Crytek: Graphics Are “60% Of The Game”
x360magazine.com
x360magazine.com
That 60% of Crytek's development resources are spent on graphics seems plausible, and it's working for them. But that's just their games. FTL, Binding of Isaac, Minecraft, or lots of other smaller games are almost certainly not spending 60% of their time on graphics, and most of what they do spend is more likely art direction than technology (The quote in the article did include art direction in "graphics"). That works for them too. "The Game" is a very broad term if you take that statement at face value. We should take it as a statement only about Crytek's games.
Cinematography (camera work) is not graphics though. It's as essential to cinema as the plot and acting is.
Graphics in relation to games not so much. You can make a great game with very simple graphics, even today (from Tetris and Pacman to Leterpress). You can even make a great game with no graphics at all (all the much loved text adventure games, MUDs, etc) -- whereas you cannot make a movie at all without any cinematography.
If you want to make a movie comparison, visual effects and/or fancy sets would be a better one.
MUDs require a quality typeface, proper layout, and appropriate coloring.
Pacman would be nothing without its remarkable low-fi charm.
Letterpress wouldn't have gathered a moment's attention if the tiles weren't immaculate and well rendered.
Graphical quality matters in everything, everything, everything visual. And it's a reasonably reliable proxy for how much effort has been put into the rest of the game.
You sidestepped the whole "text only adventure games" thing with the "visual" word. We were talking about computer games in general.
As for all the above examples, I don't think they show at all how graphics matter. They show that great addictive gameplay trumps flashy graphics any day of the week.
I mean "properly sized view and clear, effortlessly distinguishable artwork"?
Those goes without saying. Of course graphics should not obscure the game's goals.
That doesn't mean that the graphics are "60% of Tetris" -- in the same way the fact that Tetris would be totally unplayable if the background was all black and the tiles dark gray --doesn't mean that graphics are "100% of Tetris".
As for "MUDs require a quality typeface, proper layout, and appropriate coloring", yet people have played them in bad typefaces --heck, even not typeface at all, just bitmap graphic card fonts-- and black and white. Matter of fact, in the eighties lots of people on DOS PCs played color games in black and white monitors, and enjoyed them too.
Indeed, you might say in that case the graphics are of high quality! Low quality graphics can easily detract from gameplay.
I think there are two definitions for "graphics quality" commonly used.
- Realism, as used in this article.
- Aesthetics, an example of which would be Team Fortress 2. By any definition it is not a very realistic game, but it still has very well-made/high quality graphics (before hats, anyway.)
The first GTA!
Absolutist claims about how important graphics are can never be true because different genres utilize graphics differently. The immersive games crytek makes weren't really possible before computer graphics technology was capable, so I would argue that no: making crytek's games with very simple graphics would not even be possible.
A lot of the most popular movies rely heavily on lush cinematography and advanced computer generated visual effects. Just as many of the most popular games rely on advanced graphics. However, not all do. For every Minecraft or FTL there's a Clerks or Blair Witch or Primer.
I feel that "game" is most closely related to "story", and what Crytek are talking about are "visual games", where there are also things like "text based games".
For Crysis, the graphics are absolutely the focus. For a game like Minecraft, graphics take a backseat to the innovative game mechanics. For Team Fortress 2, game mechanics and graphics both take a backseat to unique team-based multiplayer.
Games are a type of art, and art can take many forms. Are Michelangelo's sculptures "worse" than Picaso's masterpieces simply because they are far more life-like? Are modern movies worse than early 1900s films simply because they use high end special effects?
Take a step back and judge a game by its own merits - any individual element of a game's design is dependant on it's genre, art direction, platform, and specific goals. The question should not be "are graphics the most important part of video games?", but rather "are graphics the most important part of THIS game?".
Second thought: "Minecraft rather undermines the 'necessary' part."
Flippancy aside - there is a place for incredible graphics and I'd be the last person to want progress to halt in that direction but many games wade through the uncanny valley and the immersiveness(?) suffers. Others refuse to even play that game and seem no poorer because of it.
I rate Doom (original), Journey on the PS3 and of course Minecraft as amongst the most captivating gaming experiences I've had. Food for thought.
Minecraft is the perfect example of the game where the graphics are integral to how the game plays. The blocky style of Minecraft is part of what makes it so great and fun to play.
It's the definitive example of how you can make a game with graphics that are not only simple, but often quite ugly, and still capture a huge and diverse portion of the market with engaging gameplay.
Honestly, AAA games are getting more boring every year. It's all graphics and story, with no appreciation of the unique power of games (like Minecraft or Dwarf Fortress) to give players the tools to make their own stories.
Minecraft's graphics were critical.
The simplistic graphic style was required to grab basic gamers by literally assisting the gameplay. The '8 bit' looking block building style makes it dead simple for almost anybody to play the game and build things. The graphics in Minecraft are like having a guide rail.
Anti-aliasing and all that tech, better (professionally) drawn textures, etc. – all that could be done without affecting gameplay.
I agree with you that the 1×1×1 meter block is of central importance to the game’s success. It creates a game that strikes a perfect balance between giving you power to manipulate the world and giving you simple enough tools to manipulate the world. 3D editors exist but only very few people find playing around and creating worlds with them to be fun. Minecraft is much less powerful than a 3D editor (since it restricts you to those 1×1×1 meter blocks), but by reducing that power it is able to give you accessible tools. (There is obviously also a technical reason. Making the basic unit smaller than those blocks makes the worlds more computationally intensive.)
Yeah, having 1×1×1 meter blocks restricts the graphics, but that’s a consequence of a gameplay decision. That’s the causal link there.
I think the graphics played some role in Minecraft’s success, but only insofar as they were serviceable and not completely terrible.
When creative mode was made, the intention was emulate infiniminer and grab the fans of the abandoned game, but the survival mode, that is mostly a copy of dwarf fortress, was planned from start.
Minecraft is dwarf fortress with infiniminer interface.
Minecraft? What about all the text adventure games? Some where massive hits well after we have widespread color graphical games... Even as far as early nineties. (And people enjoy them even now, but I digress).
Unfortunately, costs for creating content of high graphical fidelity and for reworking it and whatnot very much mean that it is not a zero sum game.
You cannot take story and mechanical risks if you spend millions and millions on the engine licensing, art talent, and man hours required to perfectly render every shade of grass.
This is, incidentally, what is driving the AAA bubble and the slow implosion of studios we see today.
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. However, the devil is in the details. There are a plethora of ways to ruin immersion in video games, and the list is different for each player.
One of my personal immersion breakers is the appearance of the characters. As someone with brown skin, it gets hard to immerse myself in a game where the main acting character looks and sounds so different than I would imagine them myself. And in the rare event that a game has a minority main character, it's common for them to be laden with negative stereotypes.
The reason I can become immersed in a _book_ has a great deal to do with the freedom to envision characters a certain way. For _games_, this counts even more because we are often asked assume control of a character's actions, but have little control over much else.
For the majority of male players, this might not be an issue. But for females and minorities, this is so common that we really have to do some mental jujitsu just to get past it to the point of true immersion.
I think this phenomenon also explains why basketball and football games have a much higher amount of minority gamers than, say, adventure games and RPGs.
This isn't just an issue in video games-- Hollywood mirrors this to a degree. It's why a movie with all black characters (or a black lead) routinely draws large black audiences, often regardless of the quality of the movie.
One of the things I liked most about playing Crysis 3 was being able to identify with the main character more-so than in most FPS games.
Sometimes people want to be able to see themselves in the heroes, the side-kicks, the minions, and even the villains.
Given the reality of the statement, it seems very acceptable. Graphics are only a small piece of the puzzle. Adding in realistic physics and immersive sound scores add a ton to a game. Leaving that out in the title is pretty weak journalism imho.
To me, graphics constitutes aesthetics, and usability. Good art direction combined with great user interface = 60% of a good game.
If in this article, they're talking about as many pixels, particles and polygons as possible, it's a bit of a rough statement; it might be true for their games, but not for all games.
http://spacecreeps.com/essays/when_a_game_means_something/in...
It pretty much depends on the genre. For some hack-n-slash or RTS that may be true, but let's say for a good RPG - the depth of the story outweighs the graphics factor.
A game without gameplay is a 3d demo.
If you mean the graphics appropriate to the game in question, then sure (whether the 60% was just a silly rounding above half because Yerli is graphics biased, who knows).
Minecraft has graphics, and they added substantially to the aesthetic style of the game, helping to make it stand out. It obviously doesn't have Crysis level graphics however, and would have failed if that had been attempted.
Tetris, as a classic example, doesn't need high powered graphics, but its style of graphics are still a substantial part the game, as necessary for the basic gameplay.
Is someone going to choose to play Crysis 3 because the graphics are a bit better than say the Frostbite 2 engine in Battlefield 3, or whatever Call of Duty is using? I don't think so.
I do applaud Crytek for being pretty developer friendly with their Crytek SDK, but maybe they should look at how Dayz really helped out Bohemia and release a game SDK too.
I'm not sure what engine Far Cry 3 is using, but I'm sure some developers could create some real interesting mods with an SDK.