Top
300°

Why Crysis still melts the fastest gaming PCs a decade after release - Eurogamer

It's been ten years since Crysis first released on PC. In 2007, it pushed real time rendering to new heights and spawned the memetic phrase, "but can it run Crysis?" Never had a game released that pushed hardware and engine technology so much, and never has one since.

Read Full Story >>
eurogamer.net
The story is too old to be commented.
porkChop169d ago

Because it's optimized like ass. CryEngine 2 was great for graphics, but it was so poorly optimized.

morganfell169d ago (Edited 169d ago )

Agreed it isn't optimized. Also THE GAME ISN'T OPTIMIZED FOR NEW HARDWARE. It hasn't been adjusted since 2008. So it is a double whammy. But I do not know what they are talking about. I can run Crysis in 4k maxxed out with no issues. Plenty of people can do this. Again this seems to be an article written by someone that really doesn't comprehend the capabilities of an actual high end gaming system. It isn't just me. There are plenty of videos on the web of people running the game in 4K/60fps.

GUTZnPAPERCUTZ169d ago

Did either of you even watch the video?

Atticus_finch168d ago (Edited 168d ago )

You guys should watch the video first.

Vegamyster168d ago

GUTZnPAPERCUTZ

It uses a lots of different techniques & systems that most modern games don't have, there is a reason the game is still demanding & it's not due to a lack of optimization.

morganfell168d ago (Edited 168d ago )

You're asking if either of us watched a video in an article with a misleading headline?

And no, isnt optimized for modern hardware and that is simply a fact of 10 years since it was patched.

Vegamyster168d ago (Edited 168d ago )

There is nothing misleading about this headline, they show exactly why the game is hard to run & all the little small things Crytek cheated on to raise performance where they could, suggesting they indeed optimized it. You can't expect a already great looking game to run as good as others when you make every tree, shack, small item ect break in realistic ways with their own physics/interactions in large dense areas, current games simply don't do this because it's still extremely taxing.

morganfell168d ago (Edited 168d ago )

Crysis wasn't optimized with any forward looking intent and it certainly isn't today. It could benefit greatly from threading and while sometimes hard to do that really is the point of optimization. All those cores going to waste. In a day when video cards were really beginning to flex their muscle, this thread hungry (was going to say thread bare ha ha) game was CPU bound thus creating a bottleneck from hell. It's why you can SLI the game (as I do) and that extra horsepower doesn't create a big boost. Intel launched its first Quad Core in 2006 and Crytek still didn't bother to support it.

Optimization doesn't just mean steady frames but also the game runs fairly even on a setting...throughout the game. When you have some levels tanking a system and some not that is a simple lack of optimization. Some levels are far better than others with Ascension being one of the worst.

Crysis Warhead looks better and runs better because it was optimized to a greater degree.

darthv72168d ago

@morgan, don't you have like two titan gtx's in sli or something? I know its a wicked powerful rig so naturally it should run the game maxed out at 4k/60.

morganfell168d ago (Edited 168d ago )

@Darth,

I have two ROG Strix GTX 1080 tis in SLI. I can run the game maxxed out but it isn't optimized. I am just using horsepower as are most people that you see running the game on the top end. As I stated it is more CPU bound so my second card really doesn't make a lot of difference. I can kick my 7700 to 5Ghz if I need to but I have not found it necessary. Stil the game has issues. Frame rates in my system are normally steady in most titles. Even ones other people find erratic but this game is all over the map. Certain levels really heat the system up and on lower builds such as medium spec systems it can tank hard.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 168d ago
Lamboomington168d ago (Edited 168d ago )

No it wasn't. The graphics on display warranted the processing power requirements, easily.

As for optimization for modern hardware, it simply wasn't made for the multicore architectures we have today. It wasn't made with that in mind, and that isn't their fault at all.

UltraNova168d ago

Still current CPU single core speeds/latency is literally ages ahead of CPU tech from 10 years ago. The game is still a resource hog.

quent168d ago

Crysis 2 wsnt more optimized there ws just less geometry to worry, that's why they decided to move away from the jungle foliage setting to make the game able to run on consoles

The engine relied on even higher clocked single threaded cpu's performance that the devs were assuming were coming out to run better on future hardware but it didn't work out that way with where cpu tech was going

2pacalypsenow169d ago

Great analysis. Crazy how a game over 10 years old still looks better than majority of games today.

Vegamyster168d ago

It doesn't look it's age maxed out, aside from the AI looking a little weird at time the game is still gorgeous.

Einhander1971168d ago

Yes gorgeous to look at, crap game.

TRU3_GAM3R168d ago

Crysis is 91 on metacritic - "Crap game"
uncharted 4 is 93 - "great game"

Opinions.

MarineLineman168d ago (Edited 168d ago )

Any particular reason you dragged UC4 into it? How do you know he’s a PS4 fan?

Also, a lot of the review scores for the game were inflated because of the insanely good graphics. Besides that, and some neat interactivity for the time, there really wasn’t much else to it.

2pacalypsenow168d ago

Out of all the games you chose UNCHARTED 4? Interesting...

I would have used Super Super Mario Odyssey.

Internetratnik168d ago

You didnt even play it.
I had so much fun in the demo alone

TRU3_GAM3R168d ago

"There's a level of simulation here you just don't see any more in modern games "

"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."

A game from 10 year's ago uses techniques we don't see in many games today
Every Crysis Game was technically ahead than anything on consoles.

Lamboomington168d ago

Crysis 2 dumbed so many things down, the biggest of which was the simulation and interaction. That's the really sad part imo. If they didn't do that, Crysis 2 could have pioneered FPS games even more. The kind of gameplay you get in Crysis and Crysis Warhead was amazing. The level of interactivity was something else.

Tobse168d ago

The physics in this game are still leagues above most games these days.

Show all comments (26)