Crysis Remastered 2020

ne0

ne0

Associate
Joined
2 Feb 2018
Posts
682
This game looks absolutely sick especially considering how old it is lol. I think Crytek have done a stand up job tbh, it really does look fantastic.

I have been playing around with the graphics settings and have settled on some optimised settings which keep me up above 60fps @ 3440 x 1440 the vast majority of the time. Feel free to use them if you have a similar system to mine (in my sig).

Texture Quality - Can it run Crysis?
Objects Quality - medium
Shadows Quality - medium
Physics Quality - Can it run Crysis?
Shaders Quality - Can it run Crysis?
Raytracing Quality - high
Volumetric Effects Quality - Very high
Game Effects Quality - Very high
Postprocessing quality - very high
Particles Quality - Can it run Crysis?
Water Quality - Can it run Crysis?
Vegetation - High

I'm also using HDR with this game which looks amaazzzzzinnnnnggggg!
 
Last edited:

mrk

mrk

Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
100,294
Location
South Coast
It's a bit of a con really. A modern tech remake without the actual modern tech to utilise. It would actually have made sense if it was updated to DX12 and made use of the technologies in it.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Dec 2005
Posts
8,009
Location
Wiltshire
Not a mistake, just the only way it could actually happen. No way was this going to get funding for a heavier remake. People just don't understand the difficulties & costs involved.
Crytek's whole business model is based around building game engines and tech, being stuck on DX11 isnt a good advert for Cryengine.

They should have spent more money on their products than on baseless lawsuits.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Feb 2015
Posts
6,484
Don't add a 'can it run crysis?' option then :p
Why not? It's a brute force option which games generally don't give at all. Just because it doesn't run well doesn't mean we can't appreciate having it.

It's a bit of a con really. A modern tech remake without the actual modern tech to utilise. It would actually have made sense if it was updated to DX12 and made use of the technologies in it.
Not at all - and also it's a remaster not a remake. The game runs well & looks great at particular settings. It is still a considerable visual uplift compared to the original despite what the forever whingers say. Both on a technical level and on a subjective level the added benefits of SVOGI, of ray tracing, of higher resolution textures, of shadowed vegetation, of better multi-core usage (even if not perfect!) as well as -majorly- HDR support, and all other improvements simply cannot be dismissed except by those who intended to be haters anyway.

Crytek's whole business model is based around building game engines and tech, being stuck on DX11 isnt a good advert for Cryengine.

They should have spent more money on their products than on baseless lawsuits.

Crytek's management is notoriously corrupt & I can recognise a certain attitude I see amongst certain populations throughout S&E Europe, but nonetheless it's unlikely a more ground-up remake would've made financial sense. Hell, they didn't even do it all themselves, they had to enlist Saber to do it. I wouldn't worry about Cryengine though, the newer versions have been updated, but the engine licensing business is secondary to their efforts. They're still a game studio first and foremost, but they're focused on Hunt Showdown atm.

And also, let's not forget - this is a $30 game, not $70-80 like the new ones are asking.
 

mrk

mrk

Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
100,294
Location
South Coast
It still has flat textures here and there on environmental surfaces so how can it look well? I've seen more detail and visually stunning graphics on PS4 games (Last of us pt2 namely let alone PC games that both look at run better than Crysis with better physics and animations.

Linus' recent video where he literally points out flat textures in high graphics settings shows the above too.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Nov 2006
Posts
2,871
Location
Shoeburyness,England
This game looks absolutely sick especially considering how old it is lol. I think Crytek have done a stand up job tbh, it really does look fantastic.

I have been playing around with the graphics settings and have settled on some optimised settings which keep me up above 60fps @ 3440 x 1440 the vast majority of the time. Feel free to use them if you have a similar system to mine (in my sig).

Texture Quality - Can it run Crysis?
Objects Quality - Can it run Crysis?
Shadows Quality - medium
Physics Quality - Can it run Crysis?
Shaders Quality - Can it run Crysis?
Raytracing Quality - performance
Volumetric Effects Quality - Very high
Game Effects Quality - Very high
Postprocessing quality - medium
Particles Quality - Can it run Crysis?
Water Quality - medium
Vegetation - Very high

I'm also using HDR with this game which looks amaazzzzzinnnnnggggg!

Not a mistake, just the only way it could actually happen. No way was this going to get funding for a heavier remake. People just don't understand the difficulties & costs involved.

Definitely!

It still has flat textures here and there on environmental surfaces so how can it look well? I've seen more detail and visually stunning graphics on PS4 games (Last of us pt2 namely let alone PC games that both look at run better than Crysis with better physics and animations.

Linus' recent video where he literally points out flat textures in high graphics settings shows the above too.


Yes it isn't using tessellation on vehicles etc. but this is a remaster not a complete reworking from the ground up for people like me who have fond memories of the original crysis, and haven't used any mods will probably try it.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
39,677
Location
Surrey

Wow. What an absolute con.

The original PC version seems to actually look better than this "remaster" in some cases.

the textures and draw distances are better in the remaster, sure. But those comparison with the light and shading, physics were stark. The original was much better.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
18 Feb 2015
Posts
6,484
Someone on reddit said this, which well describes the situation imo:

Great article by Alex, as usual. He's tough, but fair. Nails a lot of stuff less experienced technical writers get wrong. (No, the game isn't single threaded. It's more complex than that.)

Long story short, the game should not have shipped in this state. There's a lot of good in the remaster. A lot of work was put in, especially with them making an effort to cater to PC fans. This is not some lazy cash grab put together in a few months. Aspects of it are rushed, but they tried.
The issues it has are accumulative. A flaw here, a flaw there, all adding up to something annoying. Some are quite trivial to fix, in theory. Little oversights like wind/bend calculations being wrong, so trees don't sway as much as 2007. Others may be simple bugs, like explosions not affecting vegetation. The behavior to make vegetation vertex sway is in there. The physics being at half rate is an engine thing. Clearly not intentional, IMO. PS3/360 port didn't have that issue, it is very important to note. You shoot a palm tree branch on 360, and it sways at full speed.

Fans want a worthy replacement for Crysis 2007. They don't want a big asterisk.
Here's an example of a lack of attention to detail. The Scar model used in the remaster is actually a broken version from the OG game. It has a UV mapping problem that is glaring in hindsight. They used the wrong file somehow. This broken file is in the OG game. I think what happened is that they took the PS3/360 version and added the original PC weapon models. But they used the wrong file for the Scar. (The PS3/360 weapon models are actually quite nice, BTW. They should include them as an option.)

When the remaster came out on Switch, nobody noticed a lot of the oversights. But within a day of the PC version coming out, it has been scrutinized beyond belief. And that's to be expected. Crysis fans on PC love the game dearly, and that makes them... passionate, sometimes.
Over on the Discord, Crytek released a statement this evening, saying:

We hope you've been enjoying the release of Crysis Remastered! We'd like to thank all the players on each platform that are taking their time to make detailed bug reports to our Discord and other Social Media channels. Keep up the good work! We've already relayed a ton of these bugs to the Crytek and Saber interactive Dev teams. We should have more information about known issues, patches on all platforms, and the reintroduction of lost Crysis features in the coming future. We are listening to all the community feedback and are committed to making Lingshan island a place you are happy to call home (And a place you are happy to throw some barrels at enemies in your sick Nano Suit!)

Which is encouraging. As long as they're in this for the long haul, I think it'll work out. Some of the performance issues are due to the vegetation rendering being just too much. Bear in mind that Medium settings run pretty darn well. And it looks pretty damn good on Medium. But above Medium? Everything falls apart very quickly. There is no CPU on earth that can handle Very High and Can It Run Crysis settings related to vegetation, shadows, and ray tracing. (Plus HW acceleration of RT isn't activating automatically like it was supposed to.) They need to seriously re-evaluate those settings, and the game's performance as a whole on PC. Most Crysis fans would gladly take some visual downgrades if it meant that the higher settings made sense from a performance perspective. GPU performance is increasingly constantly. When CR is leaning on a small number of threads (AI/Logic+Render+Physics+Ray Tracing) without much wriggle room, CPU performance is not going to increase meaningfully in the next few years. This is a major, major issue.

The only reason the console versions run well (including 60fps modes on a Jaguar CPU) is because they have much less vegetation. Way, way less. Less than OG PC. The PC version of the remaster has dense vegetation, far eclipsing the OG in density and draw distance. They went overboard. A lot of people don't realise just how many trees and how much grass they jammed into this remaster on PC.

Other performance woes are caused by bugs. You change settings and sometimes the performance goes berserk.
For example, this 970 benchmark shows the game locked at 72fps with random drops, even on Low. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-bFC87i0k8 The game has gone apeshit, and most people aren't gonna realize that something is really wrong. Issues like this REALLY need fixing because they make a contentious performance situation so much worse.

You run in windowed mode, and sometimes it starts ******** itself for no apparent reason. Did I mention this game boots in borderless windowed mode even though you selected fullscreen? Classic CryEngine nosense. It's Crysis 2 all over again.
 

mrk

mrk

Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
100,294
Location
South Coast
Wow. What an absolute con.

The original PC version seems to actually look better than this "remaster" in some cases.

the textures and draw distances are better in the remaster, sure. But those comparison with the light and shading, physics were stark. The original was much better.
As DF video shows, the remaster is based off the then era console version which pruned out a lot of stuff as it didn't need to be or could not be rendered by the consoles. You'd have thought Crytek would have put the missing bits back into the remaster since both PC and console hardware can handle them so it should be universally there but nope, they didn't put them back.
 
Back
Top Bottom