Crytek is hinting at a remastered version of Crysis

My favorite part of Crysis was how janky the physics could be. I thought it was the funniest shit that you could instagib yourself by brushing against any physics object the right way.

Throw car tire against a wall, it bounces back and apparently disembowels you, killing you instantly. Or bump into a wooden crate while you're sprinting and straight up die.
 
I'm with the "wish it was Far Cry" getting the remaster. Crysis was fun, but it was short and easy even on the hardest difficulty because of the suit powers.
 
What price point do you think they'll put on it? Don't think I'd bite at a full price 59.99 title.Somewhere in the 29.99 to 39.99 seems like sweet spot. Or maybe they go full FF7 remake and charge 180?o_O
 
Conman said:
What price point do you think they'll put on it? Don't think I'd bite at a full price 59.99 title.Somewhere in the 29.99 to 39.99 seems like sweet spot. Or maybe they go full FF7 remake and charge 180?o_O
Click to expand...

I'm sure it would be at the normal $60 new release price. I have to admit I'd pay that for it without fretting too much. That would probably be the max I'd pay though. That $180 BS wouldn't fly Id think. Crysis didn't have the following that Final Fantasy did/does I don't think.
 
Dan_D said:
Wait, wasn't this an April Fool's joke?
Click to expand...
This was put out before April 1, still somewhat conjecture but blame Crytek for the hints.

For remakes, this would definitely be on my top 5 and more like #1.
 
So, when the graphics look better and FPS increases, can we FINALLY admit the real reason Crysis had such poor performance was that it was a horribly coded mess?
 
gamerk2 said:
So, when the graphics look better and FPS increases, can we FINALLY admit the real reason Crysis had such poor performance was that it was a horribly coded mess?
Click to expand...

We already know that. It has trouble maintaining a good frame rate with modern hardware. Although it did look stunning for the time and was naturally very demanding, it was horribly optimized.
 
gamerk2 said:
So, when the graphics look better and FPS increases, can we FINALLY admit the real reason Crysis had such poor performance was that it was a horribly coded mess?
Click to expand...
Flogger23m said:
We already know that. It has trouble maintaining a good frame rate with modern hardware. Although it did look stunning for the time and was naturally very demanding, it was horribly optimized.
Click to expand...
Am I the only person tired of hearing how badly Crysis was coded? I mean who else was getting that level of performance on low level hardware? I'll tell you. No one. Sure in the years since people have improved upon what came in the past, but nobody says what a piece of shit the model T Ford was because things got better as we progressed.They paved the way for the future and for some reason get shit on for it because you couldn't max it out day one. I kind of like going back to old games with a new graphics card just see how it looks now. Maybe it's just me. /shrug
 
Conman said:
Am I the only person tired of hearing how badly Crysis was coded? I mean who else was getting that level of performance on low level hardware? I'll tell you. No one. Sure in the years since people have improved upon what came in the past, but nobody says what a piece of shit the model T Ford was because things got better as we progressed.They paved the way for the future and for some reason get shit on for it because you couldn't max it out day one. I kind of like going back to old games with a new graphics card just see how it looks now. Maybe it's just me. /shrug
Click to expand...

I disagree. The only thing Crysis had that was special was how good the graphics were at the high end. No other games at the time attempted to put nearly that detail much in the graphics. But the performance in Crysis for the amount of detail was never good. Basically every other big game engine at the time had better performance for the amount of detail, but no other games attempted to shove that much detail in.
 
gamerk2 said:
So, when the graphics look better and FPS increases, can we FINALLY admit the real reason Crysis had such poor performance was that it was a horribly coded mess?
Click to expand...

it wasn't that it was coded badly per say(their multiplayer netcode is a whole different story though).. 1. the engine was optimized to run at 30fps, not 60fps like most titles at the time and this is ultimately why even modern hardware that should be able to run the game at 300fps can't. 2. the "game" was designed by artists and not game developers.. so a single tree had over 30+ texture layers in an attempt to give them a 3d effect with the moss. it wasn't til warhead that they reduced that number. 3. it was essentially a playable benchmark for crytek's first engine..

but that being said with how well they did visually with hunt: showdown a crysis remaster could look good but they'd have to actually make a legitimate game out of it because the original story isn't worth going through again.
 
sharknice said:
I disagree. The only thing Crysis had that was special was how good the graphics were at the high end. No other games at the time attempted to put nearly that detail much in the graphics. But the performance in Crysis for the amount of detail was never good. Basically every other big game engine at the time had better performance for the amount of detail, but no other games attempted to shove that much detail in.
Click to expand...
Okay, but you can't assert that the game was "badly coded" without seeing the code and profiling it yourself to know for sure. It's a phrase that gets thrown around a lot and I'm frankly sick of hearing it just like Conman.
 
Armenius said:
Okay, but you can't assert that the game was "badly coded" without seeing the code and profiling it yourself to know for sure. It's a phrase that gets thrown around a lot and I'm frankly sick of hearing it just like Conman.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was coded bad as the Crysis games had some of the best SLI scaling in games
 
sharknice said:
I disagree. The only thing Crysis had that was special was how good the graphics were at the high end. No other games at the time attempted to put nearly that detail much in the graphics. But the performance in Crysis for the amount of detail was never good. Basically every other big game engine at the time had better performance for the amount of detail, but no other games attempted to shove that much detail in.
Click to expand...
While I agree graphics were it's main draw I think the added "class" system with the suit added to replay-ability and emergent gameplay. Also for the first time much of the environment was interactive and destroyable. Sure the tree was pretty but for the first time you could hose it down with bullets and knock it over. As performance VS detail that's just the nature of [H]igh end bleeding edge.Got a race car and want it to go 1/10th of a second faster? You'll be writing a check with a bunch of zeros in it. Is it worth it? For most people no, but on this forum hell yes.
 
No idea about how it was coded or whatever, but a lot of the detail they added is what made it run like a dog. While neat, I don't know if I'd know or care about most of those effects if someone didn't point them out to me. Yet I'd notice and appreciate a game running like a boss right away. I'm not saying they should have gone RAGE on us, but I dunno if everlasting bullet holes, particle effects, etc. justify that game's performance requirements.
 
Conman said:
While I agree graphics were it's main draw I think the added "class" system with the suit added to replay-ability and emergent gameplay. Also for the first time much of the environment was interactive and destroyable. Sure the tree was pretty but for the first time you could hose it down with bullets and knock it over. As performance VS detail that's just the nature of [H]igh end bleeding edge.Got a race car and want it to go 1/10th of a second faster? You'll be writing a check with a bunch of zeros in it. Is it worth it? For most people no, but on this forum hell yes.
Click to expand...

Red Faction came out long before Crysis and had way more of a destructible environment, but yeah it was still cool in Crysis. I thought the gameplay sounded awesome on paper. The suit with all the cool abilities, all the destructible stuff, the freedom to be able to play it basically how ever you want. But when I actually played it it wasn't nearly as fun as I thought it would be. I don't really know why. The graphics were still amazing though.
 
Armenius said:
Okay, but you can't assert that the game was "badly coded" without seeing the code and profiling it yourself to know for sure. It's a phrase that gets thrown around a lot and I'm frankly sick of hearing it just like Conman.
Click to expand...

Well, I did fo an analysis of all the OS and GPU driver calls. Both are unfortunately black boxes, but from what I recall the game was hitting both the OS and GPU with a ton more calls then other games of that era.

Second, speaking as a Software Engineer, I've become very proficient at being able to find bottlenecks in code. And trust me when I say, the performance profile of the first crisis reads "horribly coded mess".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top