Crysis Remastered

[throwaway69420]

Why do these guys still exist? They make no new games and nobody wants their engine.

They have been running on fumes for the last few years IIRC. 'Hunt: Showdown' was their hail Mary at avoiding bankruptcy. You can see this in that the updates for it are large and frequent. It staved off bankruptcy but it clearly is not performing as well as they hoped, hence the continuous paid skin releases. To make matters worse, while going 1.0 boosted their revenue and playerbase a fair amount temporarily, they noticeably downgraded the gameplay, which has hurt their long-term player base longevity, and with each new patch the gameplay declines further. It reminds me of Skype, where every single time an update is released you know the program you are using is about to get objectively worse. Also they have downgraded their graphics from amazing to muddied, mediocre bayou slop, because their piece of shit engine cannot run well on ANYTHING besides NASA supercomputers. They have been hard at work with optimization for years and it STILL sucks. This is probably why no one wants their engine, because while it can look beautiful, if it bricks whatever system it's used on, there's no marketability. (Rightfully so. Fuck CryEngine.)

I foresee Crytek going bankrupt soon. They simply have no idea what they're doing.

 

[Draconis]

Why not just make a Crysis 4?

 

[vonAchdorf]

:meh:

 

[d1r]

Why not just make a Crysis 4?

They wanna win back the trust of the PC user base first, so that they can shatter it again with Crysis 4 (Crysis 2).

 

[Multidirectional]

I'm just interested whether they manage to keep all physics in and make it run well on console CPUs. That would be pretty cool.

 

[samuraigaiden]

since this one will a multiplatform release I doubt it will set any standards like the original release did.

They'll aim for 4k on consoles, so we should probably expect downgrades.

I can't imagine how depressing it must be to work on Switch ports. "Oh boy I can't wait to come into work to make this look even shittier!"

The game is from 2007, so downgrades are unlikely.
The Switch alone is 2.5-3x as powerful as the 8800 Ultra and 9800 GTX, the ram in it are also better than what there was available at the time. You could argue the CPU is shit based on raw numbers vs the CPUs at the time, but then you also have to account for the architecture and the amount of features CPUs at the time lacked.
The problem really is that because of console limitations the devs can't go wild and push the best hardware available to their limits like they did in the original release.

The thing you are not accounting for is resolution. 8800 and 9800s did not do a good job running it at 1080p, and a 2080 ti will see frame rate dip below 60 in 4k in the heavier segments.

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

Why not just make a Crysis 4?

Because they can't?

 

[Semiurge]

Maybe they will push the graphical envelope some more? The official title will be Crysis 2050 'cause that's when it will run smoothly @ 4K.

 

[Multidirectional]

2080 ti will see frame rate dip below 60 in 4k in the heavier segments.

You sure it's 2080 Ti and not just because game is still heavy on CPUs? From what I gather one would actually have to have insane single core speed to be able to run it perfectly. Apparently when they made C1 they believed future CPUs would get very high clock speeds, but shit went in other direction instead. That's the story anyway.

 

[Ezeekiel]

Yeah, Crysis is still CPU bound. Doesn't utilize more than 2(?) cores well, iirc.

 

[DalekFlay]

Having just played through Doom 3 I have recent trauma from how bad these types of remasters usually are. Same with Bioshock. Much more console focused interfaces, weird processing effects added (they even brag about TAA when the original had MSAA!!!), altered graphics which often look weird rather than better. I guess I'll wait and see, but something tells me I'll be sticking to the original version.

 

[Theodora]

Feels like a meme to remaster it almost.

DalekFlay: do you mean you were playing the bfg edition?

 

[DalekFlay]

DalekFlay: do you mean you were playing the bfg edition?

I bounced back and forth. Played the main campaign on original version, the expansions on BFG edition. BFG Edition has the major benefit of 120fps and running smooth as butter, but it alters the gameplay and graphics is universally bad ways.

 

[Theodora]

I bounced back and forth. Played the main campaign on original version, the expansions on BFG edition. BFG Edition has the major benefit of 120fps and running smooth as butter, but it alters the gameplay and graphics is universally bad ways.

Haven't tried it but you might be interested in this.

The flashlight bs feels like a move towards OG Doom gameplay, in the sense that it is an obstacle in the way of just shooting things up; but without the game being altered in any way to actually ... make that work?

 

[sullynathan]

Crysis was on the Xbox 360 and PS3 so the switch can handle it.

 

[JDR13]

Haven't tried it but you might be interested in this.

The flashlight bs feels like a move towards OG Doom gameplay, in the sense that it is an obstacle in the way of just shooting things up; but without the game being altered in any way to actually ... make that work?

I played both versions of Doom 3 and had no issues with the BFG Edition. The visuals weren't much of an improvement, but it's largely irrelevant because you can just mod it anyways. (I used that mod btw)

I actually liked the flashlight being made part of your armor. Having to constantly switch back and forth in the original game was just annoying to me.

 

[ShadowSpectre]

They must be out of money and will probably release the exact same game with some higher resolution textures and better character models. The original Crysis still destroys modern hardware. In before people start calling the Remaster a downgrade.

 

[Semiurge]

I actually liked the flashlight being made part of your armor. Having to constantly switch back and forth in the original game was just annoying to me.

As if space marines from the future wouldn't have armour-mounted everything

Why not mod a lantern or an oil lamp into it ffs.

 

[DalekFlay]

I played both versions of Doom 3 and had no issues with the BFG Edition. The visuals weren't much of an improvement, but it's largely irrelevant because you can just mod it anyways. (I used that mod btw)

I actually liked the flashlight being made part of your armor. Having to constantly switch back and forth in the original game was just annoying to me.

The graphics look worse in BFG because they blew out the brightness an insane amount for whatever reason. Doom 3 was supposed to be dark and looks like shit all bright.

As for gameplay, the BFG edition is really a different game entirely. Doom 3 was a slow moving Doom/Survival Horror/System Shock hybrid game. BFG edition ramps up the light, the movement speed, the ammo, the sprint capacity and more to make it much more of a run and gun Doom game that people cried they wanted. For me though, I'd rather play the game as designed, and honestly I prefer the slower exploration kind of FPS games to the all out combat type. Everyone differs though, and I can see why some would prefer BFG (outside of graphics).

 

[JDR13]

I played both versions of Doom 3 and had no issues with the BFG Edition. The visuals weren't much of an improvement, but it's largely irrelevant because you can just mod it anyways. (I used that mod btw)

I actually liked the flashlight being made part of your armor. Having to constantly switch back and forth in the original game was just annoying to me.

The graphics look worse in BFG because they blew out the brightness an insane amount for whatever reason. Doom 3 was supposed to be dark and looks like shit all bright.

As for gameplay, the BFG edition is really a different game entirely. Doom 3 was a slow moving Doom/Survival Horror/System Shock hybrid game. BFG edition ramps up the light, the movement speed, the ammo, the sprint capacity and more to make it much more of a run and gun Doom game that people cried they wanted. For me though, I'd rather play the game as designed, and honestly I prefer the slower exploration kind of FPS games to the all out combat type. Everyone differs though, and I can see why some would prefer BFG (outside of graphics).

Subjective really, and I'm pretty sure the brightness can be adjusted anyways.

As far as the rest, the only thing I view as a negative is the increased ammo count. In truth though, ammo was never an issue in the original version anyways as long as you didn't waste it.

It's by no means a great remaster though. I'd call it a fairly lazy cash-grab if anything.

 

[samuraigaiden]

2080 ti will see frame rate dip below 60 in 4k in the heavier segments.

You sure it's 2080 Ti and not just because game is still heavy on CPUs? From what I gather one would actually have to have insane single core speed to be able to run it perfectly. Apparently when they made C1 they believed future CPUs would get very high clock speeds, but shit went in other direction instead. That's the story anyway.

I'm not gonna pretend I know the ins and outs of the engine, but the fact is you can check out people benchmarking it with a i9-9900k overclocked above 5ghz and a 2080 ti at 4k and those dips still happen. I highly doubt the next gen consoles will have this kind of hardware, so getting a stable Crysis in 4k on consoles will mean lowering the settings or fundamentally changing the game engine. In other words, there will be grounds to call it a downgrade.

 

[soulburner]

Moving the original Crysis to the latest version of Cryengine, optimized for multithreading... that might be interesting. The original is barely able to use 2 threads and its performance is limited on modern multi core processors. Add a few tweaks like HBAO+ or something, proper dynamic lighting and it might be worth of a free update for owners of the original.

If this remaster would be a next gen console release it could be interesting graphics wise. Unfortunately, they plan to release on current gen consoles which means we will get things like more motion blur, depth of filed, shiny particles flying everywhere and botched physics due to low computing power of the Jaguar CPU.

edit - and no, I do not expect anything else than "feature parity between console and PC", I have no reason to believe Crytek will be making "will this run Crysis?" come back.

edit 2 - I love Crysis. It's not only a benchmark, it's also a very good FPS game. Both Crysis 2 and 3 lost the "good game" part and were shit.

edit 3 - there's one more thing that makes Crysis drop frames on stuff like overclocked 9900Ks and RTX2800s: the API. The game was coded with DirectX 9 in mind and supported DX10. Even porting the renderer to DX11 would change a lot, performance wise. DX11 at least has some "understanding" of multithreading, however I hope the remaster will be using DX12 or Vulkan exclusively.

 

[janior]

WOOOW DUDE BROS this is awesome!!!!!!!! Cant wait to revist this old classic with new good graphics :D!!!

 

[Haba]

WOOOW DUDE BROS this is awesome!!!!!!!! Cant wait to revist this old classic with new good graphics :D!!!

Same same, but worse!

Different!

 

[cvv]

Crysis 1 is the FPS ever made period.

What they touch on in that Digital Foundry video would be awesome - if Crytek pulled the 2007 again and showed what the newest Cryengine can really do. Not holding my breath tho.