Crysis Remaster Announced - "Can it Run Crysis?" is suddenly relevant again.

[BrunoMattei]

The more important question is, "Will it be worth playing this time?"

Answer? Most likely no. I played the original, and it was obviously the most gorgeous game out there, but the storyline was dull and hollow, and the multiplayer was non-existent.

It would require some sweeping changes to make it worth playing again but since it's a remaster I doubt anything will be changed. The campaign would have been far better off if it had simply been confined to the human element; just mopping up waves of increasingly more difficult and developed soldiers, with gradually heavier machinery (tanks, battleships, fuck maybe even a jet), to the point of discovering a close equivalent to the Nanosuit as a final boss.

I think this is just an excuse to re-release it on a newer Crytek engine that's much more optimized. The reason why the original game required a beastly PC wasn't just the graphics, the engine was horrifically unoptimized. Something they resolved in the sequels and why we got 2 and 3 on the consoles.

 

[Snekposter]

I swear I'm the only person who actually liked the campaign. Yes, everyone's comments about it are true, but you also felt like an actual special ops dude while doing it. First you do the infiltration and pathfinder ops prior to the assault, then go operate as a nano-suited stormtrooper and blow up everything that looks valuable as a one-man wrecking crew. CryTek just did what they always do in these games and shit up the tacticool gameplay by turning it into a monster fest, first with FarCry 1 and now with the Crysis games.

 

[Coolio55]

Crysis is such a fucking wierd series.
It was designed to push machines to the limit so you'd think they'd optimise it super well but then you've got shit like it rendering the sea under ALL MAPS even inland and wierd balls of unused geometry under the map that need to be tessellated (Conspiratorial people believe these were put there so it would run better on NVidia hardware as back in the day AMD's cards were slower at it than NVidia's) and word on the street from everyone that's used CryEngine is that it's fucking shit, possibly worse than frostbite to use.

Also, IIRC the point of 2 was to bring Crysis's awesome GFX and put them on (at the time) current gen consoles so I guess they succeeded in that respect.

 

[big ups liquid richard]

maybe i haven't played the right games, but it seems like nobody is willing to make destructible environments on the level or even better, than Crysis and Far Cry 2.
I hope this will remind people that this is, in fact, very cool.

 

[SiccDicc]

If I get to kill North Koreans with chickens in 4K and have the fear of the North Korean reflected in the chicken's eyes by raytracing... you may have my money, sir.

 

[wholetthegodsout]

Yeah I really enjoyed these games. It really is one of the last old school FPS games that just gave you a big playground to mess around in but at the same time was a linear campaign.

How much work are they doing with the graphics? Why not give us all 4 games for 60 bucks?

 

[Sir Wesley Tailpipe]

It’ll only be a worthy remaster if it runs like shit on current cutting-edge hardware and takes years to become playable.

 

[Agent Abe Caprine]

I never did get around to playing any of the Crysis games but was always curious, so I'm glad to get a second chance.

You can get it on GOG for 5 dollars. Really hope the older versions aren't taken down.

 

[CreamyHerman’s]

It’ll only be a worthy remaster if it runs like shit on current cutting-Edge hardware and takes years to become playable.

I doubt it this time around. Crysis 1 is poorly optimized on the CPU, and Crytek has improved on multi-threading with later Cryengine revisions. It might be demanding on the GPU, yes. But even then if it is using DX12 or Vulkan it will improve on performance eventually