Crytek discusses Crysis Remastered's graphical upgrades

2 things:
I really wish they got rid of motion-blur. Everyone will turn it off. Nobody likes it...

Next in regards to the last paragraph about them taking advantage of hardware-acceleration in Turing/RDNA 2, I believe they already did in the NOIR demo they had. A 5700xt was losing to a 2060/2060 Super if I remember right. A noticeable difference too. I could be wrong and it could just be that Turing is faster without using Tensor cores. Though the difference in performance would be explained by the tensor core.
 
2 things:
I really wish they got rid of motion-blur. Everyone will turn it off. Nobody likes it...

Next in regards to the last paragraph about them taking advantage of hardware-acceleration in Turing/RDNA 2, I believe they already did in the NOIR demo they had. A 5700xt was losing to a 2060/2060 Super if I remember right. A noticeable difference too. I could be wrong and it could just be that Turing is faster without using Tensor cores. Though the difference in performance would be explained by the tensor core.

It wasn't hardware accelerated. It was using DirectX 11 and Crytek confirmed that it wasn't using Nvidia's RTX features at the time. It just happened to be a workflow that worked well on Nvidia GPUs at the time.
 
As the main focus will be current gen consoles including the Switch, I can't see them going for an over the top graphical upgrade over the original, They have to develop for the lowest common denominator which in this case are some very weak pieces of gear i.e XB1, PS4 and Switch, Not counting the XB1X or PS4 Pro.
 
I hope the motion blur is optional. I always turn it off, makes me feel ill.

I can't remember which NFS Shift game it was, but when you hit high speed everything went blurry like you were having a panic attack. It really ruined the game.
 
I hope the motion blur is optional. I always turn it off, makes me feel ill.

I can't remember which NFS Shift game it was, but when you hit high speed everything went blurry like you were having a panic attack. It really ruined the game.


Strange. Never affected me at all. Quite liked it personally. Added a touch of realism.


The NFS you are referring to is HIGH STAKES.
 
As the main focus will be current gen consoles including the Switch, I can't see them going for an over the top graphical upgrade over the original, They have to develop for the lowest common denominator which in this case are some very weak pieces of gear i.e XB1, PS4 and Switch, Not counting the XB1X or PS4 Pro.

It's called scaling. You can still get over the top visuals on the higher end hardware and lower it for lower end hardware.

It's not always a console design-first approach. Also, it's Crytek. Do you really think they will go careful on the graphics? :D
 
It's called scaling. You can still get over the top visuals on the higher end hardware and lower it for lower end hardware.

It's not always a console design-first approach. Also, it's Crytek. Do you really think they will go careful on the graphics? :D


Normally I'd fully agree with you but Crytek will want maximum profits considering they now have a distribution platform on all the consoles, Which I cannot blame them for, Just look at Crysis 2 + 3, Yeah ok both looked decent'ish on PC but they could've looked way better if Crytek focused just on PC, It's 1 of the reasons Crysis 1 was way ahead when it came to graphics.
 
Normally I'd fully agree with you but Crytek will want maximum profits considering they now have a distribution platform on all the consoles, Which I cannot blame them for, Just look at Crysis 2 + 3, Yeah ok both looked decent'ish on PC but they could've looked way better if Crytek focused just on PC, It's 1 of the reasons Crysis 1 was way ahead when it came to graphics.

I don't agree with that at all. There is no way in hell any console could have run either of those games anywhere near how they looked on PC.

Especially with the tessellation pack for C2. My problem with both games was certainly not how they looked at all.

It was because they were nothing like the original, except in gesture, for the reasons I explained on another forum yesterday.

The best part of Crysis, for me at least, was the varying ways you could play it. IE if you wanted to cloak and go around blowing people up without them even knowing you're there? go for it. Or, you could go in guns blazing like I like to. So each situation had a magnitude of approach options.

However, in the second one that was far more forced. And I didn't like that. It was also very linear, and I didn't like that either. It was like it was designed to use the myriad of suit options, yet there was only one optimal one.

So for example, if like I you chose to go in guns blazing then you could find yourself spending nearly an hour on a roof top and running out of ammo. Which wasn't much fun. So the ideal way was to cloak up and sneak through, but then the gameplay itself became linear. So it wasn't a patch on the original.

2 did look incredible though, and there were some amazing moments (like when the bridge collapses and I just sat there with my jaw on the ground). But overall it severely limited the freedoms of Crysis.


As I said, no problems with how they looked at all. It was the games that stunk.
 
Normally I'd fully agree with you but Crytek will want maximum profits considering they now have a distribution platform on all the consoles, Which I cannot blame them for, Just look at Crysis 2 + 3, Yeah ok both looked decent'ish on PC but they could've looked way better if Crytek focused just on PC, It's 1 of the reasons Crysis 1 was way ahead when it came to graphics.

Well Witcher 3 was similar but it was PC first. Releasing on consoles actually allowed them to expand the game and put more money into it because they knew they had more revenue sources. The graphics on PC are far better than the console versions. Even on pro/onex.

I assume this will be a similar situation. Cryengine was built for PC with expanded support for console's. I don't see them completely changing their philosophy entirely. If anything I think it means better graphics for everyone.
 
Normally I'd fully agree with you but Crytek will want maximum profits considering they now have a distribution platform on all the consoles, Which I cannot blame them for, Just look at Crysis 2 + 3, Yeah ok both looked decent'ish on PC but they could've looked way better if Crytek focused just on PC, It's 1 of the reasons Crysis 1 was way ahead when it came to graphics.

I completely disagree with you! In fact Crysis 3 is to date one of the best looking games ever, that's without Raytracing. I really don't know how the gaming industry as a whole let Crysis 3 and Cryengine 3 slip under the radar because I used to run it on a 1GB GTX 750Ti paired with an AMD FX 4300 back in the day and it ran great at medium settings or decently at a high-very high mix of some sorts. Today you need 4GB VRAM to run Assassin's Creed Origins and it doesn't look so great! I won't get into the details but Crysis 3 had done so many graphical things right back in the day, that moderns games simply still can't reach besides raytraced ones. Yet the most mind-blowing thing about Crysis 3 os how it managed to run all that in such poor hardware, while nowadays something like FFXV or FFVII remake (running in luminous engine) that is also visually impressive needs high amounts of VRAM and have noise issues so it's really not quite at the same level of impressiveness.

People expected a game looking so great that it wouldn't run on any hardware and instead they got a exactly that, except it ran on ANY hardware and somehow they got disappointed at that... Ofc they could have made it even better looking and more hardware intensive if they were to give it more money and time to cook, but really Crytek couldn't afford that at the time.

Now once again Crytek is going against the wave and bringing Raytracing, except that it runs on legacy hardware and runs good even so, but once again, I feel people are looking at all this the wrong way and all that effort,and actually impressive outcome will mean nothing at all in the end.
 
Last edited:
I'll believe it all when I see it, If Crytek bring a game out that visually is vastly better than the console versions then great but I can't see them putting that much effort in, Remasters are usually projects to fund something else.
 
Certain levels of Cryis 3, even back then, could load up every CPU core you had (at the time 8 in home computers) and fully utilise the GPU also.

Just because the original was quite poor and so heavy on hardware did not mean it was done on purpose. The very fact Warhead ran 20% better on identical hardware showed that with time and optimisation it was possible. The original Far Cry wasn't very hard to run, but when it released it looked every bit as stunning as Crysis did in terms of pushing hardware to the limits.

Crytek just got better at what they did was all. Just because a certain game came out on console too doesn't mean the PC version was hampered in any way. I don't think Dice understands how games are created because like many he usually refers to them as "ports" when they used to be no such thing. Now? they're still not ports. They still require a crap ton of effort to be made to work on a PC. That is why there is quite often a delay with AAA games because of the time it takes to make them run on PC.
 
Certain levels of Cryis 3, even back then, could load up every CPU core you had (at the time 8 in home computers) and fully utilise the GPU also.

Just because the original was quite poor and so heavy on hardware did not mean it was done on purpose. The very fact Warhead ran 20% better on identical hardware showed that with time and optimisation it was possible. The original Far Cry wasn't very hard to run, but when it released it looked every bit as stunning as Crysis did in terms of pushing hardware to the limits.

Crytek just got better at what they did was all. Just because a certain game came out on console too doesn't mean the PC version was hampered in any way. I don't think Dice understands how games are created because like many he usually refers to them as "ports" when they used to be no such thing. Now? they're still not ports. They still require a crap ton of effort to be made to work on a PC. That is why there is quite often a delay with AAA games because of the time it takes to make them run on PC.


Needlessly condescending there, I fully understand how games are made, But in todays world all game studios that want to sell to more than a few people make the game around the lowest common denominator, Consoles in this instance, Hence why I don't expect the PC version to be vastly better, A bit better visually ? Yes, But not something that would make me jump out of my seat.
 
Well, most people don't care about graphics tbh bud. It's more about the game and the performance that matters more.

Now in this specific game's case, I can see why you would want uber graphics. That was the highlight of the game in its time and so much so it brought every pc to their knees and started a meme that still gets thrown around today. I don't think they could get away with that these days. People are too whiney and needy for that.

So I do see your point here and I get it. I agree with you in that it may not be "as" crazy as it could be but still somewhat better. Again I just don't think it's entirely all their fault as they still do need to sell it. Its kinda the consumers mentality these days that is the larger issue, though that doesn't mean it's also not their fault for going against the status quo.
 
Needlessly condescending there, I fully understand how games are made, But in todays world all game studios that want to sell to more than a few people make the game around the lowest common denominator, Consoles in this instance, Hence why I don't expect the PC version to be vastly better, A bit better visually ? Yes, But not something that would make me jump out of my seat.

It will be vastly better. However, for the most part you probably won't even notice unless you stop what you are doing and stand and study it.

That's the main problem with games. For the most part you are in action and moving. It's not a slide show it's a game.

However it will be massively superior on PC. Both Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 were.
 
If you are still in any doubt then I would invest 30 minutes into this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWdas55U4_8

It also crushes a load of the BS surrounding the original. IE, the original only used one thread and relied on IPC. The only version that was ever released that didn't was the console version, which ran on a totally different engine and wasn't available for PC.

That is why they were able to release it on console.

I'm about 10 minutes in, but figured I would pause to post it here. It also shows off what this game could actually look like, again crushing BS. It shows an almost identical world using the latest Cryengine and it looks absolutely breathtaking. If it looks anything like that I couldn't care how well it runs on consoles.
 
Back
Top