Crysis 4

I personally find it unfortunate that they didn't decide to make a new IP with Cry shoehorned into the name

And let's be realistic they just need to not have fucking aliens or mutants because they're a always the weakest point
 
I love how Crytek always pushes graphics technology forward in a big way...CryEngine is one of the best engines which doesn't get used enough...I can't wait to see a new Crysis game with full ray-tracing along with all the other cool new tech that'll force people to upgrade their entire PC
 
I remember posting on this forum back in 2007 during the release of the orginal Crysis. All of us "enthusiasts" posting pics of our new Q6600s and 8800 gtx and Ultras all in an attempt to run Crysis maxed out at 1280x1024. Good times :)
1680x1050 here with q6600 and soon after 8800gt sli :D. Dell 2005fpw ips monitor.

EDIT: Went to 2560x1600 the next year, with a Dell 3007wfp-hc.
 
Last edited:
20220127_012336-02.jpeg
 
Hitman 3 game director will lead Crysis 4 development

Mattias Engström was the game director of Hitman 3 but is now joining Crytek to lead development on Crysis 4...Engström has had a hand in all of IO Interactive's modern Hitman trilogy, serving as a level designer on the first two before taking the reins on the finale...he's also worked as a level designer at Ubisoft, most notably on Far Cry 3 and Assassin's Creed: Revelations...

https://twitter.com/Crysis/status/1521540768460115969
 
Instead of doing Crysis 4, I wish they'd reboot Crysis. Or just make the actual sequel to Crysis that was cancelled/changed.

It will probably be okay but the story is kind of jumbled up now.
 
Of course hindsight is 20/20 as Cevat Yerli didn't tell us "moar cores" did squat for fps for his "game" cough...... technical showcase. :)View attachment 470376
1651697208890.png


I remember when the game first came out it was extremely sensitive to CPU clocks and cores. It took me the better part of 2 days to get it running with the least amount of issues. It absolutely refused to run on my QX6700 when it was overclocked to 2.97 GHz. It ran best with 2 cores disabled at stock clock speed until there was a patch for Windows Vista that fixed an issue with newer quad core processors.
 
View attachment 470393

I remember when the game first came out it was extremely sensitive to CPU clocks and cores. It took me the better part of 2 days to get it running with the least amount of issues. It absolutely refused to run on my QX6700 when it was overclocked to 2.97 GHz. It ran best with 2 cores disabled at stock clock speed until there was a patch for Windows Vista that fixed an issue with newer quad core processors.
To this day with Crysis more cores doesn't really provide the performance you'd expect from a modern cpu. In the words of Devolver Digital engineer........It's a really nice trick! :)


 
Last edited:
It's really well known that Crysis banked on a CPU future that didn't really happen as expected. They clearly didn't code it to really use multi-core and instead designed it around faster single core becoming a thing... I remember being kinda pissed at how poorly it ran on my Pentium D at the time(Ah socket 775, you let me do soooo many CPU generational upgrades on a single board lol). Other games with better multi-core ran great... but Crysis ran like hot garbage.
 
re: Crysis and CPUs, I remember a few games around that time making a big deal about "multicore support!!!1"- Supreme Commander and Bioshock also come to mind. Thing is, the hype evaporated as soon as actual performance reviews came out showing 4C failing to come out ahead again and again. Sure 2C was way better than 1C and 1C/2T and technically 4C/4T could be utilized to some extent, but it wasn't until the 2010s that I saw games really utilizing 4C in a way that could make or break performance.
I imagine the ideal CPU for running games from the late DX9 / early DX10 era would be like 2C/4T with massive clock speed and big L3.
 
Last edited:
I mean... we all kinda hoped this was an element the remaster was going to fix. What we got however was... well kinda disappointing from that perspective. I mean it worked off a more refined version of the game. But it was also a vastly inferior build to start from(Console version). From what I can remember, one of the big CPU bottle necks is the LUA scripting engine not being well suited to Multi-threading.

There is...was?... a project to reverse engineer Crysis's scripting and allow it run using a faster LUAJIT solution.

https://github.com/ExtReMLapin/crysis_CryScriptSystem_reversal

Doesn't look like it really has gone anywhere in the last 2yrs however :(
 
re: Crysis and CPUs, I remember a few games around that time making a big deal about "multicore support!!!1"- Supreme Commander and Bioshock also come to mind. Thing is, the hype evaporated as soon as actual performance reviews came out showing 4C failing to come out ahead again and again. Sure 2C was way better than 1C and 1C/2T and technically 4C/4T could be utilized to some extent, but it wasn't until the 2010s that I saw games really utilizing 4C in a way that could make or break performance.
I imagine the ideal CPU for running games from the late DX9 / early DX10 era would be like 2C/4T with massive clock speed and big L3.
To be fair, multicore just became a thing on consumer desktops around 2004, and I imagine it wasn't easy for game developers to adapt to the parallelization required to run well in a multicore environment. One of the hardest things to do in games is to synchronize all your threads and make sure they don't deviate every single frame. It was an extreme paradigm shift.
 
Pretty big Crysis if they can't find anyone to make the game. Personally I'm unqualified but know some people who went to Computer science classes they ended up being bums.
 
I usually don't care much for reboots, but if any game needs a reboot it is this. They kind of ruined the story with 2 which was a soft reboot anyways both in story and alien design.

Start with the fight with the Koreans again on the island, and actually finish the story this time.
 
I usually don't care much for reboots, but if any game needs a reboot it is this. They kind of ruined the story with 2 which was a soft reboot anyways both in story and alien design.

Start with the fight with the North Koreans again on the island, and actually finish the story this time.
FTFU
 
I personally find it unfortunate that they didn't decide to make a new IP with Cry shoehorned into the name

And let's be realistic they just need to not have fucking aliens or mutants because they're a always the weakest point
The original Crysis was brilliant up until the alien invasion. Far Cry (the original, not that crap Ubisoft puts out) was brilliant up until the Trigems showed up. Both games are almost open world and allow you to explore and handle enemy areas in different ways each time. Then the second half of both games turns into a linear and generic first person shooter experience that's only memorable because its a stark contrast the the earlier brilliance displayed by each game. It's like the first half of each game was too hard and time consuming to develop and someone at Crytek said "fuck it" and finished the game as generic shooters with random mutant or alien bad guys.
 
The original Crysis was brilliant up until the alien invasion. Far Cry (the original, not that crap Ubisoft puts out) was brilliant up until the Trigems showed up. Both games are almost open world and allow you to explore and handle enemy areas in different ways each time. Then the second half of both games turns into a linear and generic first person shooter experience that's only memorable because its a stark contrast the the earlier brilliance displayed by each game. It's like the first half of each game was too hard and time consuming to develop and someone at Crytek said "fuck it" and finished the game as generic shooters with random mutant or alien bad guys.

I don't mind the gradual change, but the second half of those games truthfully could have been opened up a bit. The aliens/Trigems themselves weren't bad the missions just became more linear.

In most subsequent play through I too would stop at the point were the aliens showed up. It is fun the first time, and you can play them every now and then, but they get old. The first part had a lot of fun and different things you could try. I spawned an APC in the very first Crysis mission and took it through a few missions. There is a point were you cannot take it further but it was fun messing around and driving out into the water with it. Most open world games these days just don't offer the variety of gameplay or allow as much interaction as these semi open games of yesteryear.
 
The original Crysis was brilliant up until the alien invasion. Far Cry (the original, not that crap Ubisoft puts out) was brilliant up until the Trigems showed up. Both games are almost open world and allow you to explore and handle enemy areas in different ways each time. Then the second half of both games turns into a linear and generic first person shooter experience that's only memorable because its a stark contrast the the earlier brilliance displayed by each game. It's like the first half of each game was too hard and time consuming to develop and someone at Crytek said "fuck it" and finished the game as generic shooters with random mutant or alien bad guys.
I haven't even finished Crysis my past couple playthroughs due to the outrageous shift in difficulty and tone once The Ceph show up.
It sux bc the lead-up and the big reveal had some great moments of suspense and (for the time) mind-blowing visuals.
But the shift from "semi-open-world tactical stealth shooter against entire squads" to "every encounter is a bossfight now, also there's a time limit, also your path is now on rails" just kinda ruins the fun for me.
Totally agree abt the mid-game shift in Far Cry too- there's a point where it's just Trigens and Rocket Snipers all the way down that goes beyond "challenging" to "why are the game devs torturing us"
 
Back
Top