Crysis remastered could be announced soon on new CryEngine tech

Derangel said:
This. There's a reason I stick to high hertz 1440p instead of going for 4K. I don't even consider the 2080 ti as a fully viable 4K card, at least for my needs.
Click to expand...

It really isn't, but it's the best option out there today. It's viable for some games, but not others. For example: Destiny 2 runs pretty good most of the time even at 4K. However, you will still struggle to maintain a 60FPS minimum at times. I actually moved off of 4K to 3440x1440 to make my experience better in newer games.

M76 said:
Except I still found FarCry fun after the mutants appeared, they kind of mixed it in with the soldiers, the rebellion map was great in farcry. The only bit that was actually on rails were the last two maps.
Crysis however seems an entirely different game after crossing that line, and arguably that line is much earlier.
Besides I've never liked the nanosuit one bit. It's a distraction at best, gimmick at worst. I used it when it was a must, but otherwise it did nothing to improve my game experience.

I'd like to think the reason they're remaking Crysis and not FarCry is because FarCry rights are owned by ubisoft now.
Click to expand...

I will agree that for the time, FarCry was the better of the two efforts looking at each game as a game and not the fancy tech demos each of them were at the time of their release. That said, I really like the early part of Crysis. I would often play it up to that point and then start the game over. Once the aliens showed up, it was totally different and rather unremarkable. The sequels were better on that front. I actually rather enjoy Crysis 3.
 
Dan_D said:
It really isn't, but it's the best option out there today. It's viable for some games, but not others. For example: Destiny 2 runs pretty good most of the time even at 4K. However, you will still struggle to maintain a 60FPS minimum at times. I actually moved off of 4K to 3440x1440 to make my experience better in newer games.
Click to expand...
I game at 3840x1600, and I get 45 fps mins in Ghost Recon Breakpoint for example. I'm fine with that, but that means it could be as low as 30 for 4K.
 
cybereality said:
Might also be why it never ran well. After all these years, we have to accept that the game was just not well optimized. Graphics are still good, though.
Click to expand...
The issue with Crysis was never "graphics optimization". It was "processor optimization". The graphics were extremely well optimized.

In other words, it was CPU bottlenecked. And as long as you had enough VRAM on your video card (768MB or more), you weren't GPU bottlenecked either on the high end cards. Crysis 1 (on PC only) pulled off some very interesting lighting effects and optimizations and other amazing little programming tricks to pull off what it did. Almost all of those tricks can be seen in the first half of the first level until the scene where the sun rises.

So the game itself was a graphics wonder of programming while still relying on the old ways doing things with 1 cpu core. Since it was made programmed around 2005 -ish and released in 2007, this is to be expected as dual cores had only just came out during development.
 
Dan_D said:
I actually moved off of 4K to 3440x1440 to make my experience better in newer games.
Click to expand...
Same here. 4K is nice but honestly it's too intensive most of the time. Even throwing all the money at it, you still struggle.

I actually when from triple 1440p (7680x1440) to 4K then to 1080p ultrawide (2560x1080). It seems like a crazy choice (having a 2080 Ti and a 1080p monitor) but I actually like it.

Pretty much any game can be maxed out for 1080p, though sometimes I have to do a few tweaks to get to 166Hz solid. Not a big deal. Old games I can do DSR 5K, it looks pretty good.

The best part is I was able to play Control with RT high (medium other settings) and DLSS 2.0 and get in the 90 fps range. So that worked out.
 
M76 said:
Except I still found FarCry fun after the mutants appeared, they kind of mixed it in with the soldiers, the rebellion map was great in farcry. The only bit that was actually on rails were the last two maps.
Crysis however seems an entirely different game after crossing that line, and arguably that line is much earlier.
Besides I've never liked the nanosuit one bit. It's a distraction at best, gimmick at worst. I used it when it was a must, but otherwise it did nothing to improve my game experience.

I'd like to think the reason they're remaking Crysis and not FarCry is because FarCry rights are owned by ubisoft now.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree about the Nanosuit being kinda worthless. The Speed option would be cool but it only lasted a few steps and it was done. The Cloak could be very cool option but again, after about 4 steps it was gone. Crysis 2 and 3 fixed these issues I felt and it was a lot more fun to play with the suit.

Dan_D said:
It's funny how attitudes about Crysis have changed. Back when the game was new, people applauded it's visuals but often thought Crytek was too forward thinking by pushing the envelope too far. As a game, so many people thought it was mediocre at best. They praised the first half of the game with its near open world game play, destructible environments and interactive elements. You could pick up nearly anything and throw it. The weapons were fun as were the Nanosuit powers. It was largely an upgrade of FarCry, but traded the Hawiian shirt for the nanosuit. Crysis suffers from the exact same problem that FarCry 1 did. It switches gears half way through and ceases to offer the elements that made the first half so good.

Once you find the alien shit, the game is a forgettable rail / corridor shooter. It was touted as being poor to mediocre because of the second half. Yet, people here seem to have forgotten that.
Click to expand...

Gamers hate on everything anyway. I remember everybody hating on Crysis because it was too demanding. Then Crysis 2 comes out and everybody was hating on it for not being demanding enough.

I think most of it is just nostalgia....at least it is with me. I think maybe a lot of us cut our teeth on PC gaming, overclocking and/or tweaking just to play this game at the highest settings possible. So it's not so much that this was the greatest game ever, just that it holds a special place in a lot of PC gamers/builders/overclockers hearts.
 
Last edited:
Flogger23m said:
That is interesting, I always thought ME3 looked better but I suppose I mainly looked at the characters which do seem to be improved texture wise. But even ME1 and 2 had some really low resolution textures for their time period in certain areas. Will have to do some side by side comparisons some day for various objects.
Click to expand...

will these do?

some notes:
I could take a frontal shot in ME3 when using Formal wear and on the Normandy but when in a mission I could
not get a frontal shot of the armour but could do so in ME2. When at the Citadel (casual exploration) in ME2
Shepherd is wearing his armour but when at the Citadel in ME3 (casual exploration) he is always wearing his
formal wear.

ME2 Formal
ME2 formal.jpg


ME3 Formal
ME3 formal.jpg


ME2 armour
ME2 armour.jpg


ME2 armour 2

ME2 armour 2.jpg

ME3 armour
ME3 armour.jpg


ME3 armour 2.jpg
 
Last edited:
If a double blind test was done on a number of settings at 4K, most games, as in shadows at max and then next level down, most I would say would not be able to tell the difference, same with a number of other settings. Some settings, depending on game in my opinion degrade IQ when set to a higher value, like Mankind Undivided Def of Field -> Setting should be near sightedness amount.

If one is happy with the quality at 4K, whatever settings then that would be good. Resolution is not everything and the quality of the monitor or image output to what you desire I think becomes way more important.

My Samsung VA, HDR 144hz, QLED, HDR 1440p blows away my 10bit IPS 60hz LG monitor. Deeper blacks, brighter, much better contrasts, gorgeous HDR in games that support it well, better Fresync range etc. Gaming on the 1440p in my opinion is all around superior to the 4K monitor. Of course if the 4K monitor was better, I could drive it etc. then that would be an upgrade. Min I would want with 4K is 120hz, HDR 1000, VRR at a good price but also a GPU that could effectively drive it with HDMI 2.1 min and/or DP2.0 (preferred).
 
Looks like the remake will include Warhead. Count me with the lot that enjoyed these games including the OG Far Cry, hours of fun and tweaking the config for max graphics quality. I even upgraded my Rig and installed Vista for the DX bump, good times. Hope they don't drop the ball on this one. It would be nice to have a boost in AI but they should leave the original game in tact. A few years back I even splurged on the Serious Sam HD remake, a guilty pleasure, I used to map for this game.
 
PeaKr said:
Looks like the remake will include Warhead. Count me with the lot that enjoyed these games including the OG Far Cry, hours of fun and tweaking the config for max graphics quality. I even upgraded my Rig and installed Vista for the DX bump, good times. Hope they don't drop the ball on this one. It would be nice to have a boost in AI but they should leave the original game in tact. A few years back I even splurged on the Serious Sam HD remake, a guilty pleasure, I used to map for this game.
Click to expand...

Doesn't explicitly mention Warhead, article indicates it could be one studio doing the console versions. Hoping Warhead is included though.
 
Dan_D said:
It's funny how attitudes about Crysis have changed. Back when the game was new, people applauded it's visuals but often thought Crytek was too forward thinking by pushing the envelope too far. As a game, so many people thought it was mediocre at best.
Click to expand...

Well, we applauded it because nobody could *play* it.

Actually, thats a lie - I was a pretty big fan of the opening mission, all the way until the second last where... Well, performance into the 13fps range killed it for me.

I just... By today's FPS standards, and even FPS/RPG standards That AI man.. Woof.
 
Figured I'd install the original game with the announcement (never seen it at 4K, all maxed out with over 60FPS). JMCB from years ago would have been in heaven. Game still looks great (although lighting in games today have improved IMMENSELY). I also caught myself playing up until the Korean nanosuit guys come in - game is still a blast to play.

IMG_0624.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top