Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Video Cards' started by tangoseal, Apr 9, 2019.
Yeah I played that too! Didn't draw me in quite as much, but enjoyed it still.
I actually think I liked Crysis 2 and 3 better. Just more action and less BS.
I think 1 was showing off engine. 2 n 3 were about the game instead.
Crysis 3 was a perfect example of "consolittis"...shooter on rails ,no open sandbox....boring as hell.
I dug out my old Crysis disk the other day. Seems after all these years it still has issues reverting back to 24Hz. After a lot of tinkering (and crashing) I finally got it up and running at 4K with no FPS limit.
It still looks pretty nice, but not even in the ballpark of #3. It might check some boxes the later ones didn't, but it doesn't look anywhere as nice 95% of the time.
As far as the game goes, Crysis 1 is terrific for about 50% of the game. Once the aliens show up, I don't like it much at all. The sequels do a much better job with that experience. While they're very linear, quite a bit of Crysis 1 was, too. The whole second half especially. There are only a couple levels where Crysis truly opens up like Far Cry did.
I love linear storylines. Titanfall 2 albeit short was probably one of the best linear games ever produced possibly in ever haha
Game devs opt for this openworld bullshit now that gets old really damn fast. Time to go back to hard hitting and linear storyline games.
Why would we have hardware capable of so much more than consoles...and go numb and limit games to what consoles can do?
You want your hand held and be spoon feed...booooooooooooooring.
Linear vs. directed doesn't have to be about horsepower. It's about telling a defined story vs. providing freedom at the cost of pacing/direction. There are millions of sandbox games these days and it can be frustrating to play yet another one rather than something super polished and linear like Uncharted or Half-Life 2. I'm kinda over the "you can go anywhere and do anything" motif for every game.
My machine could handle Crysis better, than it did Crysis 3. The latter was literally unplayable, so I put off playing it, then ended up never going back to it.
the devs in TF2 were amazing...but i cant make it past 1 hour in Linear COD games. My money is ready for the next Star Wars since i trust Respawn!
Garbage game is still garbage, I'm not surprised. I remember when this game came out and everyone had boners for it on this forum, always confused me.
Because you have a different taste in games? The first crysis and warhead are my 2 all time favorites ever made! Something with the story really peaked my interest and of course the graphics took years just to match
i agree crysis 3 i totally lost interest in...it really felt like it was on rails with zero story
Well, that was a great video. Going to have to look through their others, really enjoyed how detailed this was.
I still think Crysis is pretty to look at, though I agree with the vid in that I’d love to see a “remastered” running the updated version of the game engine.
It wasn’t my favorite game but I had fun with it and still make “maximum strength” kind of jokes occasionally. No one ever seems to get the reference.
Kind of thinking to reinstall now...
I don't understand why people still think that Crysis is too demanding for newer CPUs.
I was running an almost solid 60fps v-synced with dual 7970s on an overclocked i7-920 with all settings maxed out at 1080p back in the day.
A single 7970 was pretty much all that was needed as far as graphics go on Crysis 1 to max everything out.
I've played through it a few times since then and it runs just fine.
Right, the game was simply a tech demo for those who have nothing better to do than admire the scenery, and ty admire water falling out of bullet holes.
The huge impassable rock mountains constantly towering over you were separating areas just like walls of a corridor. So Crysis was the most detailed corridor shooter ever made, but true open-world (i.e. Oblivion) it was not.
Just watch: their "award-winning" AI never gives up, after you've been seen by them only once. Even if you remain unseen for twenty minutes in deep underbrush, they will be there and keep shooting the ,moment you stick your head back up.
They should have other things to do, like searching the rest of the goddamed island for THE OTHER MEMBERS OF MY INFILTRATION TEAM. This never-ending alerted AI tracker was one of the reasons I tossed the game aside pretty quickly.
It's a hackjob of a game with an excellent cover painted over top.
I mean, that beats the average game where you go on a killing spree, hide in a bush for a minute, and the AI completely forgets about you.
So your man in the army has no other duties to attend to, and has all day to go after JUST YOU?
Sounds realistic to me.
Each party or location would not be in charge of searching the whole island. They would be in charge of defending the area that they were stationed.
Far Cry 1 owns Crysis 1.
I remember the game looking far better than this. I think I remember the feeling of wow this looks amazing. But looking back now its doesn't look amazing anymore compared to the contemporary. We have come a long way.
I feel the same way. I remember FC1 looking amazing, with the exception of beaches?! Mine were super bright, some shading issue or textures, I have no idea... But for 2004, it looks pretty damn good!?
Of course they would have all day to go after you. They are on a deserted Island guarding a big military secret. They spot some guy sneaking about with fancy high tech gear and you think they are just going to forget about that after a few minutes and go clean the latrines or whatever? LOL I like your idea of what realistic is.
What's more than likely to happen is that the guard that spotted you is going to call it in, every soldier on that island would then be put on high alert. And that search would continue until they found you. And even if they didn't find you, they would definitely put key areas under lockdown.
The first few maps were good, but it quickly devolves from there. When the mutants show up it's worse than when the aliens show up in Crysis. Crysis overall is a much better game than Far Cry is. Seems like Crytek learned a lot from a gameplay perspective between the two.
Disagree. Far Cry was challenging, Crysis was a breeze. I can't deny that the difficulty in the first sometimes was too high and made certain parts tedious. But overall it was better and more fun imo.
I'd certainly pay for a remake / remaster. Crysis 1 was amazing and I'd love to see a game destroy computers like it did every few years. Too bad kids start crying when not every setting in a game is ultra/max.
So all they have to do is add RTX ? AHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That would be an epic fail. Maybe slightly better lighting, but way, way, way, way, way less performance.
In any case, there are much better engines now that have way better detail and don't tax systems like Crysis did back in the day.
this is exactly waht happened to me. Always trying to get a better system then so much time passed I was like eh...
Want to sell that poster?
I might load up the game again and see how it runs on my 2080ti and Threadripper 2950x
Yeah crysis is still hard on the CPU, i loaded it up the other day to try on my new GPU and could only pull about 110FPS on my 144Hz display, one CPU core was maxed other 7 were sitting there doing nothing, GPU only loaded around 60%.
Guess a 3.9Ghz Ryzen 1700 still not enough to max crysis at 144fps.
Ahh, Farcry 1. The game where enemies could see you hiding in bushes from 400 yards away.
Regarding Crysis, it will never play well because the game is not well optimized.
Did you not even look at the video? Your cpu would not even be able to hold 50 fps in spots. Your cpu would be even worse than my 4770k at 4.3 in this game as you have nearly identical IPC and you are clocked lower.
Old wives's tale that is false.
The game is very well optimized for the time it was crafted. Dual Cores was the norm and even then people were like .... nahh well never need two cores.
I disagree when over 10 years later the fastest cpus on the planet from an IPC standpoint cant even maintain 60 fps.
It was ahead of its time for tech. That doesn't mean that it's unoptomized.
Lol that makes no sense. The fucking game does NOT even keep 60 fps on hardware that is orders of magnitude faster than what was available back then. If it was optimized worth a damn then it would have scaled with faster cpu IPC. A modern Intel cpu at 5.0 ghz dropping into the 50s is a goddamn joke for a game made when Pentium cpus were the norm and Core 2 was cutting edge. And even from a gpu standpoint it is insanely demanding for how outdated it looks. At 4k and 2x MSAA it cant even keep 60 fps with an oced 1080 ti when there are modern games that run as good or better and make this look like pure shit from a graphics standpoint. IMO anyone saying this game is well optimized is foolish. There is a reason this game is a popular meme you know. Anyway I will stop there as no way in hell we are going to agree with each other.