Crysis 3 is a Classic Example of Graphics over Gameplay

Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli, has claimed that Crysis 3 is a “masterpiece” and the reason it’s not doing that well at retail or critically, is because of gamer fatigue of the current generation consoles. While the PS3 and Xbox 360 have been out for a long time, that is no excuse for Crysis 3 to be a generic power-suit shooter, that does little, if any, to push the first person shooter genre forward. This game is the epitome of graphics over gameplay.

(Please ‘Like’ us on Facebook if you haven’t already done so. It helps us keep great, exclusive content coming to the site, plus doing so automatically enters you into any contests Playeressence is currently doing….. and it’s the nice thing to do.Follow the link here, or use the Facebook ‘Like’ box on the right sidebar. Thanks!) 

The Framerate 

Why would Crytek think graphics are more than a steady framerate? Crysis 3 looks fantastic, but at the cost of the game dipping to as low as 18 FPS. Constantly swaying from 30 to 24 to 22 to 26 FPS, Crysis 3′s wild framerate is a disaster. Crytek should have reduced the graphics a little bit to steady the framerate. Check out the 360 vs PS3 comparison video below.

You can’t release a shooter, that looks like every other shooter out there, and expect to sell 5 million copies. A masterpiece is a game that innovates through gameplay mechanics and controls. Crysis 3 is about as innovative as Dragon Ball Z game at this point. A masterpiece pushes the genre forward, creating benchmarks for other developers to strive for. Resident Evil 4 is a perfect example of this, setting up games like Uncharted and Gears of War.

How Important are Graphics?

 I’m a gameplay first guy. I like graphics as well, but nothing should come in the way of a smooth framerate and gameplay. This is one thing that scares me in the so-called “next generation” of gaming. It seems like Sony and Microsoft will be optimizing their games for graphics instead of framerates. The Killzone Shadow Fall demo was running at 30 FPS in 1080p. Doesn’t the PS4 have enough power to run games in 60 FPS? If you have to reduce the graphics of Killzone Shadow Fall to get it to run in 60 FPS, they should have done it. ID Software’s John Carmack stated a while back that 30 FPS will be the target for most games on the PS4 and Xbox 720. I really loath this decision, because both systems will have the power to run all games in 60 FPS with great graphics. But graphic whoring developers feel that visuals are more important.

I’m waiting to see how Nintendo’s big guns are going to perform. Most of Nintendo’s franchises have always ran at 60 FPS. Metroid, F-Zero, Star Fox, and Smash Bros always have that smoothness when you play them. New Super Mario Bros U and Nintendo Land are both locked at 60 FPS, but those games are fairly simple. I want to see how the Wii U handles a more complex game like Bayonetta 2. However, the game that I’m most interesting in playing, is Xenoblade 2. The large vistas, huge monsters, and beautiful graphics could really stress the Wii U’s GPGPU. Will there be framerate dips?

Crytek and Square Enix need to wise up

It’s going to be interesting to see what developers do with all the power the PS4 and Xbox 720 have. Gameplay might be on the back-burner as developers really want to wow gamers with shiny new graphics, or target renders (Capcom’s Deep Down). As gamers, we need to remember why we play games. Good gameplay trumps all, don’t let developers think they can focus all their attention on graphics and presentation. Gameplay needs to be at the forefront. Look at what happened to the Final Fantasy series. The Final Fantasy 13 line of games are crap. Chrono Trigger, a now 18-year-old game, destroys Final Fantasy 13 in every aspect but graphics. I would even argue Chrono Trigger’s presentation is better, and that game has no voice-overs. Crytek needs to stop blaming the old consoles, and look at themselves in the mirror. Challenge yourself to make a game that’s innovative. Challenge yourself to create a game that does things different. Nobody cares that you maxed out the PS3 and Xbox 360 if the game runs like a slide show.

What do you guys think? 

Do developers favor graphics too much over gameplay? Do you think Crysis 3 is a masterpiece? Do you just want Cevat Yerli to shut up? I want to hear about it. Put your thoughts in the comments below.

Check out the latest episode of The Playeressence Vidcast. Furious Francis, gets a little Furious, over Microtransactions.

 More From Playeressence 

 Lighting Returns                 Is Xenoblade Worthy of     Diablo 3 PvP Canned
 Battle System                       GOTY?                       
Playeressence Original    Next Generation News      All the Top Gaming News
Content & Shows                Central, All info here           For the day here

14 Responses to Crysis 3 is a Classic Example of Graphics over Gameplay

  1. barshank says:

    Next-Gen is about graphics!!! If it wasn't then PS2 would still be running the show. Which game couldn't you do on the PS2 that is possible on the PS3 if you lowered the graphics?? I'm sure they can find some way to make Move compatible with PS2.

  2. rangel says:

    And all Crisis 3 is playing very well. The problem is the short campaign. Otherwise, I have the feeling that you're really a predator or a ninja. controls are good all you need is there. None 1 million unnecessary/unusable things. Played like greased with lubricant. crysis not bf or COD. You have to be a fan of the series because it is not a simple shooter Like cod. That's the problem.

  3. AndrewKV says:

    I'm also of the opinion that gameplay should be the priority; if you're looking for stunning graphics, go see a movie. It will be cheaper. Or better yet, go outside. Now THAT'S realism.

  4. jesgrad07 says:

    I think Activision and Nintendo get the concept of: gameplay first, graphics later. Graphics are nice, but if it makes the gameplay suffer then no thank you. I don't buy games to stare at them for hours I buy them to play them for hours. I think they could do so much more with that engine than just generic…"masterpieces".

  5. rangel says:

    I never said that 18 frames are well.18 fps are very bad!I'm talking about 30. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20

    No lags the game is playable and 30 fps
    For this game is made of 30 frames to have the same detail and effects, but with few resources. 60 frames wants a lot resources.There not huge difference…You have spoken like… like u can play at 30 fps. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yBsgtA8WSE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu2pFLqz41k

    I can not find the exact link for nvidia…. But I found a similar

    The FPS Numbers Explained

    When we benchmark our video cards and look at the graphs, we aim to get to a certain level of FPS which we consider playable. While many may argue that the human eye can't see over 24 FPS or 30 FPS, any true gamer will tell you that as we climb higher in Frames Per Seconds (FPS), the overall gameplay feels smoother.

    -no difference so great that it can not play

    http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4922/nvidia_gefo

    how much smoother??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yBsgtA8WSE
    And you want to prune the graph to have 60 frames. No sense
    Both go well

    • Furious Francis says:

      I\’m sorry but this doesn\’t prove your point. I can tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS. Fighting game fans would also disagree with you as most fighting games today have to run in 60 FPS. May 24 to 30 is not that big of a deal but 30 to 60 is a huge deal. Call of Duty looks and feels faster than Killzone and Crysis 3.

      • rangel says:

        Of course there is a difference but not huge(Just go a little smoother but that does not mean it is not smooth and 30 fps), and as seen in my videos.
        You speak like… is impossible to play at 30 frames..

        COD is arcade and unreal game for this reason it's so fast.Who can shoot the AK-47 and jump on the boxes???Оr run and shoot with two Uzi in his hands???Even Schwarzenegger can not do this…
        For that I prefer bf3.

        And as you said – like gif
        I played Crisis 3 ps3 even under 3d mode but never see lag.And you said it was like a gif.
        And not 18 fps on average 24/25 http://www.lensoftruth.com/heads-up-crysis-3-scre
        Global percent of torn frames: 0.0
        Global average FPS: 24.54

        • Furious Francis says:

          How big of a difference there is between 30 and 60 is subjective. If you care about graphics more, which you do, then 30 is fine. If one cares about gameplay more, then 60 FPS is ideal.

          As far as COD goes, its a video game its not supposed to be realistic. If you want realistic, go join the army. And I play BF3 on my PC in 60 FPS, and it smokes BF3 on the consoles in 30 FPS.

          Yes, the average is not 18 FPS, but it dips down to that at times. Watch the video I posted.

          • rangel says:

            Enough of this nonsense: If you want realistic, go join the army…
            Developers are wondering how to make real textures and effects , end you send him to the army.
            Or if you want more fps, get gun play in the street there will be a lot more fps and resolution.

            I see that you are a huge PC fanboy. And Example killzone 4 not 60 fps even 90 fps have, I will still CRITICAL.I see this on the 1 paragraph in your topic.

            ps;And calmly. Talk a lot :THAT WILL have 1080 even 3d at 60 fps.
            And what was rumored before displaying ps4… proved true!
            And for killzone 4 is still alpha, and how found these 30 shots???
            This is just to show how it will look…

  6. Rangel says:

    Author of the topic is a great delusion! Yes crysis 3 have drop frame but never lags.I played the whole game on ps3.***The Killzone Shadow Fall demo was running at 30 FPS in 1080p. Doesn’t the PS4 have enough power to run games in 60 FPS? If you have to reduce the graphics of Killzone Shadow Fall to get it to run in 60 FPS, they should have done it.***How to prune the graph to achieve 60 frames???For What are those 60 frames??? From nvidia say that more than 30 fps eye unable to capture.The same is said by a dice ***30 frames you are completely enough to play***Yes of course that 60 is better than 30 but at what cost?Yes of course that 60 is better than 30 but at what cost?Reduction of detail NEVER!

    • Furious Francis says:

      So your saying 18 FPS is ok if it doesn\’t lag? Many players would agree there is a noticeable different between 60 and 30 FPS. 60 feels better for gameplay.

      Please provide the link to where Nvidia says \”that more than 30 fps eye unable to capture\” That is completely false and you know that. Play DmC devil May Cry on the PS3, then play it on a PC. There is a clear difference in fidelity and gameplay.

      I can see your also a graphics first guy. Oh well, at least I have a good gaming PC that can get me great graphics and easily bust through 30 FPS.

  7. I agree with this article. I see it as a growing trend in the industry too. It's like all of the big blockbuster action movies that come out every year. Rarely do they contain substance, but they're pretty, and have explosions. Unfortunately those things seem to sell to mass audiences, because we keep getting them.

    I honestly don't expect there to ever be a good Final Fantasy game again. For a good JRPG you have to really pay attention to Mistwalker(Final Fantasy's creator's company, and I find it ironic that after he left Square is when Final Fantasies stopped being good. He left after 10), and Monolith(Comprised of old Square employees)

    • Furious Francis says:

      Yeah its sad. The only thing Square Enix talks about is the graphics in the newest Agni\’s Philosophy demo. Gameplay seems to be a forgotten element. As for gamers tending to buy the same buying the same stuff, its true. But Crysis 3 isnt selling well, so consumers might be wising up a little bit.

Leave a Reply