Crysis Is Now 8 Years Old, Modded Version Still Gives Triple-A Games A Run For Their Money

Crysis was released in Europe on November 16th, 2007. Crytek’s title is now eight years old, and its modded version still gives most triple-A games a run for their money.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
masterfox1064d ago (Edited 1064d ago )

Crysis was the reason of why I build a gaming PC, in that time PC gaming was miles ahead in terms of everything from consoles, right now that distance is just a couple of steps, yes the PC has better hardware but there's no developer right now that wants to invest time and money to harvest the PCs gaming real power like Crytek did almost a decade ago, buying or building a gaming PC right now imo is a total waste of money. You could say "but but .. star citizen,", the only thing I can say about that game it start looking like a scam to me, just look at it almost 100 million dlls in investment and still no sign of a real retail released date.

crazychris41241064d ago

Definitely not a waste of money but you're right that it seems like few devs want to take full advantage of PC. Seems like its the modders that have to come in to push these games. Finally started modding GTA 5 last week and its like I bought an entirely new game. Went from 8 hours played since April to over 25 hours in just a week.

Roccetarius1064d ago

It's most definitely parity that holds back the potential of a fully develped PC version, because they have to develop the game for multiple platforms. If we ( ever ) arrive at a unified system to develop games on, that'll change because tips and tricks from developers will be useful to them all. Companies like Bethesda also need to ditch Gamebryo, because it's sorely outdated in the current industry.

But then again, such change is up to the market informing themselves, instead of accepting paid online gaming, amongst other things.

Eyesoftheraven1064d ago

144Hz; 21:9; Eyefinity; 4k; SSDs; various control options; etc. hardly constitute a couple of steps...

neoandrew1064d ago (Edited 1064d ago )

But that are the most expensive options, console will never give you that.

You don't need 144 hz to enjoy a game and to be it great, but you can use a 144hz display with console.

21:9 is just an aspect ratio, order 1886 supports it, so any other game can.

4k is expensive right now, most of pc players are playing still 1080p, it is enough

SSDs, it just disk time access, you can use it in console, but there are no such system as windows there so it will only speed up game loading and not always.

So most of the steps are already there, you can't blame a console that it is not expensive enough to do 4k ultra 144hz, cuz that would be really low and such console would just not sell, no sell = no games = no profit for anyone.

Lennoxb631064d ago

You could've bought a really nice car for the same price. lol

traumadisaster1064d ago (Edited 1064d ago )

I agree, 4k resolution is fantastic. Think of going 800x600 to 1080p.

I went 4k before this gen was even announced and played a ton of last gen games at 4k where the ps360 was less than 1200x700 natively. Never forgot cod mw2 looked like a muddy mess on console and was unbelievable at 4k.

And that continues today with even 1080p60 fps easily on pc vs ps4's 30fps and x1 sub 1080p.

Console owners concerned with gfx enough to be visiting a gaming website and commenting about pc price should reevaluate the importance you place on gfx...Obviously you do because you keep trying to justify your choices.

I'm happy you're happy with consoles, I'm not satisfied with them so be happy for those who build.

Average Joe's shouldn't consider pcs and should be thrilled with a console. If you think not, then you're not an average Joe anymore.

Eyesoftheraven1064d ago (Edited 1064d ago )


144Hz 1080p monitors are not particularly expensive. Getting above 60fps in modern games at 1080p is not particularly expensive either. Yes, more expensive all together than a stand alone console but you could never compare 1:1 fairly anyway.

Even if HDMI could handle the bandwidth, you cannot unlock the frame rate in any console game that I've ever seen to take advantage of a 144Hz monitor. A fast 60Hz monitor will do just as well.

21:9 is not just an aspect ratio. If you have a 3440x1440 high refresh set that's a lot more than just a wider aspect ratio. Stretching The Order to fit even a 2560x1080 21:9 set will introduce interpolation fuzziness from scaling the 1920x800 image.

You made a good point on SSDs and then countered it for me just as well. lol

I'm not blaming consoles for anything. I love my PS4 for the extra polish and refinement that goes into exclusive titles. I still wish they were all available on PC because of the technical options.

ShottyGibs1063d ago (Edited 1063d ago )

@ neoandrew

Not sure why you'd want to use a 144hz monitor on a console that outputs only 30fps. Even at 60fps it's a waste.

SSD's on the consoles are limited to SATA II speeds. Which is about 50% of a average SDD's rated speed (SATA III). Even then.. PC's moved onto M.2 now which is miles faster again.

Just some important facts to think about

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1063d ago
sourav931064d ago

Choose your resolution. Choose your settings. Add more power. Steam sales. Price of games at launch close to half of console prices. Use KnB, DS3/4, XBOX 360/One Controller, flight stick, racing wheels, etc.

Yeah...building a gaming PC is a total waste of money /s

Rearden1064d ago

Remember back in the day when a game came out that inspired you to upgrade your PC hardware?

Perjoss1064d ago

Having a powerful machine is still advisable but mostly because of badly optimised ports/engines. There are a few games that look great and just simply need good hardware because of things like great view distance or high res textures, but mostly your making up for bad optimization.

In many cases where I've seen overwhelming complaints about low frame rates, crashes, stutters and all that stuff I've been absolutely fine simply because I went overboard when building my PC. Even Arkham Knight ran perfectly for me with everything maxed out.

Roccetarius1064d ago (Edited 1064d ago )

Unfortunately, the last game i remember being made with future proofing in mind, was Crysis. No one says you can't develop the game for a wide range of PC's, but you can most definitely put in features that were meant for a time ahead as well.

Currently the power needed to run games more efficiently, is up to the likes of DX10 / Vulkan giving developers more possibilities. If the Vulkan hype is what it seems to be, then maybe DX10 could be cut out of the picture almost entirely.

My PC is by no means a beast compared to others, considering i'm still using an old I7 2600K, 16GB of RAM and a single GTX 970. I'm planning on upgrading next year, depending on what Nvidia is showing off.

Mega241064d ago

People keep prasing Crysis... I thought it was the most boring game ever.Far Cry was better in terms of gameplay, back then Crytek did more than just graphics though.

Lamboomington1064d ago

" back then Crytek did more than just graphics though."

Please stop with that. It's really stupid, and untrue. Just because of Ryse: Son of Rome.

Crysis 1 had some of the most amazing fps gameplay to date. It is still more complex, interactive, tactical and fun than most fps games today.

Crysis Warhead puts 95% of other shooter campaigns to shame !

When most other shooters had hardly any simulation, physics, complexity, variety of gameplay mechanics, the Crysis games had it all.

Even Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 which were dumbed down, the gameplay was still more complex, interactive and fun than most other fps campaigns.

Relientk771064d ago

The graphics in this game are still unbelievable

sullynathan1064d ago

Crysis looks gorgeous but the game is a joke. Crytek could have done better.

Show all comments (19)