As reported, Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli has made a statement regarding long-time argument of graphics versus gameplay. Yerli says that graphics have always driven gameplay and believes that it’s 60 percent of the game.
In an interview with X360 Magazine, Yerli spoke out about the importance of and the relationship between graphics and gameplay saying:
“People say that graphics don’t matter, but play Crysis and tell me they don’t matter. It’s always been about graphics driving gameplay.”
“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.
“Graphics, whether it’s lighting or shadows, puts you in a different emotional context and drives the immersion.”
“And immersion is effectively the number one thing we can use to help you buy into the world.”
“The better the graphics, the better the physics, the better the sound design, the better the technical assets and production values are – paired with the art direction, making things look spectacular and stylistic is 60 per cent of the game.”
I can’t say I disagree with him completely; in fact I’m kind of 90% with him here. It’s clear that he’s referring more to shooters and open world games, rather than retro or arcade games. If you look at games as a whole, when I experience games best is when I am captured by the visuals, when they so absolutely grip my imagination that I can escape into them. This doesn’t necessarily mean that it has to have the best physics, but overall make the experience more believable. Titles like Journey, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning and Dear Esther did this spectacularly well, even though the art style is less realistic, the graphics had a significant part in immersing a player. The same principal goes for puzzle – platformers like Trine 2
Then there are games like Far Cry 3, where I found that after the NVIDIA drivers came out for the game, I really wished my first play through was after they released. Even though the game released with great graphics, the drivers made a massive difference in what the game looked like and I do believe that if my first play through was after the drivers came out, I would have had an even more incredible experience.
Enter Crysis 3, Yerli is absolutely spot on with graphics driving gameplay. When the graphics are so good that the physics and everything else ties in so perfectly as a result of it, that the environment realistically reacts to your or an enemy’s presence and influences the gameplay directly, it’s pretty damn impressive and definitely improves the experience.
Graphics is sometimes however entirely pointless when you have a game like Assassin’s Creed 3 that hugely disappointed fans of the franchise. Face it; even though the game looked stunning, the overall experience was a let down, proving that graphics don’t always matter. I think that it’s important to not just make an unconditional rule about the matter, but look at games for what they are and then decide the verdict for that particular title.
Last Updated: April 15, 2013
Admiral Chief Erwin
April 15, 2013 at 14:11
It might be true. Take Bulletstorm for instance, gameplay was kinda meh, but the graphics were quite good (for its time). Or maybe its the memorable quotes like “Here comes Butterdick Jones and his heavenly asshole machine!” that made me remember it :-
Daniel Keevy
April 15, 2013 at 14:13
When it comes to shooters, he’s right. The only exception I can think of is Spec Ops (in terms of shooters) which was not entirely graphics driven.
But CoD, Battlefield and Crysis make their money from spectacle. Hell, even C&C Generals abandoned story for better graphics (in part).
Admiral Chief Erwin
April 15, 2013 at 14:13
Pretty pictawrs kinda makes you forget silly story or gameplay, I tend to agree, but not always
Sir Rants-a-Lot Llew
April 15, 2013 at 14:14
There’s a difference between graphics for graphics sake and graphics created for a purpose.
Having graphics look amazing is fine and dandy. But when it does nothing for the game then it’s pointless.
You can get a great experience out of any game, regardless of graphics, as long as the atmosphere has been captured correctly.
Older games have given me far more emotions with dated graphics than some of the new games coming out. Simply because the implementation was done right on the older game whereas the newer games are doing it simply because they can.
So yeah, graphics are imporant, but only if done right. And even then it doesn’t need to be bleeding edge
Gallderhen
April 15, 2013 at 23:23
Im beginning to think that older games didn’t have graphics to “fall back on” to sell them, so they had to “borrow” from the-then mainstream media (aka movies and books) to make them sell (e.g. incredible stories, captivating music etc etc). Thus why we remember them more fondly.
Rincethis: Spellalicious
April 15, 2013 at 14:19
Maybe I am missing something here, how does something that is visually appealing affect game play? Just cus the grass is waving, doesn’t mean the actual controls are any more coordinated and well designed as a base-jumping duck-billed platypus… I would say that the graphics affect the GAME EXPERIENCE, not whether the play is any better… Hey, I’m just a console player, so am probably just going to full retard…
Tateboetie Malaaitie
April 15, 2013 at 15:06
Looks retarded, acts retarded but writes full sentences……. not retarded.
But drives the gameplay oh yes, it sure does.
Played wow up until Doa and suddenly stopped playing wow all together because the graphics is utter sheeitte.
Rincethis: Spellalicious
April 15, 2013 at 15:15
Hey, who are you calling not retarded 0_O! Agreed, graphics do make a difference to a game, hugely so. My call was on whether it makes the gameplay better, and I can’t see if you have shitty controls like a 1990’s WWF game how it can make up for that. Fully rendered 60fps tree or not, if you have to press right trigger to jump, that’s just not cricket 🙂
Carl Angus
April 16, 2013 at 09:54
Would you say graphics drive gameplay when looking at a game like limbo?
Depends on the genre imo.
Rincethis: Spellalicious
April 16, 2013 at 10:18
I was saying I don’t think it drives gameplay. I think the Mona Lisa is a rather decent visual, but no matter how hard I hit jump, the bitch just sits there with her wonky eyes staring at me. Something can be the MOST visually appealing thing on the planet, doesn’t the the actual game play, as in, the play you experience in the game, is any good. Hence my saying further up that it should be Game EXPERIENCE 🙂
Skyblue
April 15, 2013 at 22:37
Nah man, play Crysis 3 on a PC and a 3D monitor and you’ll understand, it was far superior to the console versions by a huge margin.
Rincethis: Spellalicious
April 15, 2013 at 14:19
Maybe I am missing something here, how does something that is visually appealing affect game play? Just cus the grass is waving, doesn’t mean the actual controls are any more coordinated and well designed as a base-jumping duck-billed platypus… I would say that the graphics affect the GAME EXPERIENCE, not whether the play is any better… Hey, I’m just a console player, so am probably just going to full retard…
Rincethis: Spellalicious
April 15, 2013 at 14:19
Maybe I am missing something here, how does something that is visually appealing affect game play? Just cus the grass is waving, doesn’t mean the actual controls are any more coordinated and well designed as a base-jumping duck-billed platypus… I would say that the graphics affect the GAME EXPERIENCE, not whether the play is any better… Hey, I’m just a console player, so am probably just going to full retard…
FoxOneZA - The Chosen One
April 15, 2013 at 14:21
He is right. I played MoH: Warfighter on PS3 and it looked awful and the game just felt awful. A few weeks later I won the PC version of the game and the graphics on the PC enhanced the game so much that I played it right til the end and what and enjoyable experience it was compared to the same game on a console.
Games like DmC used graphics to bring us stages that collapsed, changed shapes and then turned upside down. The weapons and AI were only enhanced by the graphics and physics.
FoxOneZA - The Chosen One
April 15, 2013 at 14:21
He is right. I played MoH: Warfighter on PS3 and it looked awful and the game just felt awful. A few weeks later I won the PC version of the game and the graphics on the PC enhanced the game so much that I played it right til the end and what and enjoyable experience it was compared to the same game on a console.
Games like DmC used graphics to bring us stages that collapsed, changed shapes and then turned upside down. The weapons and AI were only enhanced by the graphics and physics.
FoxOneZA - The Chosen One
April 15, 2013 at 14:21
He is right. I played MoH: Warfighter on PS3 and it looked awful and the game just felt awful. A few weeks later I won the PC version of the game and the graphics on the PC enhanced the game so much that I played it right til the end and what and enjoyable experience it was compared to the same game on a console.
Games like DmC used graphics to bring us stages that collapsed, changed shapes and then turned upside down. The weapons and AI were only enhanced by the graphics and physics.
FoxOneZA - The Chosen One
April 15, 2013 at 14:21
He is right. I played MoH: Warfighter on PS3 and it looked awful and the game just felt awful. A few weeks later I won the PC version of the game and the graphics on the PC enhanced the game so much that I played it right til the end and what and enjoyable experience it was compared to the same game on a console.
Games like DmC used graphics to bring us stages that collapsed, changed shapes and then turned upside down. The weapons and AI were only enhanced by the graphics and physics.
FoxOneZA - The Chosen One
April 15, 2013 at 14:24
When you play third-party titles on PC at full hd on maxmum settings, for example say Max Payne 3, you’ll realise just how much current console technology is holding gaming back. Graphics will always be the defecto standard pushing gaming forward.
Sir Rants-a-Lot Llew
April 15, 2013 at 14:31
Ah, but it goes about what you define as graphics. If you define graphics with how many polygons you can push in to a single character then you are ding it wrong.
If you define graphics as the tools for creating your atmosphere and immersion levels, then you are doing it right.
Best case example: Amnesia – This game was by no means an amazingly intense graphical game (polygons and detail) but had amazing graphics in regards to its atmosphere etc.
The way an older graphical engine was used to create the environment was great and so the graphics “drove the game”
It didn’t have to be the sharpest, most high tech graphics. Just needed some proper love and attention.
FoxOneZA - The Chosen One
April 15, 2013 at 14:42
Reminds me when I first played Kameo on Xbox for the first time. Kameo had the swaying grass and the water and fur physics but the developers through in a cartoon-ish shading and design that really fitted in with the storybook atmosphere.
Then there was Alan Wake that matched graphics, gameplay and story perfectly.
Sir Rants-a-Lot Llew
April 15, 2013 at 14:44
Exactly 🙂 And it doesn’t need next-gen graphics. Just a proper art style and imagination from the gaming companies art departments.
Trevor Davies
April 15, 2013 at 14:39
Graphics are important – because you’re spending more time looking than anything else, but game play is still king. Good graphics don’t mean a good game, but good graphics can make a more average game seem better, while bad graphics can bring a good game down.
Tateboetie Malaaitie
April 15, 2013 at 15:00
Exactly. Take a good game for example Skyrim. a Console draw distance is nowhere near what my Pc’s draw distance is , resolution, frame rate. All to give you more immersion and thus more enjoyment. Then you take 4 gig texture packs that take it it even further and a console has missed the buss completely. Then you go further with mods for almost everything in game from horses to swords to cloaks etc etc.
Play the console version and then you play the Pc (Modded) version , not the same game and the one with the better graphics is way better.
Eric Viljoen
April 15, 2013 at 15:02
Shadow of the Colossus. It didn’t have super realistic graphics. But it had some of the most beautiful visuals. That was doing graphics right imo
Anon A Mouse
April 15, 2013 at 15:06
As long as graphics are not the end all and be all in a game then by all means make it as beautiful as you want to, but if I have to pick a game that lacks story but has awesome graphics and a game with awesome story and so so graphics then the latter will always win. I immerse myself in a good story, not in great graphics (although they can be used to great effect in setting the scene).
Wyzak
April 15, 2013 at 15:19
I’ll take no / crap graphics with amazing gameplay over amazing graphics with no / crap gameplay any day.
Brady miaau
April 15, 2013 at 15:25
I remember Morrowind blew me away with a combination of great landscape shots and game-play all in one smooth package
Good graphics are one thing, but I think people will tire of a game rapidly if the game-play does not enhance.
I suppose I think that graphics are part of the package, but not the complete package
Gideon Carstens
April 15, 2013 at 15:29
A series that proves otherwise: MGS HD Collection. Old games but still better than most new titles.
Neil Cronje
April 15, 2013 at 15:30
“Graphics drive gameplay” I think you have to look at the drawing board again pal cause I bought Crysis 3 and only played up to the second level and haven’t played again in a month. Why is that? Because you always concentrate on the graphics side of the game and never the story numb nuts. I would rather play and finish a game with a decent storyline than play a game that looks pretty and does not have any depth whatsoever.
matthurstrsa
April 16, 2013 at 07:12
Graphics is like bacon on a steak: absolutely necessary if you’re designing a meal around the bacon, but otherwise just added awesomesauce.
If graphics is important to the immersion, to helping tell the story, to improving the game, its important. But then you get games like Borderlands that don’t need to push graphical boundaries to tell the story. It’s all about deciding what you want to do with the graphics.
matthurstrsa
April 16, 2013 at 07:15
So if Steel Battalion: Heavy Armor for the Kinect had had eyes-popping-out-my-head graphics, it would’ve made a difference? No. The game has to be fun first and foremost. And well designed. And have a great story. I don’t think Spec Ops had the greatest graphics, but it’s one of the games I’ll actually replay, also to understand the ending a bit better. Great graphics is often an excuse for poor storytelling.
Tbone187
April 16, 2013 at 09:26
Nothing wrong with a sexy looking chic (or guy for de ladies) that’s an airhead…Just don’t expect longevity…
Johan du Preez
April 16, 2013 at 11:15
Graphics doesn’t matter and anyone that was gaming in the 90’s will know this. Graphics kills gameplay it was true in the 90’s and its still true.