In the case of Crysis 3, the graphics were 100% of the game unfortunately. Even for a shooter, the gameplay was rather dull to me.

I didn't like 2 so haven't bothered with 3. As much as you aparently don't like Crysis 3 imagine the same game without the graphics, sound, physics etc. Those aspects are esential to making a good game great. Even if you think that the so called "fluff" is getting in the way of making a game good to you that doesn't really disproove the general point, if those aspects weren't important it would be impossible to get in the way. Of course just those aspects alone won't make it a great game, but they are all very important aspects of games. Imagine if tetris instead of showing the shape of the blocks on screen just showed a single symbol and you had to memorise what shape all the blocks were and how you rotated them, the game would be basically impossible to play wouldn't it. Imagine if fighting games had no animation and no sound would it be playable? 

Which is not to say a game with smplae graphics that serve it's gameplay or even text bassed games can't be great. And also that doesn't mean that a game with just great art and sound design will automatically be great ether. 

The most important part of a video game is the ''game'' part, not the ''video'' part.

Realistically its 50% Gameplay and 50% Graphics.

Now as they are a graphics middlewere company, of course their going to say graphics make up 60% of a game, they're trying to position graphics as the key aspect and hey guess what, they have a graphics solution a.k.a Cryteck 3 their graphics engine.

Crytek: Graphics are "60% of our game" (probably undertracked).

Fixed.

I never said that they weren't important. But thats how Crytek designs their games, apparently. Style over substance. You could have the best graphics, animation, sound and production value in the biz but it doesn't matter if the game, at it's core, is not great. Crytek calling those aspects 60% of the game sounds to me, that they put all of those things ahead of solid game mechanics, story and characters. And that's the problem I have with their games. They're just not that much fun or interesting (for me) to play.

I get what you're saying, I really do.. but when a graphics focused company says a silly statement like this.. its hard to not to laugh at it.

Realistically it varies from genre to genre and game to game. And there are far more aspects to games than just mechanics and graphics.

I disagree, graphics aren't even 30% of a game. The story, characters, physics and gameplay are far more important. Gameplay and story especially are what make games. If graphics were such a big deal, then classics like Super Mario Bros, Tetris, Alex Kidd, Sonic, Pac Man and so on would be crap by now but they are just as playable now as they were in the day.

If graphics are so important, why do I enjoy Minecraft so much more than any of your games?

He makes a point on the importance of graphics for immersion and the ability for visuals to compliment gameplay but to say the majority of a games quality is based on visual alone is just plain wrong.

Gameplay, story, characters, dialogue and setting are all very important to a well rounded excellent game, depending on the genre and game style of course.

If story is "far more important" why do you enjoy Minecraft at all?