James
MyGaming Alumnus
Crytek: "it's always been about graphics driving gameplay"
Crytek CEO sees the value in graphical prowess
Crytek CEO sees the value in graphical prowess
Crytek: "it's always been about graphics driving gameplay"
- Thread starter James
- Start date
Dragonic
New member
I for one will always argue that with people... you can have the best graphics ever but if the gameplay or story is lame then i'd much rather play something that has 5 pixels to simulate a person than something that looks lifelike. That's why the DS was so awesome, such crappy graphic power but the games.... oh man... awesome every time.
Having said that, I can agree with them that certain aspects of graphics does make a difference in terms of feel...
For example I played FEAR1 on lowest detail and the game was cool but wasn't all that scary... later turned up to max and shat myself for my own shadow every time I walk past a light source... then again it could also just be me being a sissy.
Having said that, I can agree with them that certain aspects of graphics does make a difference in terms of feel...
For example I played FEAR1 on lowest detail and the game was cool but wasn't all that scary... later turned up to max and shat myself for my own shadow every time I walk past a light source... then again it could also just be me being a sissy.
Lyt
New member
Crysis gameplay was always semi for me, if not for the awesome graphics I wouldn't touch it.
It helped Crysis 3. The pixels blew my mind when playing on high settings.
It helped Crysis 3. The pixels blew my mind when playing on high settings.
Last edited:
Lyt
New member
I tried to play Crysis 3 after I installed it, and was then told that my GPU isn't DX11-compatible.
You sir are missing out on the good stuff!
I agree the game was pretty boring, nothing spectacular about the gameplay or the story, but I say again I was literally blown away by the graphics. It was an experience I think I never had before.
Necuno
The Piper
Juvenile
'til proven sinful
Too true. I don't have the luxury of a lot of money though, or a job. "The perils of studenthood".
What I have now should suffice though. Nothing I'm playing is very demanding on my GPU at the moment. Though, more often than not 'm having to set graphical settings to Lows and Mediums to get a respectable framerate.
Far Cry 3 is a bit challenging for my GPU. Sometimes have to sacrifice framerate for looks. Even on Low, some areas are very tasking for my GPU. And in an FPS, framerate is crucial.
Last edited:
thecoolman458
New member
I feel that graphics are nice but not everything I think the plot is the most important thing. That is why the old Pokemon is well and why other people like it.
S1ght
New member
I made the mistake of playing Bioshock Infinite before Crysis 3...I played maybe 30 minutes and I haven't gone back into it since. So I completely disagree that graphics drives gameplay, what a load of rubbish. Bioshock Infinite, Portal, Team Fortress, Half Life are all great examples where their graphics aren't as realistic as Crysis or Battlefield but their gameplay were all a hell of a lot better imo.
Not all games can have everything. It's nice that there is a variety of game styles.
I remember when Far Cry 1 came out, the only thing that people focused on was the graphics and the cool semi-open world. It got good reviews, despite having a generally mediocre-to-crappy gameplay and a non-existent plot. But its cool graphics really did contribute to the gameplay in a way we now take for granted, but was pretty amazing at the time.
No one (that I can now recall) did the open world long distance viewing as well until Oblivion came out two years later.
Not all games can be compared to Bioshock or the Orange Box, since all games would lose, regardless of graphics or gameplay. It should also be noted that Half Life shouldn't be compared to Battlefield 3. It should be compared to Battlefield 1942, which had comparable graphics at a similar time. The source engine actually had a pretty massive budget for graphics, which kinda proves the point of the Crytek guys.
I remember when Far Cry 1 came out, the only thing that people focused on was the graphics and the cool semi-open world. It got good reviews, despite having a generally mediocre-to-crappy gameplay and a non-existent plot. But its cool graphics really did contribute to the gameplay in a way we now take for granted, but was pretty amazing at the time.
No one (that I can now recall) did the open world long distance viewing as well until Oblivion came out two years later.
Not all games can be compared to Bioshock or the Orange Box, since all games would lose, regardless of graphics or gameplay. It should also be noted that Half Life shouldn't be compared to Battlefield 3. It should be compared to Battlefield 1942, which had comparable graphics at a similar time. The source engine actually had a pretty massive budget for graphics, which kinda proves the point of the Crytek guys.
S1ght
New member
True but if Half Life 2: Episode 3 got release with the Source 1 Engine, I should be able to compare that to Battlefield 3? And there'd probably be a very good chance that I'd enjoy that a fair bit more than Battlefield 3.
Grievous
New member
Well that's like your opinion man.
I actually found half life episode 2 kind of boring. Its was alright, but I found the gameplay pretty average and slightly dated for the time. My point being when it comes to topics like that its purely someones opinion, there is no right and wrong. some people like having games with cool graphics, some don't care. You welcome to compare anything you want to anything else. But you kind of need to compare them, not just say one is better than the other without actually comparing any of the the features in each.
Well that's like your opinion man. What if there is a right or wrong?
Kidding.
Definitely.
On topic, read this interesting discussion:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...m_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=news
Where he explains how many companies try to do everything and fail miserably. Usually it's by spending too much on graphics (which supports S1ght's view against things like crysis) but the argument holds that studios can only have a limited focus...
Grievous
New member
hmmm I think in that case, I'm right?! Must be I'm right don't believe it could possibly be any other way. Your forgiven for being wrong though since you provided a good link.
My main point is that amazeball graphics doesn't make the game. Yes, it doesn't hurt but the fact that Crysis 3 and Battlefield 3 both look fantastic (which there's no doubt that they do) doesn't make either of them good games.
Saint_Dee
The Phantom Poet
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what it's all about.
