Crytek: Graphics “Matter… 60% Of The Game”

Crytek have always pushed the boundaries for gaming visuals. Just take a look at the Crysis series, you can’t deny that they all look stunning. However, each game has – you could argue – always managed to fail to deliver a solid gaming experience.

CEO of Crytek, Cevat Yerli, has very boldly claimed that graphics “matter” and account for “60% of the game”. He further adds “Graphics, whether it’s lighting or shadows, puts you in a different emotional context and drives the immersion… And immersion is effectively the number one thing we can use to help you buy into the world.”

I find it hard to believe that audio, the underlying plot, the way the game plays and character performances can only account for 40% of a game. Immersion, in my opinion, is all about these things, not just about the visuals.

With so many retro games still being played today, and re-releases popping up on the store week in week out, it’s easy to work out that graphics really don’t matter at all!

Do graphics matter to you – as much in the way Yerli claims, that is?

Source: Xbox 360 Magazine


  1. Visuals are important, graphic fidelity not, as long as they fulfill the visuals.

    And in those remaining percentages you need to add audio as well, as a very important factor in my mind.

  2. This is obviously a very subjective topic and it shows where Crytec’s priorities are. That might explain why I have only played around half an hour of Crysis 1 and haven’t touched any of their other games.

  3. I’d say 60% is a massive overstatement. Of course they matter, as if a game looks downright ugly it will detract from the overall experience but graphics are nowhere near 60% of the game. For me at least.

  4. He’s wrong about graphics.

    But if he meant immersion? Then yes, he’s right.

    But that relies on more than just graphics- sound, script and physics are massively important here, and all three are more important than graphics for the purpose of immersion.

  5. It does matter to many (most?) of us, but you can’t put a figure on it that means anything to anyone else. Like all art, it is subjective.

    For instance, I loved the way Uncharted 2 looked, as well as played. Especially *that* townscape in Nepal when the camera pans to a wider view up the street. WipEout HD also – including the expansion pack (I forget its name). There were times, I freely admit, in which I stopped playing those games and just looked. Would less good graphics have diminished the experience for me? No. You don’t miss what you haven’t had. But I didn’t miss The Fighting Temeraire until I saw it in the flesh, so to speak. Afterwards, however….

  6. so according to that guy, Thomas Was Alone would be an awful game. o_O

    but it’s not surprising this is the opinion of the ceo of the company who specialise in style over substance.

  7. Crytek are probably shouting about this 60% figure to keep their investors happy, otherwise I’m sure they’d just say ‘most’. I don’t agree with them either, imagination is probably the biggest force in the enjoyment of most games and a successful game just has to harness some of it. Ye olde X-Wing on ye olde floppies was terribly simple looking and gameplay-wise very straightforward, and yet thanks to every players burning desire to be Luke Skywalker it became a success. Zoooom, peow peow!

  8. Given how rubbish Crysis’ storytelling and gameplay is I’m surprised they said as low as 60%… :-|

  9. What’s with the sheer stupidity of statements recently? Adam Orth and now this?

  10. I’m going to buck the trend completely and say I agree with his sentiment. Are most people in this thread all hipsters trying to pretend thy’re too cool for good graphics? If you grew up playing games since 1976 – like yours truly at age 4 – you might remember how every time graphics took a generational leap, so did your heart rate.

    There is no doubt gameplay is critical, but nothing, NOTHING, takes me out of the moment like shit graphics. Even games like Uncharted, with truly outstanding story telling, have on occassion ripped me out of their world due to a sub-par render/texture/model/animation.

    For those still questioning wtf I’m taling about, Google uncanny valley. We either need to cross it completely or stay safely away from the edge. That’s why games with cartoony graphics still work, they don’t approach the valley. For the rest, the ones trying to emulate real life – GRAHPICS MATTER.

    Perhaps in 10 years time from now 3d modeling, lighting, texture capture/application, and animation will be so easy that anyone with an auto scanning wrist chip holophone (tm, r, patent pending) can do it, and we won’t even think about graphics because they’ll be so good. But for now it’s still a frontier that NEEDS pioneers.

    Bravo Crytek, bravo.

    • In the case of the last couple of years when you see some of the Wii games selling better than most games on the market you could probably argue people don’t mind that much about graphics.
      And minecraft has loads of players but looks a pixaled mess half the time.

Comments are now closed for this post.