Discussion Memories of Crysis 1?

[jnjnilson6]

Swinging through voluptuous forests and lasers covering breathlessly, irretrievably the rocky particulars in shaded corners and miniature buildings, the nano-suit providing beauty and strength and smoothness of maneuver, Crysis 1 drifts up swimming in the memory like a beautiful island on the verge of software and gaming.

The beaches strewn with VTOLs and boats and the waters temptingly veering in beauty under a coruscating sun and cadences of beauty and cadences of beauty... The Multiplayer - filled with exquisite features like circle jumping or covering vast areas of buildings with multitudinous jumping... Those breathless golden immemorial hours; those tinge-filled days and the swift verdure and the endless trees... Too bad the Multiplayer closed in 2014.

Tell me about your memories. I would love to hear. This game was one of the greatest ever made.

Thank you!

 

[NanoSuit3]

I remember the first time I ever saw a glimpse of this game. I was scrolling through YT for best know looking FPS visuals and I see a thumbnail of a VOD gameplay and it looked so realistic. After seeing that VOD and watching several "gross" more I was mesmerized with it and couldn't stop eye-candying until the Remastered Trilogy.

 

[Eximo]

Pushed my 8800GTS to 100C+ at 1280x1024, so I never really got into it. (30-40 FPS according to old benchmarks) Other games captured my attention at the time like Unreal Tournament III.

 

[Silas Sanchez]

Crysis was the most anticipated game of all time, at least from a purely technological perspective. And yet the life lesson I got from it was there are more important things in life than gaming, because essentially it was the "blond bimbo" or the "hollow shell", all eye candy and no real substance, it was just hollow. This combined with the fact that Valve systematically destroyed the Half-Life franchise by abandoning to it and Alan Wake being the biggest never was, the biggest linear cheesy unauthentic mess, was enough for me to quit PC gaming.

At the time I had a 2560x1600 display and the general consensus was to get 60fps with maxed eye candy you needed 4 top of the line nvidia cards in SLI.
Irrc it literally took until the gtx900series to actually get blistering frame rates at 1600p. At one point I was reduced to playing it with a GT220...

Crysis to me was the ultimate tropical island simulator with a lacking b grade chessy plot. It was fun but lacked deep substance.

Despite its cutting edge visuals there was a numerous amount of problems, which gave rise to what I termed "the gilligans island look", that is it looked fake like a studio, such as:

-The water effects looked like a studio, no waves breaking on beach.
-The game on ultra had an annoying dry washed out color, somewhat mitigated with hdr tweaks making it look nice and green.
-The water originally had a really paradise blue but was changed to a washed out bland color.
- The blurred foreground made it look fake like in a studio.
- The night sky had awful artifacting.
- The moonlight was overly bright, easily 5-10lux. didn't look that good in open areas.
-Textures were watered down and needed to be moded.
- One of the most annoying issues was it was hard to discern the enemies in the jungle, I called this the 2 Dimensional problem. It was like the jungle looked somewhat 2D. Nowadays this isn't a problem.

Compared to Original Far Cry, FC was state of the art graphics, amazing gameplay, and dare I say it intriguing and exciting premise and story. Far Cry was fun, Crysis was analytical and empty. Aparanetly much of crysis budget was spent on the aliens, which imo was a waste.

 

[jnjnilson6]

Crysis was the most anticipated game of all time, at least from a purely technological perspective. And yet the life lesson I got from it was there are more important things in life than gaming, because essentially it was the "blond bimbo" or the "hollow shell", all eye candy and no real substance, it was just hollow. This combined with the fact that Valve systematically destroyed the Half-Life franchise by abandoning to it and Alan Wake being the biggest never was, the biggest linear cheesy unauthentic mess, was enough for me to quit PC gaming.

At the time I had a 2560x1600 display and the general consensus was to get 60fps with maxed eye candy you needed 4 top of the line nvidia cards in SLI.
Irrc it literally took until the gtx900series to actually get blistering frame rates at 1600p. At one point I was reduced to playing it with a GT220...

Crysis to me was the ultimate tropical island simulator with a lacking b grade chessy plot. It was fun but lacked deep substance.

Despite its cutting edge visuals there was a numerous amount of problems, which gave rise to what I termed "the gilligans island look", that is it looked fake like a studio, such as:

-The water effects looked like a studio, no waves breaking on beach.
-The game on ultra had an annoying dry washed out color, somewhat mitigated with hdr tweaks making it look nice and green.
-The water originally had a really paradise blue but was changed to a washed out bland color.
- The blurred foreground made it look fake like in a studio.
- The night sky had awful artifacting.
- The moonlight was overly bright, easily 5-10lux. didn't look that good in open areas.
-Textures were watered down and needed to be moded.
- One of the most annoying issues was it was hard to discern the enemies in the jungle, I called this the 2 Dimensional problem. It was like the jungle looked somewhat 2D. Nowadays this isn't a problem.

Compared to Original Far Cry, FC was state of the art graphics, amazing gameplay, and dare I say it intriguing and exciting premise and story. Far Cry was fun, Crysis was analytical and empty. Aparanetly much of crysis budget was spent on the aliens, which imo was a waste.

The first cards which could throw a punch at the game came in late 2009. Talking about the HD 5850 / 5870. Those cards could play the game on very high graphics at 1920x1080 whilst providing frame-rate above 24 FPS. These cards provided so much more power than the high-end assortment from 2007-2008 did.

I am sure Crysis 4 (which is currently under development) would be able to run at a lower resolution / lower graphics settings on a 5850 / 5870 if it were not for the newer DirectX version. Those cards were pinnacles.

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

I first played Crysis 1 on an 8800 GTS, I think. Didn't have great results. Moved to a GTX9800+ and it was much better. Never finished it back in the day. I have the remastered trilogy, which I'm playing through. Even now with remastered, Crysis 1 doesn't get insane FPS. The remasters for Crysis 2/3 are much more polished and gets high fps on systems you would expect the same.

 

[jnjnilson6]

I first played Crysis 1 on an 8800 GTS, I think. Didn't have great results. Moved to a GTX9800+ and it was much better. Never finished it back in the day. I have the remastered trilogy, which I'm playing through. Even now with remastered, Crysis 1 doesn't get insane FPS. The remasters for Crysis 2/3 are much more polished and gets high fps on systems you would expect the same.

I played Crysis 1 on a Mobility HD 4530 (512 MB DDR3) for the first time.

Then on a GeForce 555M 1 GB GDDR5 (game ran less smoothly than on the HD 4530 despite potential for much higher frame rates).

Then on a Radeon HD 6770 1 GB GDDR5 (and that was the card that made an incredibly huge difference).

Then on a Radeon HD 7870 GHz 2 GB GDDR5 (this card delivered such a punch that all settings ran smoothly even at 1920x1080).

Then on 2x Radeon HD 7870 GHz in Crossfire (Crysis is not a game which handles CF very well; a single 7870 performed smoother).

 

[jnjnilson6]

I first played Crysis 1 on an 8800 GTS, I think. Didn't have great results. Moved to a GTX9800+ and it was much better. Never finished it back in the day. I have the remastered trilogy, which I'm playing through. Even now with remastered, Crysis 1 doesn't get insane FPS. The remasters for Crysis 2/3 are much more polished and gets high fps on systems you would expect the same.

Funny thing I remember... I managed to beat Crysis 2 on the Mobility HD 4530 machine which also had an AMD M300 CPU (2 cores @ 2 GHz) and 4 GB RAM.
I got about 18-22 FPS at 800x600 on the lowest possible settings. The game ran at a speed which I can consider to be perfectly borderline in terms of the gaming experience. It was on the lowest edge of 'excitably playable.'

PS. Crysis 1 ran on the same machine at 44 FPS (1024x768 / All Low). You could hover about 24-25 FPS on Medium. High and Very High were tempting if you liked to play at 15 FPS or something synonymous with framerate thunder capping the frames even lower here and there. That's what brought the magic to me... The inaccessible pale verges of graphical beauty at those settings which the 4530 could barely reach. The HD 6770 and 7870 had no problems even at the highest settings but then the magic was gone; because what had been once something I'd aspired toward had currently become a mundane and effortless achievement.

 

[JWNoctis]

The best I could remember was a video demonstrating the engine's physics capability, up to and including a giant tower of some five thousand explosive barrels. I'm still wondering what kind of setup that guy had.

Didn't have the hardware to play the thing until years later, and by then, it's...not quite as remarkable as it used to be.

 

[PEnns]

I thought the game was good actually, graphics were very decent and the game play had many new elements.

It ran well on my 8800 GTX, and after that I bought anything with the word Crysis in it!