Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Apr 15, 2013.
stay away please if you have nothing to say.
Exactly. Spending £250 + on a GPU is perfectly acceptable to me on the offchance of a good title that's a little power hungry, and the ability to max out existing games that I enjoy. It's not like it's getting me into debt. That doesn't change the fact graphics are usually pretty low on my list of desirable traits in a game.
Which is why they haven't released a fun game since Far Cry 1.
So crytek have never heard of a game called World of warcraft then? Possibly the most or if not in the top three most successful games of all time.
I have to agree with him, its exactly why i dont play Nintendo games, Indie games, downloadable games and everything that is not Triple A multimillion budget game.
I just dont have time to waste on crap, im jumping from one awesome game to another from Tomb Raider to God of war Ascension to Bioshock Infinite back to DarkSiders 2 then maybe RE6 and its time to play the Last of us on PS3 and then Crysis 3 and something new.
cheapest game i can play is something like FarCry 3 Blood Dragon which is not actually cheap just short version of big game
I for one loved skyrim for the gameplay the graphics were secondary, but that's my genre of gaming, hell morrowind had crappy graphics but if it was released today and I never played it I'd be in love with it.
Its good to have some companies that focus on gameplay and other that focus on graphics, depending on the mood of the player, we can choose what we want to play
Crytek are not 100% of the game market, plenty of others to choose from when you're done saying Ooh and Ahh
CSS is a fantastic game. Simple idea, simple maps and now dated graphics but it works on every level. Gameplay is awesome and a strong community spirit on certain servers keeps me going back for more.
I'm not a big fan of the Crysis genre tbh. Good games but the AI just has me in stitches (caveat: I haven't played the most recent game).
I agree with Crytek that graphics are immersion. Graphics are very important to a game. But do the graphics fit the gameplay? Does the graphics engine capture the games' genre, to create the better gameplay.
Graphics create gameplay folks, no matter now you look at it, it's just the truth. You have this huge fantastic looking game like Crysis3, but the engine barely fits the gameplay model. I feels very stuff and clunky.
So you know what? In this case graphics brought about a very mediocre game.
Now look at a game like Skyrim. Fantastic graphics, especially with community high res mods (NOT Bethesda's), that can easily challenge Crysis 3 in terms of better graphics. Yet it keeps the good gameplay elements gamers want. Why is this? Well think about it. The gameplay reflected on the graphics engine. Bethesda got mostly everything they wanted in the game due to the GRAPHICS engine being able to produce the gameplay they wanted.
Look at GW1, no Z-axis. The 3rd full campaign for GW was canceled called "Utopia" due to the GRAPHICS engine not being able to handle the features they wanted. So they scraped "Utopia" did a smaller Add-on known as "Eye of the North", then saved everything they wanted to do for GW2 with the highly modded GW1 engine.
So to say Crytek is wrong is well wrong.
Someone mentioned FF7 and grapahics not being important.
To that person, you do realize FF7 was the first 3D RPG in the series? While it was superior graphically at the time to most RPG on consoles, it held the gameplay....why?
While the graphics engine was visually superior at the time, it was also built for the gameplay. It melded together very well, and created a great gaming experience. Infact the graphics to FF7 are what attracted many people that didn't even know what Final Fantasy was to the series. They saw this awesome CG commercial followed by the battle system in-game and their minds were blown. People both fans and non fans alike bought PS's just FOR this game. So graphics do attract people, but if the engine can't produce the gameplay it will be an attractive dud.
To say graphics are not important isn't very smart, so Crytek nailed it.
Look at TF2, they wanted a humorous game to come about from it and got it with a cell shaded look.
Borderlands 2 is another example of this. Graphics yet again define immersion and gameplay. Physx is an option here and not needed, but DOES add immersion to the game for sure.
Now take some of your indie games. Beautiful 2D graphics, but they ALSO fit the gameplay. Again graphics mold gameplay, art style directs the story in more ways than one.
Crytek you are 100% right. Now just take your own advice, and mold your gameplay to your graphics engine, instead of just throwing it in there.
Well, I don't know if its really possible to put a percentage on how much something matters. Take classic games from the SNES or N64. While they are a little bit painful to play graphically, they have a good story line and are still fun to play.
Come into the early bits of this century with Halo and Halo 2 and stuff and you get pretty good (at the time insane) graphics and pretty good immersion/story line too.
I've only played the first 3 Crysis games (exclude the newest one) and while the first two are stunning graphically, its really just running around shooting Korean soldiers or squid robots.
Imho, the best game I have ever played is Skyrim. I don't get around to playing that many games, but damn... Skyrim has pretty good graphics and the immersion is off the charts good.
Now to sum up what I was saying. Do graphics make them more or less of a good game? Not for me. Like others have said, it makes more "real". It's not really a 1+1 = 2 kind of thing though.
I played FF7 for the first time when i had a PS2 and FFX, back in ~2004, and it was more fun than FFX.
IF you say so, but the art direct in the games you love have more of an impact than what you think. If they drew everything as stick figures it'd pretty much suck.
You can have a beautiful 2D SNES game, and a beautiful 3D PC game. Graphics/Art drive the games way more than people give credit to.
Graphics/Art drive the way a game plays, how the character looks and moves, does it make the game feel stiff or smooth? Does the graphics/art style fit the Genre of game? 2D or 3D does not matter of the graphics/art direct do not fit the idea as a whole.
Chrono Trigger for instance. It just would NOT give the same impact as an updated title as it did on the SNES. WHY?
The game was created around that Graphics/Art style, and it best suits it. You can't bring back that same feeling from even 3D to 2D with other games.
I definitely agree with what you are saying. For the most part games aren't taken to that low of a standard of graphics, that's why I said all that. I still think it's hard to put a number on it when say... OOT is a good game and the graphics suck (imho). Would it be cool if the graphics were as good as Crysis? Oh hell yes, I'd love it. How much more? I don't know. That's why I say there is no real number. It's subjective.
Somebody needs to tell them that their Crysis games aren't 60% fun.
Graphics are a huge part of the gameplay (at least nowadays) so theoretically he didn't lie. i can believe the 60% number.
it must be said though that graphics are no replacement for real gameplay, graphics are complementary, not a replacement.
we can all survive poor visuals if the gameplay is excellent, but we can't live with excellent graphics and $hite boring gameplay
even graphics whores often play games with crappy graphics if the gameplay is awesome.
60% of the game is graphics? Crytek's line of thinking is part of whats wrong with the games of today. Some of the best games I ever played were on the 8-bit Nintendo with games that looked like sh!t by todays standards.
graphics possibility was too extremely limited at this time. nostalgia is offtly for a lot in the idea we can have of what the "old games " was. ( i can tell enough with the AtariST )
When i dont completely agree with him, graphism are not today just " the look " of it ".
Physic, AI, simulation, environnement, characters, movements, wind rains, shadows, lights, particule... interaction with the environnement...
This said, a graphism technology " game " without a good gameplay or in the case the game need it, a good storyline ( A multiplayer fps or a racing game dont need a storyline ). will still be a bad game. But today the graphic engine is too part of the gameplay.
FPS does need a storyline otherwise there's no point to the game at all.
A multiplayer FPS ? i doubt . if we speak about solo, yes ofc, or you just frags enemy in a corridor.