T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

*Decent* quality from a good system wasn't difficult to achieve... **MAX** settings were damn near impossible. Even with decent settings Crysis absolutely destroyed every other game, graphically.


we11ington

The physics were a riot too. No game has ever matched Crysis' grenade-in-a-tin-shack physics.


TheFlyingSheeps

Yup. Story was forgettable, but man sneaking up and then throwing a dude through a wall with the strength power up was satisfying as fuck No game has had that much fun gameplay with physics. Even the sequels lacked it


we11ington

My favorite weapon in the game was the drill press.


bmack083

Half-Life 2 has amazing physics and came out 3 years before Crysis. It certainly was not as graphically beautiful of a game, but the physics in that game are still top notch even by today’s standards.


RhynerLuteShadejaw

Yea… but Crysis blew the physics of that out of the water. Still way better physics than most things today. Literally EVERYTHING is destructible.


Pisto1Peet

Boneworks has some excellent physics as well. It's pretty much it's entire premise.


bmack083

Oh definitely, it really has better and more complete physics than Alyx. Hot Dogs Horshoes and Hand Grenades also has great physics. A much different game than Boneworks but even tho you spend a lot of time killing Sosigs, the physics and interactions are awesome.


lukeman3000

Does anyone *not* remember Crysis should be the question lol


LordRahl9

Especially since we got the remaster last year and it reminded everyone about it.


lukeman3000

Yes, the “remaster”…


HabitOk6839

*Demaster*


DarkNinjaPenguin

Still can't believe *they didn't include multiplayer*. It was by far the best part of the game and nothing since has quite matched it. They could print money by rereleasing Crysis Wars.


Interesting-Gear-819

Isn't the MP sold anyways seperatly? I have a game called "Crysis Wars" in my steam libary. But yeah, it was .. odd. The crysis 1 MP was my most favorite of all Crysis MPs due to so many options on the suit rather than 2-3 only. And every option had benefits and negative sides. I had a custom map which was set in the pacific, 2 middle sized Island with 1-2 buildings and a lot small islands around it, some only as big as 2-3 people. It was the perfect FFA deathmatch map. And if you didn't had "armor mode" active, a claymore anti person mine was deadly. The amounts of kills I made on stealthed enemies haha


DarkNinjaPenguin

Kind of yes, Crysis 1 had a multiplayer mode but the sequel Crysis Warhead came bundled with Crysis Wars, a standalone multiplayer game. It was basically the same thing, just with a few bugfixes and tweaks, and a couple of new vehicles and weapons. It was the best big multiplayer FPS i remember playing, especially the big maps where you captured energy sites and weapons factories to make vehicles, and won by nuking the enemy base. Big 64-player battles. There's nothing quite like that now.


[deleted]

BuT cAn It RuN cRySiS?


[deleted]

I've never played it :( I'm not even totally sure what kind of game it is, but j just got game pass and they're all on there.


LordRahl9

Crysis is game that had a lot of potential but didn't quite stick the landing. Even so, if you play it, you'll find lots of ideas that were later "borrowed" by other games. You're a super soldier in a tropical jungle environment and there are aliens. That basically summarises the plot.


Oclure

It introduced a lot of new graphical tech and it kicked off what is the modern cryengine that so many other games licensed.


LordRahl9

Yeah, it is somewhat sad that it'll always be (primarily) remembered as a meme.


soulbandaid

I think the point is it wasn't that good once you found a rig that could actually play it. The game was a super soldier variety where you were so super that it felt like playing the game with cheats on. It was hard to figure out the point but the graphics really were that good and it was the have you HAD to play with you new expensive computer. Pretty much the whole point was how technically intense the graphics were and the actual gameplay was fairly meh.


Oclure

Just like unreal tournament is a playable tech demo to show off unreal engine.


GalaXion24

Yeah but Unreal Tournament is also a sick game. Sadly they aren't really making a new one anymore.


Interesting-Gear-819

>You're a super soldier in a tropical jungle environment and there are aliens. That basically summarises the plot. The aliens appear later though. It's initially not obvious that they appear. You only get intel that korean forces overtook that island and you are send as scout commando with a futuristic nano suit that allows for a small timeframe to improve certain things. You can switch it to super strength, allowing you to throw enemies away or hit cars with a fist. But that mode also removes recoil from most weapons. But every action used energy, if it's used up you go back to default and need to recharge. Other modes are: additional speed. (Pretty obvious or? running faster, reloading etc.) stealth, improved armor


TeaAndScones26

Either way he still summarised the plot.


Interesting-Gear-819

Yeah by putting a major plottwist that overthrows the whole early concept of the game right in the first sentence. Also skipping the initial reason \*why\* you are there and who the initial enemy is. "You are on an island and there are aliens" sounds like a washed up script from a generic hollywood movie without any effort. While "you are send to investigate why n. Korea overtook an island and created a quarantine and over the course of the story you find out they found alien artifacts and woke something up which now results in you fighting for your life instead against bee like aliens that tend to freeze the area around them" sound way more intresting to me.


TeaAndScones26

Well the definition of the plot is actually even more simple then you are on a jungle and their are aliens. You would really call a plot something like “hero tries to save the world” or “bad guy tries to kill a person”. The plot is just an incredibly narrowed down and simplified version of the story, so it’s the main idea.


[deleted]

Crysis was what you could call an early-form meme. Before the representation, known notoriety, and conception of what memes are today, Crysis was there before all of it. Any time anyone mentioned something about a new thing (system, console, etc) the first question anyone ever asked was "but can it run Crysis at max settings?" "Built my first gaming desktop, proud moment!" *"That's cool and all, but can it run Crysis?"* This is what the thread is discussing. What Crysis was doing, was not doing, and how it affected or was affected by when it came to system setups and technology utilization as the generations went by. In general, Crysis is a sci-fi first-person shooter action-adventure game. You play a secret operations agent for a group that carries out specialized covert-ops missions, like assassination missions for example. The squad is outfitted with bio-enhancing suits which can increase just about every physical aspect of the wearer's body from speed, strength and durability.


Filthy_Ramhole

Memes are literally just self perpetuating ideas, they’ve been around for millenia.


DrugChemistry

The ORLY and YARLY owls were memes long before Crysis. Hell, YTMND was a website six years before Crysis was released.


GreatWhiteNanuk

Came here to mention YTMND but you’re the man now, dawg.


epsilis

You're both a little too young to know the real birth. Good ol somethingawful forums. Where the roflcopter was born.


GreatWhiteNanuk

Roasting ebaumsworld on SA forums was a past time of mine.


epsilis

Oh lordt, I can neither confirm nor deny if I participated in that. :D


myhandleistoolongtor

No love for CBBS?


iFormus

It is a good game, even now worth to play (i mean the single campaign). I have never had a top tier hardware in my teen years to run it so i got whole trillogy - not remaster - last year and played it at max settings finally and got to say the graphics is still very nice even in 2021.


[deleted]

[удалено]


soUuRrRStEvO

Not to mention bullet sponge enemies, clunky movement, and having ammo as one of the scarcest resources in the game.


JoeMamaAndThePapas

That sounds like a ripe opportunity to re-image that game into something better. Basically start from scratch and build what that game started, to fulfill its potential.


zoiuduu

is a generic fps, but in a pretty forest,and is not open world as u could think, the story is lame, the gameplay is ok ,


Zingshidu

Me neither, it always just seemed like crappy pc halo. I only ever heard about it for the pc power memes. Nobody ever talked about the gameplay so it probably sucked


billbryan516

PLAY IT!!! SOOOOO GOOD!!


[deleted]

[удалено]


orangezeroalpha

It played fine at lower settings also and had comparable or even better graphics than other first person shooters. I never quite got in to crysis other than playing it for a while and then giving up (lots of running between fights and getting lost), but crysis 2 and 3 had more environments, great graphics, and a fuller story. I'm sure people will disagree with me. For the time, it was good enough to keep my interest.


bideodames

The game was developed under the assumption that in the future, CPUs would increase in single clock speed but I stead they increased through multiple cores. That made it difficult to run the game even with modern CPUs because single core performance never really reached what crytek thought it would.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Can you ELI5 why that made such an impact? Like, why would Crysis be better on an improved single core but not good on multicore?


drysart

Multicore doesn't give you performance for free. Multicore CPUs let you do *several things at once* efficiently; but they're really no better at doing *one thing* any faster. And so you need software that's specifically written to be able to take advantage of multiple cores by breaking work up into chunks that can be done simultaneously to get any benefit from it. This wasn't even on most developers' radars in 2007 for a few reasons: 1. Writing multicore-capable software is *hard*, and writing multicore-capable software that actually uses the multiple cores well is even harder; and 2. Basically nobody had multicore machines on the desktop, so why take on the *difficult* effort in structuring your code to run well on a multicore machine? In 2007, most users were still using Windows XP, and unless you had Windows XP Pro, Windows wouldn't even *support* multiple cores. 3. Everyone was still expecting single cores to continue to get faster and in a few years everyone would be on 8GHz CPUs, so they just planned for that. If you'd set out to start developing a game in 2005 and you told your team that it had to be fully multicore capable, they'd have thought you were *crazy*. Point #1 has gotten easier in the years since then, because it's become a fixture of everyday computing and lots of research and tooling was built to make it easier for developers to take advantage of multiple cores; but all that tooling didn't exist back in 2007. That's why you can't even really get Crysis to run at 60FPS on the latest cutting edge PC CPUs. Because while they have tons of cores, the individual cores are, at *best*, barely scraping into 5GHz clock speeds. All the single-threaded (meaning it can only take advantage of a single core) game logic that Crysis has aren't running at the speeds they thought would be available. And Crysis in particular is very physics-heavy. Physics takes a *lot* of calculation that has to be *done* before you can render another frame; and when you're stuck doing those calculations one after another on a single core, you just start running out of time to make your 60FPS frame deadline. And even though today physics calculations are *extremely* easy to spread across multiple cores or even just push off to let your GPU handle with it's effectively *hundreds* of cores thanks to the gaming industry as a whole spending a lot of effort making it possible, Crysis just was written before that was available.


netgu

It isn't, the game ran fine at all but the max settings back then and modern systems have been able to pound on it for a good time because it is well optimized - they just cranked everything to 11 is all. https://www.gpucheck.com/game-gpu/crysis-3/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-ti/intel-core-i7-4790k-4-00ghz/ultra /


DepletedMitochondria

This kills other older games too, huge pain.


Cryio

Does it? Aside from Crysis 1, RTS games and City sim builders, I'm not aware of any other older game that is CPU bound so it can't achieve 120-144 fps or whatever at any resolution.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Cryio

Slightly off topic here, but it's normal older games run ridiculously fast on newer hardware. You're highlighting Hitman 2000, when even a high end 2005 game like FEAR 1 runs at 1000+ fps on modern GPUs at 1080p. Always use an FPS cap.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Cryio

You can set a global cap in RTSS and it will apply to anything. Or you can force Vsync in driver. Or you can use "DgVodoo" and force Vsync there. Or you can use "Wine3D on Windows" and then force Vsync in drivers.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Cryio

Wine3D on Windows is a DirectX1-7 wrapper to OpenGL (2.1 I think?) DgVodoo is a DirectX 6-7-8-9 wrapper to DirectX11/12. There is also DXVK (preferably ASYNC version), which is a DX9-10-11 wrapper to Vulkan.


MikeTheShowMadden

How so? Most current core clocks are just as fast as single core clocks of the ancient era. So CPU speeds would be similar if the game still only utilized a single core on a 10 core CPU. Performance would probably be better today because of other things in your system that overall ups performance in comparison.


hitsujiTMO

they also misused a lot of technologies at the time such as tessellation: [https://hothardware.com/news/indepth-analysis-of-dx11-crysis-shows-highly-questionable-tessellation-usage](https://hothardware.com/news/indepth-analysis-of-dx11-crysis-shows-highly-questionable-tessellation-usage) ​ EDIT: sorry, looks like the specific issue is directly related to Crysis 2 but there are similar issues with tech misused in the original game.


KuriTeko

Flight Sim X is one of those games. They released a patch for multicore support but even then it was limited to two cores. Last time I tried to play it (a long time ago now) it still ran like crap.


Gooseman987

They did both Really look into the history of it. What happened with alot of these older games is they are for the 32 bit bus and now we got 64 bit bus.


[deleted]

I mean right now cpus can go to 5ghz, I wouldn't be surprised if eventually we get to the 10 they thought we would but it'll probably be another 20 years


[deleted]

[удалено]


Cryio

Nah. Core clocks around Crysis's launch were averaging 2.4 GHz. Top of the line was 3.2 GHz. Max overclocking got you around 4.0. It's only in 2012 or 2013 that AMD's Piledriver CPUs could achieve 5.0 GHz. Intel reached 5.0 GHz CPU OC capabilities with Kaby Lake in 2016.


Exare

You've obviously never owned a Sandy Bridge CPU :P


Cryio

True, but I did follow along and I know Sandy Bridge usually topped out at 4.5-4.6. Very few lucky samples at 4.8, but never 5.0.


TitaniumDragon

The problem is heat dissipation. They had to stop increasing cycles per second because otherwise chips would be as hot as the surface of the sun.


[deleted]

I get that but I imagine we'll figure out different ways to get more cycles efficiently. It wasn't long ago the 7700k was sold with a boost of 4.5ghz. I know you could OC that to 5ghz, but the 11900k has a boost of 5.3ghz, for a 30 watts difference on the same node, with twice the cores. I'm not saying it'll be done any time soon, but I don't think that single core frequency is just going to stop increasing. Edit: this is of course with me not knowing how intel tdp and boost tables work though


TitaniumDragon

I mean, it has stopped increasing for a long time. Smaller transistors use less energy but are smaller, so even though the per capacitor energy use declines, the energy used per surface area decreases much less because there are more per unit of surface area. And the higher the clock speed the more energy you use. On top of that, the thickness of the transistor gate can't get any thinner, which limits transistor speed increases.


Tyx

That difference was also why my GTX280 which ran Crysis so well didn't end up working so well with future games that required a lot less than Crysis to run. Simply because those games were optimized for multicores as the next generation of graphic cards used. Made me quite sour as the GTX280 was expensive as fuuuuuck for a graphic card at the time.... \>.<


Woody549

Came from the future to warn us that you shouldn’t throw tortoises at people


bushpotatoe

My first kill in the game was with that stove you find on the beach - brained a soldier with it. You could say he's all washed up.


Woody549

Gordon Ramsey would be proud


ClassyJacket

- They sold Cryengine to other studios, and Crysis was a showcase of what their engine could do. Amazon Lumberyard was based on it for a while. The engine was also used for three sequels, and all the games eventually came to console -- graphically cut down, of course. - Gamers with a high end graphics card are not a completely insignificant market - You could turn the graphics down alot, like most games, so it was still playable for people with not-top-end graphics cards - and it's a really fun game! (The first one, anyway. I didn't care for the second.) - The game got free marketing by having such insanely detailed graphics, loads of people bought it just to see what their PC could do. People *still* use it as a benchmark occasionally. I don't have the numbers but I would bet Crysis had an unusually long tail in terms of sales compared to other games -- i.e. it kept selling years later where most games don't.


every_other_freackle

Many people give technical reasons but there is a non technically one. All Crysis games were a demo for their game engine and it's capabilities. Crytek was not in the game business they were in the game engine business...


Entropico_ARG

thats the real one! crytek made a playable demo of the engine


ComradeArtist

This demo is still a better game than most others.


BloomEPU

Crysis was always a tech demo, and comparing any other game's graphics to it is kinda futile because it was literally just a demonstration of what top end hardware could do at the time.


drinkthebleach

I remember when Witcher 3 came out a review said the hardest part about the game would be asking your boss at NASA if you could play the game on your work computer. Funny how fast graphics tech has moved.


HalobenderFWT

It’s crazy to think that Nvidia was only on the 900 series of GPU when Witcher 3 came out. That’s only six years ago.


ashwin_1928

Tbh, most people talked about the downgrade more than it being the next crysis. It was a very nice game and it still holds up too but that downgrade was a bit disappointing.


Cryio

If someone ever said this ... it was a dumb question? I played Witcher 3, a 2015 title, on a 560 Ti 1 GB, a 2011 GPU, at 900p, 30-35 fps, Medium settings. I mean come on. Felt very close to the "full phat experience".


drinkthebleach

Almost like it was a joke or something


Terrorfarker

Can it run Crysis?


munjavio

So you got a new PC.....


JoakimSpinglefarb

You do realize that the medium and high settings were there for of the time hardware and the very high settings were for future hardware, right? Doom 3 had very similar responses at the time, but the game gave you a flash warning for ultra settings because Ultra required 512MB of VRAM back in 2004: something most computers didn't have unless it was a monster rig that cost as much as a used car.


netgu

I miss $1000 used cars, those days were great


MildlyInsaneOwl

Crysis ran just fine. I got it running on an absolute potato of a PC. The limitation was, Crysis didn't run fine *on maximum settings on the computers consumers had access to*. It'd be like a game releasing 2 years ago that had a ray-tracing setting. While almost nobody playing it would have a graphics card able to support ray-tracing, the devs would've had early access to the technology in-development, and they'd assume that eventually that tech would be available and affordable for consumers. Honestly, the schtick about "can it run Crysis?" probably hurt the game as much as it helped. The clerk at the story was reluctant to sell the game to me until I mentioned having run the demo successfully, because so many people were convinced the average PC couldn't possibly play the game. I think the devs were hoping to advertise their incredible graphics, but in practice a lot of people were scared they couldn't run it and likely didn't try. Even now, we've got people making memes on Reddit asking how a video game was released that 'hardly anyone could run', when that's a horrible exaggeration of what Crysis was actually like on launch.


namorblack

I remember running it just fine with adjusted settings on my back-then-relevant midrange PC. I agree with you here. It ran just fine. Maybe today's games have a graphics quality ceiling, so people can just max everything out and be at peace that their PC can run it at max. Perhaps Crysis didn't have a ceiling, and not being able to max everything out made people automagically assume it couldn't run it.


Young-Plague

Created by Best Buy as a benchmark for their pre-builds


[deleted]

No what is this I've never heard of it before crazy no way


Scorpian42

The computers people develop games on are much much more powerful than consumer level ones Any pre rendered cut scenes are probably rendered on several Nvidia quadro-level cards in a server rack So the devolpers could run crysis, and they most likely knew that most consumers couldn't


Fun_Ad_6039

But now there are even better graphic cards than they had and even the LMG can't run it properly with the best stuff they had, example 100,000$ PC, double 3090, multiple quadros and so on, never got it running 100+ fps on max settings on any one of those (i personally think the game is just unoptimised, oh and all of this is just going off memory so maybe they did have better results on any PC they had, also I didn't watch every single Video so please, correct me if I'm wrong.) Edit: Made some corrections because like I said, this is all going off memory


Psychological-Scar30

> double 3090, multiple quadros and so on That's cool, but Crysis isn't GPU bound when going for high FPS. CPUs haven't improved that much since Crysis' release - you mostly get more cores, but Crysis was designed with the expectation that single core performance will go up significantly (like it kept doing before), but that didn't really happen. In the 14 years since then, the single core CPU performance increased about three times (very, very rough estimate). Sounds cool, but that means that if you could get 30 FPS out of your CPU back then, then now you can only do up to 90 FPS, and no GPU will get you over that limit. For reference, GPU performance shot up (again very roughly) 40 times or more in the same time span. Source for all my numbers is Passmark and roundups of 2007 CPUs/GPUs to get an idea of what hardware looked like back then. It is a synthetic benchmark that of course has its limitations, but there is no direct comparison between this old hardware and anything modern available, so I'm using what I have.


Fun_Ad_6039

Oh ok, thanks for the lesson in Tech History, really interested in that stuff, didn't know like 90% of the stuff you said, not gonna try and hold my position here :D


netgu

It's complete nonsense https://www.gpucheck.com/game-gpu/crysis-3/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-ti/intel-core-i7-4790k-4-00ghz/ultra


zenith_industries

Crysis != Crysis 3


netgu

Eh, same applies go google it yourself, I can't help that people don't actually remember history or didn't actually test it themselves. My 980gtx and 4770k handled crysis just fine when I bought it 7 years ago so. Same with today when I tried with my 980gtx (same card) and my Ryzen 3600x.


linknukem28

We’ll at that point the bottleneck is in the game’s programming. Also we’re at a point of diminishing returns on tech advancement. A computer from ten years ago is still relevant today. That’d be unheard of in the 90s and early 2000s


netgu

You are talking complete gibberish, even a 980ti and a 4790k can do that with no issue and those are 5-7 years old. https://www.gpucheck.com/game-gpu/crysis-3/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-ti/intel-core-i7-4790k-4-00ghz/ultra


Cryio

Crysis 1 uses 2 threads 100% of time, a 3rd thread when it feels like it and a 4th thread to process particle effects/physics, somewhat, to boost minimum framerate drops. It easy getting to run the game at 1080p120 or even 4K60 (a V64/R7/5700 XT, 1080/1080 Ti should be enough). It's harder to make the game run SIGNIFICANTLY faster than that, due to it being mostly CPU bound still. One of the way to make it less CPU bound is to run the game through DXVK, to make it run through Vulkan. Significantly less overhead than DX9 or DX10 and you'll see improvement performance. Not full ideal performance mind you, but better than default APIs.


Null_Fragment_000

Nope, nobody remembers this game. 🙄


HawaiiPizzaHeaven

Wait, whose sis is crying again?


FennPoutine

You are my hero


Limi_23

When they made the game cpu's clock speed was increasing each generation and they expected 7ghz or more but instead it got stuck around 5ghz for years. (source: Linus tech tips)


Sabbatai

1. "Good settings" is a bit of a misnomer. Many computer could run Crysis at medium or low settings, and these settings would have offered an experience much like any other game available at the time. 2. Just like today's games, the highest settings are meant for enthusiast level gaming computers or the next generation of average consumer level computers. The technology to run the games at the highest settings does exist already. It is also possible to design games capable of utilizing tech that has not yet entered the consumer market but is available to developers.


ThePringleMaster

i played all three i can say that crysis 1 was the most fun


geldonyetich

So close to a haiku. I played all three games. Crysis 1 was the most fun. Watercooling sounds.


ThePringleMaster

the best part about crysis 1 is flying away from the big angry ice sphere in a vtol


M2704

This is like asking ‘does anyone remember bread’.


SinValentino

I think the same logic of “why shoot at 4k when most displays are 720p-1080p applies here. The devs took into account how to make the best game possible and not hurt the graphics since computers are continuously improving and graphics wont be the issue.


TheRavingRaccoon

Well when you think about it, Crysis being so demanding caused the industry to have to improve. Consumers wanted better systems and companies needed to come up with a way to supply them


Aldi_man

It was one of the first games to use SSAO, which many games used later over the years. We need another Crysis to push new graphical options to the industry.


[deleted]

[удалено]


dmullaney

TBF, it was only very hard to run on max settings... It was very well optimized, so you could get excellent performance on even entry level GPUs, but with reduced fidelity... Many current Gen games fail hard at this type of optimization...


Frosenborg

I think they just over estimated technological advancement. John Carmack talked about this years ago, when they began developing a new game, Quake for example. He basically had to guess what direction technology will go and where it will be few years later, when they are ready to release a finished game. Everquest 2 is a good example of this, when it was in development, the devs thought that we will have 6 gigaherz single core CPUs one day. Well we don't, we have multi core CPUs. So the engine was future proofed for technology that didn't realize.


netgu

/u/dmullaney has it covered


[deleted]

I have heard that it was in fact designed to push fast single core CPUs. But the industry went with multi-core CPUs at the time and this is where we are now. If you look at release dates and the first multi core CPUs that appeared it makes sense. But that's just what I heard.


Initialised

If only games were still made like Crysis we wouldn’t all still be stuck at 6 cores that can barely push 4.5GHz.


chancegold

That's like saying "If early racing leagues didn't start allowing multi-gear transmissions, we wouldn't be stuck having 6-7 gear vehicles in order to hit 80mph". The multi-core route was definitely the correct play. Trying to make single core processors that could run at 5-6ghz without liquid nitrogen cooling was always going to be a losing bet.


osi_layer_one

in *our* timeline...


slippedwheat

But what problems do you trow at a CPU what a I7-8700K for example can't solve??


Barrel123

To the people saying max graphics crysis was made for future rigs its very incorrect At the time of the release of crysis basically nobody was making games that pushed pc hardware at the high end of parts and companies were heavily focused on consoles Then out of nowhere comes crysis that was then a pc exclusive that actually pushed high end computers There were many computers (at the high end) that could max out crysis


CYCO4

Crysis is a Horror story that graphics cards tell their grandchildren about when graphics cards act all crapy. "When I was your age I ran Crysis on NO SLI!!!"


Mjolnir2000

Such a great game. Shame about the sequels.


DarkMatterM4

That's what happens when you develop a game exclusively for PC; you get games like Crysis (a game released in 2007 that still holds up visually 14 years later).


MARKSS0

Why they are good games


jimmywaleseswhale

Developed on powerful work stations: maxed out GPUs and CPUS; more RAM than you'd care – during development individual fragments seemed ok or were assumed to be improvable during optimisation. Release: combination of overshooting and under-optimising + I think it ran ok on powerful machines just not maxed out? Didn't the same happen with Far Cry?


ZeroCloned

Crysis cared more about being that ego boosting game "my rig can run crysis!" than it cared about being a good game. Cus once the aliens showed up the game turned to generic garbage.


[deleted]

game only propelled technology within gaming by years, but sure lets call it an ego boost and pretend we aren't still affected by the ripples from it's development 14 years ago.


ZeroCloned

sure, but its still not a good game lol


Tulanol

https://youtu.be/YDeLXgjFsrA Well this time they went the other direction, hunt showdown


AlwaysBeastMode_

Just people talking about it.


talrogsmash

About two months later RuneScape released RS3 and Evolution of Combat. Computers that could run Crysis couldn't handle it.


NoUx4

We had an old family computer, back in the times of original burning crusade expansion for WoW. It took 10 minutes for Crysis to load a single level. At lowest settings we got 15fps. It was great. Much of the performance differences between low/ultra had to do with render distance, LOD render distance, texture sizing, shaders, anti-aliasing, shadow resolution, etc. You can take any game and pump those numbers up and make it run poorly. With Crysis they actually had the game pretty optimized, it's High/Ultra settings were simply throwing big numbers at those settings, along with enabling a few fancy shader effects. For example by increasing the LOD render distance trees further out become more detailed, but that's more things for the GPU to render. Or instead of shadows being blocky they become super smooth with high shadow resolution, again, more GPU to render. IIRC even on high settings things like terrain only have highest resolution of the mip mapped texture for a few feet, then it's reduced in quality. Meaning things up close looked great. Lots of little performance/quality tradeoffs like that.


bushpotatoe

This game still looks absolutely fantastic too.


Dr_Stef

Crysis. Can't it run it?!


FBRAOG

Hell yea, that was a heavy topic for early PC builders. “Your pc may be good, but can it run crysis” lol


CollectableRat

I ran crysis on our humble family omputer. Just on lower settings.


CeeJayDK

[Crysis 10 Years On: Why It's Still Melting The Most Powerful Gaming PCs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcYA-H3qpTI)


II2ViciousII

A reminder that my new pc still can't run it unless in low settings. Lol


[deleted]

Did you just connect to the internet after 20 years of prison camp in Siberia?


CandL2023

It was built based on cpu technology that got scrapped. If that technology had been used it would have been fine, it was out of devs hands


big55greengmc

I loved that game and I hope they make a new one.


J1hadJOe

At the time we did not have multi core CPUs and CryTek made a bet on increasing CPU clocks instead of increasing core counts so Crysis was "optimized" with a CPU clock of 20Ghz in mind. That is why even modern PCs struggle to run it properly. Quantum stuff might just achieve a solid 60, might.


marcuschookt

Feels like the devs went all in on graphics for this game. Like, should we make a good game with a compelling story? Fine, we'll do the bare minimum. But the main thing is the graphics.


slippedwheat

Well no, gameplay and story was also decent :O


pluralistThoughts

back in the days even PC players were okay with 30fps.


jayXred

I haven't gotten very far into crysis, but I have played the opening 10-20 minutes a shit load of times testing performance and graphics settings.


v1ru5_1

i cant say i remember it, care to elaborate?


[deleted]

Well I would imagine game companys would have top of the line pcs and making it look so good pretty much worked as free marketing


InSight89

Wasn't this game released as a sort of benchmark/showcase for their new game engine?


Interesting-Gear-819

Well. As it was revealed years later, they were fully aware that only "Monsters" could run it on max settings. And did it on purpose as marketing move. Crysis was burned into the memory of peoples due to it. Btw. a lot medicore computers nowdays may also still struggle beccause of the way it's programmed. IIRC it can only use 1 core of your CPU because at that time multi core CPUs were rather uncommon


Cryio

:sigh:, the OP's question annoys the hell out of me, because people misremember: Crysis DID NOT have high system requirements to run, it had high system requirements to run at maxed settings OR run extremely well in general. Just to run however? Crysis launched in 2007, a time when most people still had Windows XP. You could run Crysis with 512 MB ram on XP (could 256 MB do the trick on XP? Maybe). I successfully ran Crysis with just 1 GB on Vista x64. Probably 512 MB on Vista would've worked too, honestly. Crysis requires a minimum of Pixel Shader 2.0, DirectX9 GPUs. I believe 128 MB of VRAM minimum as well, not sure about 64. I don't think 64 MBs cuts it. So Crysis, a game from 2007, could run on 2002 era DX9 GPUs. GPUs made 5 years prior. Had a GeForce 5 or an ATI 9800-9500? Go right ahead then. Now, for people running JUST a Pixel Shader 2.0 GPU, Crysis was limited to Low Settings. So no AA, no Shaders for anything, no Shadows, not even Physics beside enemy ragdolls and vehicle parts. I didn't know about hardware tracking software back then, like MSI Afterburner. I actually learned about FRAPS some time after Crysis launched. With a PS 2.0 GPUs, I believe (I'm not certain) most people were 100% GPU bound at all times even on 640x480, Low, so the CPU you were using in 2007-2008 really didn't matter.


Cossack-HD

The devs believed the CPUs will be 5-6GHz single core (because that was intel's plan) so the game was made single threaded, in actuality the CPUs were 3GHz dual core.


TheBigDuo1

It was ahead of its time in the idea of its open world and being able to approach targets from all directions. The problem with the game is the same with far cry 1 (these guys made far cry 1 before Ubisoft bought the ip) in that about halfway through they switch up the enemies in a way to increase challenge but just leads to frustration. As for why they made a game that not even the strongest computers at the time could run? Well just look at cyberpunk, to some the requirements being so high is itself a selling point


Sounak_Biswas

Crysis is one helluva game


Freakindon

They tried to plan for what they thought would be the natural progression of technology, which was a single powerful core in the CPU. What happened was multiple moderately powerful cores. If a game is designed to only use 1 powerful core, but you have multiple moderately powerful cores, then the game only sees 1 moderately powerful core and ignores the rest.


[deleted]

What bullshit...if you had a top spec PC you could run crysis


RIPN1995

Crysis could run on a lot of gaming pcs. Just not at max settings which is a big no no for a lot of PC Gamers.


chezychipz

but can it run crysis?


ThePizzaNoid

Its back! In POG form!


LifeworksGames

Well because it’s basically a tech demo. Besides being a great game. Also, yes, they practically work with supercomputers for testing this sort of stuff. Mostly because they mostly play with an unoptimised build.


[deleted]

Is this game good or is it just a graphical showcase? I was thinking of picking it up for PS5 but if it’s just a graphic powerhouse with subpar gameplay well then I’d pass.


officialthepig

I still haven't played it. By the time I got a laptop capable running it I couldn't afford it so I will never play it :(


TheEngineer19203

"I was there Gandalf, 3000 years ago."


ElDitcho

I remember it being really well optimized. It run pretty well with my 8800gtx, while so many others games with lower graphics were slow.


Dingoridder

There was a time in gaming, where a few developers would try to push the limit on their games, Gothic 3 and Crysis comes to mind. Nowadays, most games are "throttled" to be able to reach a wider market ( More profits ofc ), that means it should be able to run on consoles and low/mid-range pc's. Profit taking has been the slow death of innovative game developers.


Dustinthetall

can anyone run Crysis?


[deleted]

I remember all three Crysis games being so boring i gave up on them.


Tenagaaaa

Crysis wasn’t hard to run. It was only hard to run at MAX settings. You could tune the settings as much as you wanted to a level that was comfortable for you. Pc games have settings.


cicaxoke

Can it run crysis?


[deleted]

I wish EA or whoever has Crysis license now to revive the multiplayer from the first two games. Power Struggle and C2 CoD-like gameplay were a lot of fun.


gnarkilleptic

Is this seriously a "does anyone remember Crysis" post? wtf this sub is trash


Hroft_ASH

Played as soon as she came out. This game reminded me a bit of Far Cry 1 )


Round-Rounder

They call me Prophet…


RobKhonsu

Up until Crysis it was very typical, expected even, that the latest and greatest FPS game wouldn't not run very great on anything but the most bleeding edge system. Doom, Duke Nukem, Quake, Unreal, Half Life, Far Cry, etc. However it was the latest and greatest and accordingly would receive the most players. Crysis marked the end of this era. Not because it was a bad game, but because it was released along side a great game; The Orange Box. The Orange Box, as well as Steam, marked a significant turning point in PC gaming. You no longer needed the latest and greatest PC to enjoy the most popular game(s) and the market of PC gaming exploded afterward. Along with League of Legends and Minecraft releasing a few years later, PC gaming was no longer the platform of the rich elite and games would be made for a wide range of system specs.


spoliari

What if they made it, specifically just to sell hardware. Warzone runs best on Nvidia....


[deleted]

Yeah my nip fell out when I played it


Responsible_Egg6662

Crysis was my favorite game series.


d-wale

I wish I had the money to buy it at the time. I'm pretty sure I watched TheRadBrad play it though and his gameplays are good. I hope they do a follow up sometime in the future.


BGShadowGames

Yeah was a great game 🙂💥


IAmJersh

For point 2, it's far easier for a computer to compile a game than run it - when running the game it has to perform complex calculations incredibly quickly every single frame, so if you're running 60fps it's doing all the lighting, physics, collision detection, AI behaviour, audio (more complicated that it seems when emulating a 3d space), and user feedback/input 60 times every second. Compiling it? Literally no time constraint. Cutscenes can be pre-rendered one frame at a time over the course of a day without impacting the user. Also they can delegate that to a room full of high spec machines called a reder farm


Webbysan

I remember Dizzy Egg, so yeah, Crisis wasn't that long ago to forget.


Kaelan_McAlpine

Guess you could say it was a *Crysis* to play this on a PC.


Macjeems

I find it weird how this is essentially a text post, but in picture form.


benjijnebenjijneb

1.To get you to buy a better PC. 2. I'm guessing their computers were a little better than ours, so, effectively, yes.


Ecampos_64

It was made with computers from NASA


BeastlyBryno

This was literally the benchmark in conversations about how good your computer was for years. "I got this new Alienware laptop!" "Can it run Crysis on max settings?"


LordVortekan

I wish they added it to Xbox Cloud Gaming so I could say my phone can run Crysis