Read more.Quote:
Meanwhile, a Resident Evil 4 remake may be on the way. And Assassin's Creed 2 goes free.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Meanwhile, a Resident Evil 4 remake may be on the way. And Assassin's Creed 2 goes free.
Oh GOD NO! Not this again.
Crysis is just a bad unoptimized engine if you ask me...
I played crysis back then, well the single player and then MP for a few weeks, then it was tossed aside.
I am not jumping this bandwagon again, even if my GFX had ray tracing which it don't as a G1 Navi product.
I completed crysis. Enjoyed it. Like a richer Far Cry, though I preferred the latter in some ways. What's not to like about something so graphically rich? I love game-changers like that. Half life was similar (in a different way) back in its day.
thinking about it I have a copy of crysis 2 I've literally never opened! I was waiting to buy a new graphics card and never did... <checks specs> nope, still can't run it at max settings anyway but might be one to crack open in these lock-down crazy times. will the DRM server still be operational??
Another Tweet has been posted, and it says "Hey Nomad, you're still with us?"
I agree, Cryengine was mostly just an unoptomised mess.
Far cry (original = before Ubisoft) was fantastic, upto a certain point. I played it years after it came out out and it was still brilliant, until the creatures.
Crisis had some decent ideas, then they just cheaper out and thought we'll throw aliens in.
Both games were good, but once you get to the creatures, zombies, aliens, etc. It just turns me right off the game.
Cheap a.i too, you don't have to program expected human behaviours, just mindless rush tactics.
Recently replayed Crysis to show my nephew, and outdated graphics aside (it's the vegetation which screws your graphics card btw. Still does!) it's not a very good game. It was fun because of the graphics and the explosions, but story wise it's a very middle of the road game.
I think i will have to correct myself, i think it was far cry i played, crysis i think i passed on as far cry did not do much for me, not least in MP which was my thing back then.
The nano-suit probably is also a thing that will have turned me off, though i hate realism in games, for my part that's the weapons i think off, not game physics or game play.
I just hate games where you have to press a button to run, only to run out of stamina shortly after, and not forgetting shooting from 3 different positions ( lying / prone / standing )
Or OMG press a button to hold your breath to aim a sniper,,,, i mean come on, its supposed to be fun if i wanted that i would go play paintball or softball.
that's where we differ - I love that, going prone, holding breath etc. Far cry let you lean around corners etc. It's epic. I love the realism. The other thing I'd change would be to have a more sensible correlation between speed+stamina and the weight being carried - particularly when it's a huge rocket launcher! There are plenty of blast-away mindless console ports available. I find them tedious. I want the strategy, the "realism" or attempt at more realistic game play. The stealth and work out how to get around a problem, come at it from different angles etc. Open world, immersive, expansive, etc. It's why I've always felt PC gaming was more fun - more ability to code and run larger maps, less linear and more varied. With modern processing ability if they could get decent bot AI it would awesome. I'd really like a challenging AI single player which learns and adapts that would be something.
DF did a deep dive of Crysis - it wasn't unoptimised on the graphics side as it was pushing stuff,and Crytek had to actually tone down the game and use more efficient things as a result. What the game was more CPU limited and VRAM limited,as it only used two to four threads and quad cores were not as common as people thought. If you see this with later iterations of Cryengine,Crytek was one of the first devs to have a reasonably multi-threaded engine,and it was probably down to this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcYA-H3qpTI]
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...10-years-later
Also,Crysis was one of the few shooters to have semi openworld environments,as it wasn't really an exploration game. Then one of the best things in the game was the use of semi-destructable environments,the fact you could interaction with lots of stuff,destroy buildings,throw chickens at enemies,etc. Very few games had that and few do it today(Just Cause being an exception).Quote:
By just turning around as you move up the beach head, you can admire the dedication put into subtleties of rendering in the sky and vegetation. You can see screen-space crepuscular 'god' rays filtering through the leaves from the moon, causing a specular sheen to show on the waxy surface off the leaves, and permeating through to their back side. And edge-blend anti-aliasing system is deployed, giving an FXAA-like effect that only impacted vegetation.
Yes, Crysis was a heavy game on system resources and to this day it has a reputation that it was 'unoptimised'. Now, on the one hand, it was clear that Crytek took liberties with a platform that was, in effect, infinitely expandable across time with a view of technology catching up wth its design choices. As then-Crytek (now id software) rendering mastermind Tiago Sousa told us back in the day: "In Crysis 1 times, our attitude was, 'oh what the heck, what's one more additional full resolution FP16 target or a couple of full screen passes, let's just add it'... you can't take such a naive approach for consoles."
Not a trick, not an illusion. Yes, this 2007 game is running at under 40fps on the fastest CPUs money can buy.
But on the other hand, performance tweaks were incorporated. True volumetric clouds at the beginning of the game gave way to texture billboards once you landed, while the first member of Raptor team you meet - Jester - carries about a flashlight with a simplified spotlight effect (which swaps back to a full volumetric effect in cutscenes). A modern Crysis game based on the latest CryEngine would do this rather differently and in a way that is more physically accurate. The current tech - and its off-shoot in Amazon's Lumberyard - support a frustum voxel fog, where lights and shadows cast through it. Every light is technically "volumetric" with no picking and choosing due to performance reasons; the cost is much more flat. There would be no need for fake god rays from the sun or moon, as those effects just happen naturally as part of the rendering pipeline.
Crysis is fully capable of a full 24 hour time of day lighting cycle, but the game has areas where the passing of time is linked to progress through the level, leading up to that famous moment where you overlook the harbour, tasked with taking out jamming equipment. Like the opening scene in the plane, there are so many of Crysis's graphical effects coming into play here: the ocean rendering, the atmospheric scattering simulation, the crepuscular rays from the sun, the back lighting on the trees, and the incredible view distances just filled to the brim with AI and AI creatures. And then there was the vegetation and trees, with their procedural breaking of branches right down to the twig level. Head down to the harbour, shoot an oil barrel and watch it leak based on where you shot it. There's a level of simulation here you just don't see any more in modern games - the focus has changed, as we've explained recently in our Far Cry tech retrospective.
Some rendering effects we saw in Crysis do still persist into present day titles. There's the debut of screen-space ambient occlusion (SSAO), along with a glorious showcase in parallax occlusion mapping, an effect that only really came into its own on the current-gen consoles. Essentially a way to fake geometric depth on a surface, the game also supports shadows being cast from the parallax maps back on to themselves. POM only really gained momentum in the current-gen era and most games either just have parallax occlusion maps with no shadows, or just with shadows from one light source. It illustrates just how far ahead of the curve Crysis was, and while the game was indeed very heavy on GPU resources, that wasn't exactly unreasonable based on the quality of the visuals it was generating. The team's 'Maximum Game' ethos also saw them eschewing rendering shortcuts that would display artefacts in motion - Crysis looked amazing both in still shots and video.
And part of Crysis's reputation for melting cutting-edge hardware comes from all of those effects, framebuffers and high resolution textures, which made the title consume a lot of VRAM. GPUs of the era tended to top out at 512MB, and running the game on very high settings could see that limit easily surpassed - with parallax occlusion mapping in particular sucking up a lot of memory. Unless you had a 768MB card like the 8800 GTX, the chances are that the experience would stutter as data flowed in and out of VRAM into system memory. Had tools like Riva Tuner Statistics Server been available then, the chances are we would have seen more tweaks to texture settings and fewer complaints online.
But Crysis also hails from an era where the future of CPU technology was heading in a very different direction than Crytek may have originally envisaged. It is multi-core aware to a certain extent - gaming workloads can be seen across four threads - but the expectation for PC computing, especially from Intel with its Netburst architecture, was that the real increase in speed in computing would happen from massive increases in clock speed, with the expectations of anything up to 8GHz Pentiums in the future. It never happened, of course, and that's the key reason why it is impossible to run Crysis at 60fps, even on a Core i7 8700K overclocked to 5GHz. At its nadir in the Ascension stage (sensibly removed from the console versions), the fastest gaming CPU money can buy struggles to move beyond the mid-30s.
It used techniques which are more common in modern games.
Even look at the character modesl - the Ceph in Crysis don't walk about,they fly. This means they need different AI packages to the human enemies in the game - very few modern games do this,ie,they have walking enemies exclusively as they can use the same AI packages as human enemies,etc.
The other aspect is the Crysis we saw,wasn't the best graphics you could enable in game - Crytek artifically limited what you could enable in the menus. You could go into config files and further ramp up graphics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUEVDKvIcDA
The game still looks decentish now at max settings. There are also various mods available for it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARkLwHuJ9II
This is a game which is over 12 years old now.
Crysis was one of the last AAA games,developed with the PC as the lead platform,after that consoles determined the baseline configuration. Even Crysis 2 used consoles as the baseline configuration.
I completed yesterday, The crysis. I wonder, when the next level will come.
It still stuttered with the 8800GTX :(Quote:
Unless you had a 768MB card like the 8800 GTX, the chances are that the experience would stutter as data flowed in and out of VRAM into system memory.
was fine on an overclocked GTX460 provided it was winter. Got a bit stuttery in summer months when the snow fell, otherwise ok. Warhead grumbled a bit more, presumably they upped some of the specs between the two.
Why make new games when you can just re-release the old ones using an upgraded graphics engine..... bet it comes out as a full AAA price too, even though there's far less work involved here.
If Crysis was bad back then, its only going to get worse
moving forward and that will be an understatement regarding
Nvidia cards and RT. Although if better optimized for multicore
processors things a little better but only just.