It's really important to differentiate between graphics and aesthetics.

I really respect Crytek for trying to push graphical boundaries, and being one of the only studios brave enough to focus on vegetation, which is really under-represented in gaming's environmental portfolio (and which I imagine is really difficult to create with in 3D!).

I also definitely agree that immersion should be the objective if you choose to try 'realistic' graphics. But while I can admire their visuals from a technical standpoint, and love the natural environments, aesthetically their games don't do a whole lot for me. To be fair, you see some mods around that seem do seem to make their games genuinely beautiful, but god knows what kind of machine you'd need to run those.

It doesn't help that, after all that, their gameplay is so stagnant either.

Of course their games are 60% graphics. Of course graphics are important. And they have to say that, photorealism is the only thing they do right.

But let's think about it and take an example indie game. Let's say Braid. Are the graphics important ? Yeah. Would somebody buy the game if the graphics were of XBLIG quality ? Not as much people,, I tend to say. But the graphics are like 30% of total dev time, on Braid ?

If the percentage is based on dev time and budget, not that much.

Which games will become classics and get played again and again in 20 years?

Great. Nailed it in my opinion.

Tetris inspired a lot of puzzle games you know today. It is testimant that having better graphics doesn't always = a better game. What Crytek are saying is that we make these beautiful games and they push gameplay forward (in Crytek's case, they don't). While they're focused on making things look pretty and tessalated and worrying about the blades of grass.. they're setting asside the primary thing in a game - the gameplay. You know the shooting mechanics and stuff that actually matters in an FPS. Better production values and graphics means shit when your game is not fun to play.

Crytek just doesn't know how to make a good game.

Graphics can make or break a game, but it not how "realistic" or HD in your face the graphics are that makes or breaks a game, it's mainly the frame-rate and how well the style fits the mood the game is trying portray. Good graphics are nice and some eye candy is fine but to blow your budget on just making your game that doesn't make a a game, good or not. Graphics, Mechanics, Interface and Sound all work together to make a game. And I would put each at 25%, 40%, 25% and 10%. Good mechanics and a decent interface always trumps anything the other two can put together.

I would say 50% are graphics and artstyle.


Best example Xenoblade I think its one of the best rpgs this gen but the graphics really rip me out of the game flow Zelda is the same with its blurry backgrounds. I just can't turn a blind eye. It would be so much better as 360 ps3 or Wii U game. Strangely Mario managed always a timeless style. I still can play Mario 64 without even thinking about graphics.But Infamous 1 and 2 are barely playable for me.

40% at the first 10 min, after that it could easyly scale to 20% 30%.