News Crysis Remastered: Can Your PC Handle It?

DookieDraws

Distinguished
Oct 8, 2004
1,175
21
19,665
150
The woods scene looked amazing! I never played the first Crysis, may have to give the remaster a try.

I think the name Crysis is short for Crysystems, as it will definitely make our systems cry! :p
 
I can't say I'm particularly impressed. While some of the effects in the trailer do look more advanced than what the game offered 13 years ago, I can't help but feel that overall the original effects just look more polished and more realistic in most cases. And a lot of the updated textures actually appear less detailed, though it's possible that could just be a compression artifact of the video. It's already been determined that the version released on the Switch was based on 2011's PS3/360 port though, and it wouldn't surprise me if the PC version is as well.

It sounds like this remaster may have been done primarily by Saber, not Crytek themselves. Crytek was putting their all into making some of the most realistic visuals at the time to push their new game engine, whereas Saber is just performing another remaster/port of an existing game on what is probably a relatively limited budget.
 

samopa

Honorable
Feb 12, 2015
35
2
10,535
0
They release it after NVidia released their new (consumer grade) GPU, what an impeccable timing.

Guess it is time for me to upgrade my ancient 1080Ti ;)
 

GenericUser

Distinguished
Nov 20, 2010
155
31
18,740
12
Crytek's touting support for high-quality textures up to 8K resolution, HDR support, temporal anti-aliasing, Screen Space Directional Occlusion (SSDO), Global Illumination (SVOGI), state-of-the-art depth fields, new light settings, motion blur, parallax occlusion mapping, Screen Space Reflections and Shadows (SSR & SSS).
Am I the only one who thinks that, generally speaking, temporal AA is kind of garbage? Most games I've seen it implemented in turn everything into a blur fest, and I find the visual quality much better using a different form of AA. It seems particularly worse in games with open map environments and I'm trying to see some detail off in the distance.

I get the underlying premise on how temporal AA in particular is supposed to improve the visual quality, but I personally just don't see the hype over it, especially since, to me at least, it actively degrades the image quality.
 

Chung Leong

Upstanding
Dec 6, 2019
291
83
260
0
I don't really see the point of the rumored remastering of Mass Effect. I'm more interested in Crysis.

See how that works everyone's taste will be different :)
Whatever floats your boat. Prettier trees don't really excite me. I would much rather see Miranda Lawson getting a current-tech makeover.
 
Compared to?
Buy a new PC hardware to play a game is ridiculous and super expensive especially if you’re buying those nice video cards every two or three years complete waste of money compared to console gaming. I can buy a consul or once every 6 to 8 years

And then PC gamers have to constantly be worrying about windows updates and everything else interfering with their precious drivers which are very fragile in new ones come out and ruin your frame rate I have none of these problems not one I pop in a game and play it

How many people have you heard complaining about stutters in Consol games? You don’t because it doesn’t exist

I would much rather pay for $500 every eight years for a new console than $500-1500 for a new video card every few years that way I have more money for games and more time to play them because I’m not monkeying around with a PC
 
Buy a new PC hardware to play a game is ridiculous and super expensive especially if you’re buying those nice video cards every two or three years complete waste of money compared to console gaming. I can buy a consul or once every 6 to 8 years

And then PC gamers have to constantly be worrying about windows updates and everything else interfering with their precious drivers which are very fragile in new ones come out and ruin your frame rate I have none of these problems not one I pop in a game and play it

How many people have you heard complaining about stutters in Consol games? You don’t because it doesn’t exist

I would much rather pay for $500 every eight years for a new console than $500-1500 for a new video card every few years that way I have more money for games and more time to play them because I’m not monkeying around with a PC
Sounds like you're in the wrong forum, buddy.
 

Makaveli

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2001
890
58
19,070
2
Buy a new PC hardware to play a game is ridiculous and super expensive especially if you’re buying those nice video cards every two or three years complete waste of money compared to console gaming. I can buy a consul or once every 6 to 8 years

And then PC gamers have to constantly be worrying about windows updates and everything else interfering with their precious drivers which are very fragile in new ones come out and ruin your frame rate I have none of these problems not one I pop in a game and play it

How many people have you heard complaining about stutters in Consol games? You don’t because it doesn’t exist

I would much rather pay for $500 every eight years for a new console than $500-1500 for a new video card every few years that way I have more money for games and more time to play them because I’m not monkeying around with a PC
If pc gaming is a waste to you why are you in this thread about a PC game?

unless you just came to Thread crap?
 

Arbie

Distinguished
Oct 8, 2007
146
24
18,685
0
It's already been determined that the version released on the Switch was based on 2011's PS3/360 port though, and it wouldn't surprise me if the PC version is as well.
I'll buy it anyway but this helps moderate my expectations. I appreciate the insights.
 

Arbie

Distinguished
Oct 8, 2007
146
24
18,685
0
All I need to know is the headline. And I can answer the question thusly: "If anyone can answer this question with 'yes,' then it's not truly Crysis Remastered."
I realize you're having fun here, but want to comment because the misconception was not only universal but harmful to Crytek.

Crysis was so scalable that at lowest settings it could be played on a Geforce 4 256MB card. Today, on a Dell Venue tablet. But Crytek made the awful mistake of including an "Ultra" setting for the next-gen cards. The legions of forum warriors lined up to hate on this highly anticipated game had their target, and hit hard. One "gaming" site put it in the ten worst games of 2007, as "unplayable".

Had Crytek merely named that setting "Experimental" the damage would have been far less. As it was the meme stuck, and I'm sure many folks didn't even consider buying because they didn't have top rigs. Partly as a result, Crytek sold only ~500K copies in the first few years and decided to move to consoles. The biggest losers in all this were / are PC gamers. It was an object lesson in group idiocy and press click-bait pandering.
 

GenericUser

Distinguished
Nov 20, 2010
155
31
18,740
12
I realize you're having fun here, but want to comment because the misconception was not only universal but harmful to Crytek.

Crysis was so scalable that at lowest settings it could be played on a Geforce 4 256MB card. Today, on a Dell Venue tablet. But Crytek made the awful mistake of including an "Ultra" setting for the next-gen cards. The legions of forum warriors lined up to hate on this highly anticipated game had their target, and hit hard. One "gaming" site put it in the ten worst games of 2007, as "unplayable".

Had Crytek merely named that setting "Experimental" the damage would have been far less. As it was the meme stuck, and I'm sure many folks didn't even consider buying because they didn't have top rigs. Partly as a result, Crytek sold only ~500K copies in the first few years and decided to move to consoles. The biggest losers in all this were / are PC gamers. It was an object lesson in group idiocy and press click-bait pandering.
Do you have info that substantiates that? I'm not saying I don't believe you, I'm actually just genuinely curious if there's been analysis of that sort done on the matter. Events and scenarios where it's possible that one little change could have resulted in a completely different outcome always interest me.
 
I realize you're having fun here, but want to comment because the misconception was not only universal but harmful to Crytek.

Crysis was so scalable that at lowest settings it could be played on a Geforce 4 256MB card. Today, on a Dell Venue tablet. But Crytek made the awful mistake of including an "Ultra" setting for the next-gen cards. The legions of forum warriors lined up to hate on this highly anticipated game had their target, and hit hard. One "gaming" site put it in the ten worst games of 2007, as "unplayable".

Had Crytek merely named that setting "Experimental" the damage would have been far less. As it was the meme stuck, and I'm sure many folks didn't even consider buying because they didn't have top rigs. Partly as a result, Crytek sold only ~500K copies in the first few years and decided to move to consoles. The biggest losers in all this were / are PC gamers. It was an object lesson in group idiocy and press click-bait pandering.
I don't think those numbers are accurate. At least according to Wikipedia...

"By May 2010, the game has sold over 3 million units (and its standalone expansion about 1.5 million units) making it one of the best selling PC games of all time."

And also according to that article, EA reported that Crysis had sold a million units within its first few months of release. If anything, I would say that Crysis being considered something of a benchmark to bring high-end systems to their knees made it sell better, and kept it in the spotlight longer.

The game also has a PC Metascore of 91, so I would hardly say that reviewers were holding its performance with ultra settings enabled against it. The lowest reviewer score for the PC release of the game was an 80 on Metacritic, so I have a hard time believing that any "reputable" publication put it in a list of worst games for 2007. Even the user reviews are largely positive with an average score of 8.1.
 

JarredWaltonGPU

Senior GPU Editor
Editor
Feb 21, 2020
580
470
760
0
I don't think those numbers are accurate. At least according to Wikipedia...

"By May 2010, the game has sold over 3 million units (and its standalone expansion about 1.5 million units) making it one of the best selling PC games of all time."

And also according to that article, EA reported that Crysis had sold a million units within its first few months of release. If anything, I would say that Crysis being considered something of a benchmark to bring high-end systems to their knees made it sell better, and kept it in the spotlight longer.

The game also has a PC Metascore of 91, so I would hardly say that reviewers were holding its performance with ultra settings enabled against it. The lowest reviewer score for the PC release of the game was an 80 on Metacritic, so I have a hard time believing that any "reputable" publication put it in a list of worst games for 2007. Even the user reviews are largely positive with an average score of 8.1.
Hey now, don’t let facts get in the way of a good story! 🤣

If it had truly sold poorly, there wouldn’t have been three sequels of sorts, plus some other tie-ins. I think the “but can it run Crysis” meme did the game far more good than harm.
 
Reactions: King_V

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS