS games with side missions,a good story,and with 15+ hour scenario: assasins creed,dishonored,mass effect series,far cry 3,i don't know,all the last year's hits...

I would say 20-30% graphics,anyway these days,ALL GAMES look good because everybody uses UE3 :P

you guys say that gameplay is everything but you would pay for a 500$ to push settings to the max

I think Cevat Yerli is awesome but he spends too much time on graphics,it's true that everybody,in secret,cares a bit,and maybe he want to sell more crysis 3 so he makes it appealing...

I don't think that borderlands 2 is an example,because it's graphics are a style anyway^^ but it's true that the gameplay is awesome.