Crytek CEO: Graphics Is 60% Of The Game

Most hardcore gamers, ourselves included believe that shiny graphics are no substitute for good gameplay. Unsurprisingly, Crytek boss, Cevat Yerli, holds the exact opposite point of view.

“People say that graphics don’t matter,” he said, “but play Crysis and tell me they don’t matter. It’s always been about graphics driving gameplay.”

“In Crysis 3 it’s the grass and the vegetation, the way the physics runs the grass interact and sways them in the wind. You can read when an AI enemy is running towards you just by observing the way the grass blades.”

“Graphics, whether it’s lighting or shadows, puts you in a different emotional context and drives the immersion,” he asserted. “And immersion is effectively the number one thing we can use to help you buy into the world.”

“The better the graphics, the better the physics, the better the sound design, the better the technical assets and production values are – paired with the art direction, making things look spectacular and stylistic is 60 per cent of the game.”

To be honest, the way Cevat Yerli puts his point makes it hard to argue against it. What do you think?

Add new comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


It's this simple. Crytek is

It's this simple. Crytek is one of the few companies that still makes games from the ground up. Props to them for investing **** tons of money into a new gaming engine. I have a GTX690 and the game makes my eyes bleed with joy at some points.


lol crytec CEO is dumb , because MGS 1 with *******ps1 graphics still so much immersive than all your crysis games .


The guy mentions better graphics improve immersion, that is a load of bull. Immersion isn't a feature you can add in a game, it's a skill players have to varying degrees. Some of the most immersive games ever made are old and use sprite or early 3d graphics. This guy is living proof of how far the gaming industry has fallen since its golden days. Graphics are nice but that's not where the majority of a games quality comes from (unless it's a pretty bad game).


Article says 60% is graphics which is spot on.... Try playing counterstrike in black and white using 20 dots on screen, i wonder if u'll like it as much..... some of you morons just can't face facts.

Try playing an old snes rpg

Try playing an old snes rpg with sprite graphics and 256 colors, or better yet, explain why final fantasy 7 is still considered the best in the series since it's ugly as ****. Talk about morons not facing facts, lol.

if you use calculator screen

if you use calculator screen as monitor I doubt Crysis will look much better than cs1.6. I play games to have fun and don't see how graphics effect that, also 60% of nothing is still nothing and that's what most modern games are.


All of Crytek's games are vegetation. Jungles & jungles & more jungles. Even the city games are ******* jungles. Graphical showcases mostly. I love Crysis, but c'mon man, do something else besides trees & blowing grass.

Of course good graphics are

Of course good graphics are always nice! Just dont bet all your horses on graphics alone. It shouldn't give developers an excuse to be lazy and less creative. Not worth the sacrifice of storyline, learn to balance the two or stick to your story and/or gameplay value.

False perceptions

Eyecandy is not a good goal for building a game... sure, it will look awesome the day it ships, but in a few years it will be dated and ugly, good gameplay, on the other hand, will make a game last for ages and make it a classic. If you don't believe me, just take a look at games that were pure eyecandy in the 90s... nobody remembers them anymore, good gameplay games will always endure. Also pure eyecandy games quickly get boring after you are awed by the eyecandy and get used to it, while you'll keep coming back for more if the game is genuinely GOOD.

More Like 30%

I don't consider graphics to be the most important as Mr Yerli wants to point out. Take the Morrowind vs Oblivion example, the former was almost always preferred over the latter due to it's gameplay and story. In my opinion gameplay and story will always come over the graphics, If he wants to be such a loudmouth about graphics I'd like to see him doing a game that isn't FPS. Maybe a horror one where atmosphere and immersion truly shine.

graphics obviously superseded

graphics obviously superseded gameplay before 2000, when video games were restricted by hardware limitations...lets hear him explain why Shootmania is so popular. lets hear him explain why Faster Than Light was so popular. lets hear him explain why people play games on their SNES, N64 or PS2. lets hear him explain why COUNTER STRIKE 1.6 IS STILL THE PREDOMINANT FPS E-SPORT AFTER BEING RELEASED ALMOST 14 YEARS AGO. what a toolbox. get this guy out of the PC industry and into Hollywood. thats where he belongs. dont try to sell me on Crysis 3 by claiming 60% of games are graphics while using your own product as support where the focus of Crysis 3 is on graphics. i want to punch this guy in the face through the internet right now, but physics wont allow it.

So it finally explain why

So it finally explain why their games sucks so much. In a world where the envelope is everything, everyone knows crysis but a few knows about arma, mount & blade, assetto corsa, live for speed and such. Oh and.. physics and graphics are too VERY different things. Who cares about starring at grass if you don't have any fun playing the game? Who is retarded enough to stare at grass in a game? Why don't you fcking go outside if you wanna see realistic grass? Games are about GAMEPLAY.


I can totally believe that graphics is 60% of the game, as far as Crysis 3 is concerned, however that is also why that particular game isn't very good. I mean, it's pretty and all, but as a whole it isn't worth much as a game. I still appreciate the fact that they are working hard on developing games with great graphics, but in my opinion Crysis 2 & 3 are lacklustre compared to the first one. Pretty games are good, good games are better.


right as i see it without graphics you loose the feeling of immersion for example the original doom vs crysis 3 stick em on a big screen which one looks more immersive, which one sucks you into the game world more etc i see his point if graphics didn't matter we'd still be playing pong

So... where does minecraft

So... where does minecraft fit in? Id much rather play GTA:SA over GTA 4 any day, infact, id say they ruined GTA when they released the 4th one. Dont get me wrong, good graphics are great to look at and they really do amaze me when i see a next gen game, but it soon fades if the gameplay isnt up to scratch. I'd say assassins creed 3 hit the spot with its amazing graphics and brilliant gameplay

Assassins creed 3 hit teh

Assassins creed 3 hit teh spot big time, especially the naval battles. The next AC should be fantastic. If the game doesn't have the mechanics to keep people interested than there won't be any major hype for people wanting to buy a game. The only Crysis that had major hype back in the day was the first one, and only because it was more of a benchmark for a computer than really for gaming.

Add new comment