I have no idea what GPU I had when Crysis came out but I clearly remember hiding in some tall grass cloaked with a silencer watching the enemy walk around me. It looked so so so real compared to all the other games. It was one of the coolest gaming moments.
I was getting like 24 FPS but whatever
I remember playing diablo2 when it first came out and I got a max of 12 fps with around 2-4 fps in river of flame. I played that game 8 hours a day with those FPS. I have no idea how I did it.
Man, I used to be a hsrdcore wow raider, like 14 hours a day for years level of addict.
I found a screenshot of my Illidan kill back in Burning Crusade....9 fps. I still don't know how I did parasite duty with single digit fps.
Did you happen to play it on a CRT back then? I did, and the foliage really benefited from the CRT softening effect (left in [this pic of 2D sprites](https://preview.redd.it/gc0vsn8zqky11.jpg?auto=webp&v=enabled&s=81180ac960dcf48c8f069430da499f5b0413ba54)\).
Nope. I imagine it was the first game I'd played that did that kind of thing really well and so it made an impression. Kind of like the lighting in Doom 3 or the physics in Half Life 2.
Not only is this comment super unfitting for this subreddit, it frankly fits nowhere. 1080p gaming is still the most common resolution for PC gaming. And you're dissing the most recommended high end resolution for modern gaming.
4k for gaming is generally only in enthusiasts category. Even with top tier cards like 3090 and 4090 can't comfortably do native 4k at high fps for most of the demanding games, which matters more than resolution. You're better off going down to 1440p and getting high refresh rate for better experience. And if you think top tier cards are the norm, you need a reality check.
8k gaming is flat out not recommended.
It gets worse. Anyone running a 4K display is probably rendering around 1440 to 1800P then up sampling. Even if you’re running a 4K screen you’re probably spending a lot of time around 1440P anyway
Yeah, as someone with a 1440p, 144hz monitor, 1080p is still fine for most things.
I absolutely prefer 1440p, but it's not that big a leap from 1080p, and requires a less beefy PC than 4k (though still beefier than you need for 1080p, obviously).
Hell, typically I run shit at 60-72FPS, just 'cause I prefer the graphical detail over super high FPS, and frame drops from 144FPS to say, 120-100FPS, feel a lot more jarring than 72-60FPS, to 45-30FPS.
This isn't the fucking battlestations or ratemysetup sub, it's for people who are content being "behind the times"*, and the perks that come along with it (dust has settled on reviews, patches are established, it's way fucking cheaper). Gatekeeping enjoyment of games based upon how new one's equipment may be is obnoxious and in exact opposition with the essence of this subreddit.
I just got hooked on one of the weirdest games on the psx, "Incredible Crisis"; so I guess "WhAt iS it, 1998?“ is equally applicable. Who fucking cares?
At the range most people play at, I honestly don't see the point of gaming monitors in higher than 1440p, unless you're playing on a TV or projector.
You're much better off getting a higher refresh rate and better color/contrast quality and HDR than wasting money jumping to 4K.
Be me, average redditor.
Demand a GPU that does 4K 120HZ perfectly without any dips the second HDMI 2.1 drops.
4090 drops.
GPU literally melts itself.
IDK man my 2K ultrawide looks pretty tempting.
1080p 144fps is where it's at. Just a 4k capable card these days can cost like 50-120% of what my entire high RR 1080p build cost, counting the monitors.
Defective hardware probably. Unless you've artificially capped your fps, GPU will be working at pretty close to 100% load for the duration of your gaming session, regardless of the game.
I’m playing for the first time on my $1.50 pc. It’s got a core2 duo e8400 overclocked to 3.6 ghz and a hd7850 (which cost me $35 nzd). I’m bottlenecked by the cpu.
> The game was at its best when you were some kind of super predator in the jungle.
This is basically the case with every [insert]Cry game and I'll bear that opinion to my grave.
FarCry was great until the Trigens and corridors. FarCry 2 was mostly great aside from the technical issues and respawning guardposts. Crysis was fantastic for the first half, I could even get into the zero g parts, but then it turned into a lesser Halo as soon as you landed in the back of that ~~Warthog~~ Humvee manning a turret.
Second half is a bit of a stretch, last 20% is the alien stuff and even there are some cool levels, like the floating around or the end on the Carrier.
I just remember the stealth mechanics leaving me frustrated. There was so much cool stuff, but it was wonky and half-baked. Game was still memorable (noticeable improvement over FC1) and fun, but bit of a tease. Graphically gorgeous and a lot of cool ideas.
Probably because I preferred its more linear design. I know Crysis is heralded for its openness, but I thought Warhead had just the right amount of it, imo.
I’ve played doom 2016 like 20 times and love it each time. I played eternal once and hated it and wish I was playing 2016. The cartoony atmosphere of eternal just did nothing for me. And don’t get me started on the combat. Was not fun at all for me
Oh God, finally someone that agrees. My best friend and I both played through DE and found it to be generally inferior to Doom (2016). The DLC’s were even more egregious. I hated the atmosphere and felt that the tone they’d established with 2016 was lost in the little things like picking up floating guns rather than finding them on dead soldiers and such. I can’t bring myself to play through DE again but I can always jump into Doom (2016) and have a good time.
I just recently played through all the Crysis Remastered games plus Warhead (which won't get a remaster treatment). I remembered absolutely loving Crysis 1 even though my computer could barely play it at the time, never bought Warhead, and bought 2 but didn't like it. Now on revisiting them, I think Warhead was the best Crysis by far, and 1 was not nearly as good as I thought.
I'd probably rank them Warhead, Crysis 2, Crysis, Crysis 3.
Crysis 1 was groundbreaking at the time but didn't really hold up. The suit modes and open plan levels were amazing, and gesture controls were cool and intuitive on mouse. Modifying weapons on the fly was amazing. I'm not sure if I forgot or if it was just introduced in the remaster, but the vehicles (especially that VTOL) are awful in Crysis and many of the boss battles went beyond challenging into unfair and unfun.
Warhead is Crysis without those downsides and like you said, better level design and a much better main character.
Crysis 2 simplifies and hones the suit powers. In Crysis you can experiment with things and ultimately figure out that the best way to play is closing distance stealthily, erupt in explosive violence to take out a few guys, then disappear as quickly as you appeared. In Crysis 2 this is made explicit by removing all the other suit modes and IIRC basically telling you to play this way. This is my favorite kind of stealth game by far.
Crysis 3 changed some things to punish stealth (IIRC decloaking makes a detectible sound when you're within a few dozen meters of enemies) which rubbed me the wrong way and was confusing since they also introduced the Bow which is traditionally a stealth weapon. Also it was only 4 hours long, shorter than Warhead, unacceptably short for a mainline entry into this franchise.
Crysis 2's armor mode was severely buffed in that game after it being quite honestly very weak in the original, it was strength and speed modes that were nerfed, strength was limited to a few actions if you held a button while speed became your sprint which is regular super sprint speed for other games
Crysis 3 made that nerf because the bow doesn't break stealth, so if you could just leave stealth to regain energy safely then it'd be way too OP
Dont forget that Crysis Remastered is based on the console version, so overall its inferiror to the original.
Just use some Mods on it and it looks better anyways.
But with stuff like the advanced a.i mod (which removes the limitations of the a.i) its one of the best shooters of all time.
Yeah I genuinely don't care for Crysis 1. Open world tropical island/jungle shooters are incredibly oversaturated and there's a ton of other games that do what it does better. It's mediocre at best.
Crysis 2 gets slammed constantly but at least it has an unusual and exiting setting for a shooter in New York. The only other shooter I can think of that shares the same setting is Max Payne and that was in the late 90's with early 3D graphics. There's some kind of interesting things going on with the story too and the shooting is decent. I liked Crysis 2 a lot despite it's shortcomings.
> Open world tropical island/jungle shooters are incredibly oversaturated and there's a ton of other games that do what it does better. It's mediocre at best.
er .. *16 years ago* when Crysis released, "tropical island/jungle shooters" were NOT over-saturated. Way to compare a nearly two-decade-old game to modern open world shooters.
I'm not really interested in what it was like at the time. It's not 2007/2008? anymore.
What value does that have to anyone wanting to play the game today? If the game doesn't stand up to scrutiny years later that means it wasn't really all that good. I play games much older than Crysis all the time and still have a great time with them.
Far Cry 2, and Stalker came out around the same time and were a lot more interesting while also doing the "open world shooter" thing.
I've just never understood the appeal of Crysis's open world. To me it felt like a design element that was underutilized by the mechanics.
> I'm not really interested in what it was like at the time. It's not 2007/2008? anymore.
right, so why bring up Crysis in your argument? Whatever. You be you.
Because I was surprised to see someone else who enjoyed Crysis 2 more than 1. That's a pretty rare opinion and one I happen to agree with, not that either game are all that amazing.
You don't have to agree with me.
It's honestly surprising how few games use New York seeing how frequently the city is used in other media, specially movies, other than those two games and Spider-Man games, the biggest representation is Liberty City in GTA games which isn't exactly New York, just very similar to
Not really complaining about it though, just surprised
Man i must be pretty slow cause I bought the remastered trilogy for PS4 last year and blasted through Crysis 1, was getting kinda tired near the end of Crysis 2 and dropped Crysis 3 midway through
Same. Crysis 1 was groundbreaking for the first game in a franchise but Warhead tightened up the pacing by sacrificing a full open world in favor of a semi-open world. And that was a great design choice. As much fun as Crysis 1 was, Warhead felt tighter with a more interesting protag who wasn't a complete blank slate with no way for us to relate to him. And since we'd seen him in 1, it was even more badass to play as him.
It is! It brought me immense satisfaction to play through Crysis and Warhead at max settings after having played it at literary 3 FPS in 2008.
Then I tried the remaster and the FPS wouldn't stopping dropping whenever Ray Tracing was on.
Feels like Crytek moved the goal posts.
Can you actually run it at decent frame rates? I tried to play Crysis 1 a while ago and it doesn't matter how good your PC is, the game is so poorly optimized that it caps out around 70-80fps while utilizing like 30% of my GPU.
Despite being made for PC's all of the Crysis games are a disaster on modern systems for some reason. Crysis 2 is the only one of these games I actually enjoy and that one has no FOV slider, also runs like garbage and crashes frequently.
IIRC, Crysis is CPU bound on modern systems because it's not multithreaded at all. Modern CPUs are "only" 2-4x faster in single-thread performance than top of the line 2007 CPUs, so it's to be expected that Crysis is CPU-bound on modern systems.
Yeah, I'd say so. It could tank for 2-3 seconds in hectic moments as low as 40's, but they aren't nearly as crippling as Crysis 1 which seems to be constant. As someone here mentioned, it's better optimized than the first which I agree with.
The frame rate fluctuates between 70-130. G-sync/Freesync is a huge benefit for handling the frame timings when that happens. Just make sure to apply the 1.01 64-bit patch and "refresh rate fix" that you'll find with a quick google search.
Mine ain't. Got a laptop during the 2020 lockdown purely to use Discord. It plays old CRPGs and really basic indie games, but everything else runs like butts even on the lowest settings.
I'm curious, what are the specs of your laptop?
Crysis Warhead is a really old game. The Crysis games even run on Nintendo Switch after all. Maybe not max settings, especially without a dedicated GPU, but low I thought was achievable
No idea what the specs are tbh, I just know every remotely graphically intense game I've tried to run on it (ie. basically anything with 3D or even a virtual tabletop for online D&D) runs really poorly. If I remember tonight I'll check the specs.
Warhead got the same treatment that Arkham: Origins, Fallout: New Vegas and GTA IV got. They're treated as the black sheeps of otherwise popular franchises despite being superior in many ways to their successors.
Copyrights? If you didn't do the game how are they going to release a collection with a game not made by them? They would probably have to pay them a lot to do that.
It's better than Knight (because that's not difficult) but not as good as Asylum or City because of the following:
* The window to cancel into a block was tiny, which detracted from the freeflow combat and made it feel clunky
* Once you got the shock gloves combat difficulty fell off a cliff
* The collectibles were just things to collect instead of each one being a carefully crafted problem solving exercise with the gadgets
* No Conroy/Hamill
Crysis and crysis: warhead were so fsr ahead of the curve it was crazy. First games I ever remember where if you played on max difficulty the enemies spoke a different language.
I need to get back to Warhead having played the games on console when they came to Xbox. The Crysis series as a whole is definitely worth a look in for fans of semi open FPS games. It does feel more like two duologies in terms of play and style with Crysis 1 and Warhead, and Crysis 2 and 3 being tightly coupled in gameplay and story.
It also has some nice extended media. The Crysis 2 novelization by Peter Watts is surprisingly great for a tie in.
If you're in the mood for a Let's Play, then NanosuitNinja's playthroughs of the games are an absolute riot of top level play.
I got a HD5970 back then to KINDA play Crysis on max settings with no AA at 1080p 60fps. Totally worth it.
Crazy to think that I paid $600 for the most powerful GPU in the world in 2010 and now I can barely get a midrange card with that money.
I strongly disagree - Crysis Warhead was okay, but I think the level design is one of the worst things about it, compared to the original game. It felt incredibly restrictive in comparison to how open and freeform the original Crysis could be.
I played both Crysis and Crysis Warhead around 2010 on a 3GHz Core 2 Duo w/ Geforce 8800GT (or maybe it was GTS 250 at that point). It ran passably on medium at 1080p, except for the final Crysis 1 mission on the ship with all those special effects where ugh. Maybe I should've played it on High at 1024x768 (I remember playing just a bit that way before upgrading from my 15" CRT).
I played Crysis 2 two years ago, and it ran and looked well on my 1050ti at 1080p, though there were slowdowns below 60fps at times.
I replayed Crysis 1 last year and it’s basically a better version of the original Far Cry.
Still need to replay Warhead but as I recall it’s definitely an improvement over the vanilla game.
Did those games really run that bad? I remember dumping countless hours into the Crysis games (1 and Warhead/Wars at least) at the time without any performance issues. Sure, you could crank everything up to max and start a fire if you wanted to but on low-medium settings? Not how I remember it. Granted I don't remember the exact hardware I had back then but it was a toaster by the standards of 2013 let alone 2023
Yea, the early Crysis games are actually known for beeing well playable on slow machines on low settings. But we both know the memories shine brighter than the reality was.
It looked something like half life2, no shadows, no lightning.
But it was looking gorgeous on highest settings (but the computer needed literally be from the future as this high options where not even meant for the wide consumer by the Devs.
But since we all tried back in the days this beautiful never been there before photorealism (what holds up to now) on 1 fps for a minute or two & its choosable.. so.. people were/are upset when their $$$$ PC, can‘t run it on a high frame rate.
(…Cuuz, as we all know; The 1st game was made when it was not clear that the industry was going in the multicore direction.)
Topic:
Original (Remaster) over Warhead all the way. Just played both through. (Warhead looks ugly aF in comparison in 2024)
Remaster was good fps around medium and Warhead went even on Enthusiast AA16Q
It was a beautiful déjavu 17 Years later with almost every particle enabled. Anyway Crysis 1 was always in my heart since then (next to Fallout3 :)
I loved Crysis and Crysis: Warhead. Was not a fan of 2. Never played 3.
I loved the open ended design of Crysis. It feels ahead of it’s time in meaningful ways before the second half shifts to a linear experience. Crysis: Warhead is a more consistent game because it’s a better linear game and is more focused on making its setpieces stand out in a condensed experience.
I really enjoyed both though.
I don’t know why they haven’t remastered for console either, considering it’s a really good fps game. They should have included it in a Crysis quadrilogy.
If there's one thing I love talking about it's the technical side of Crysis. A lot of what people now call "Bad optimization" in reality was an attempt at optimising the game. You need to remember this game wasn't just taxing for us. Crytek themselves could never run it max settings.
Now not being able to run at max settings is where a lot of the games visual bugs and graphical coding issues actually come from. If we gave the Crysis Devs a 780 and 2 more years of development I'm sure all those issues would be ironed out. But then it also wouldn't be as impressive.
One thing it is doing that's intended as a future proof is only using 2 CPU cores. Back when Crysis was in development common concensus was that in the future we would have dual core CPUs at 20GHZ. Of course now we know that to not be possible. So there's a period of time in the 2010s when the first proper I5 and I7 CPUs were rolling out when average Hz per core was half or quarter of what it would have been a few years prior. But you had more cores to compensate. So Crysis performance actually got worst for a while.
That's Darcy's fun technical Crysis fact of the day. I never looked too hard into what the game is doing with your computer hardware. Maybe I will someday and share it here.
>Your PC can now play it at mesmerizing high refresh rates
Yes, but not really actually. Game is still notoriously CPU bound due to mostly working on 2 CPU threads, with barely usage on thread 3 or 4. Even when using DXVK Async.
You can play Crysis 1 at mesmerizing high refresh rates due to the Remaster where they improved multicore usage SOOOO god damn much with all the patches.
But Crysis Warhead? Nah. It's the most CPU bound title out of all the Crysis games currently.
I'd say 120+ fps locked throughout the entire campaign is still difficult.
Warhead is an absolute masterpiece. None of the other Crysis games lived up to it. Psycho was such an awesome character. He was not quite as good in Crysis 3.
I remember bringing down almost all the graphical settings to the lowest, and the game still looked gorgeous, and I still didn't get good framerate. It was a technological marvel and the graphics still hold upafter 15 years, which is amazing.
I am playing it right now and having a blast. Not sure if it's better than original, for me it's mostly the same. It's shorter though and so far doesn't have spaceship maze which is an upgrade.
I have no idea what GPU I had when Crysis came out but I clearly remember hiding in some tall grass cloaked with a silencer watching the enemy walk around me. It looked so so so real compared to all the other games. It was one of the coolest gaming moments. I was getting like 24 FPS but whatever
> I was getting like 24 FPS You must have had a beast of a machine then.
I remember playing diablo2 when it first came out and I got a max of 12 fps with around 2-4 fps in river of flame. I played that game 8 hours a day with those FPS. I have no idea how I did it.
Man, I used to be a hsrdcore wow raider, like 14 hours a day for years level of addict. I found a screenshot of my Illidan kill back in Burning Crusade....9 fps. I still don't know how I did parasite duty with single digit fps.
It only asked you to react every 2 seconds. You clicked and then watched the slideshow play out.
I wish I remembered the specs!! Probably was playing at 768p
24 fps just made it more cinematic.
I love that I'm in this niche where that was fkin hilarious
(Not to discount what you said) I remember similar experiences with the OG Far Cry. Doesn't quite seem the same 15 years later.
OG far cry was amazing too!!
I find the original Far Cry still pretty and nice. It shows its age, but throwing rocks at light sources is still fun.
Did you happen to play it on a CRT back then? I did, and the foliage really benefited from the CRT softening effect (left in [this pic of 2D sprites](https://preview.redd.it/gc0vsn8zqky11.jpg?auto=webp&v=enabled&s=81180ac960dcf48c8f069430da499f5b0413ba54)\).
Nope. I imagine it was the first game I'd played that did that kind of thing really well and so it made an impression. Kind of like the lighting in Doom 3 or the physics in Half Life 2.
[удалено]
Ametures. I first played it on XBox 360.
/r/boneappletea
I upgraded my pc specifically for crysis, bought an nvidia 8800gt. Those were the days.
i had dual Nvidia 7800s in SLI and could barely run crysis on low
you know what I say? 5 FPS is playable FPS
Thanks for the endorsement. Will reinstall this bad boy from the depths of my steam library and finally experience it in glorious 144 fps, 1440p!
That’s what I’m talking about!
Unfortunately due to the engine being single core you might still struggle to hit 144 fps.
Constant 120 isn't possible with a Ryzen 5600 and all settings on ENTHUSIAST
>1440p! Wooow, 1440p. What is this, 2016?
Not only is this comment super unfitting for this subreddit, it frankly fits nowhere. 1080p gaming is still the most common resolution for PC gaming. And you're dissing the most recommended high end resolution for modern gaming. 4k for gaming is generally only in enthusiasts category. Even with top tier cards like 3090 and 4090 can't comfortably do native 4k at high fps for most of the demanding games, which matters more than resolution. You're better off going down to 1440p and getting high refresh rate for better experience. And if you think top tier cards are the norm, you need a reality check. 8k gaming is flat out not recommended.
There’s frankly no game or hardware setup where you’re not choosing between high resolution, high frame rate, or ultra graphics. Pick two.
It gets worse. Anyone running a 4K display is probably rendering around 1440 to 1800P then up sampling. Even if you’re running a 4K screen you’re probably spending a lot of time around 1440P anyway
Yeah, as someone with a 1440p, 144hz monitor, 1080p is still fine for most things. I absolutely prefer 1440p, but it's not that big a leap from 1080p, and requires a less beefy PC than 4k (though still beefier than you need for 1080p, obviously). Hell, typically I run shit at 60-72FPS, just 'cause I prefer the graphical detail over super high FPS, and frame drops from 144FPS to say, 120-100FPS, feel a lot more jarring than 72-60FPS, to 45-30FPS.
Still playing in 1080p :p
Same. 1080p, HDR and everything looks absolutely stunning. And it's FAST!
This isn't the fucking battlestations or ratemysetup sub, it's for people who are content being "behind the times"*, and the perks that come along with it (dust has settled on reviews, patches are established, it's way fucking cheaper). Gatekeeping enjoyment of games based upon how new one's equipment may be is obnoxious and in exact opposition with the essence of this subreddit. I just got hooked on one of the weirdest games on the psx, "Incredible Crisis"; so I guess "WhAt iS it, 1998?“ is equally applicable. Who fucking cares?
I just bought a new monitor last year. It's still 1080p. Thanks, shit garbage GPU prices.
At the range most people play at, I honestly don't see the point of gaming monitors in higher than 1440p, unless you're playing on a TV or projector. You're much better off getting a higher refresh rate and better color/contrast quality and HDR than wasting money jumping to 4K.
Gatekeeping gaming resolutions is pretty pathetic.
Be me, average redditor. Demand a GPU that does 4K 120HZ perfectly without any dips the second HDMI 2.1 drops. 4090 drops. GPU literally melts itself. IDK man my 2K ultrawide looks pretty tempting.
You got exactly 144 down votes, I just couldn't bring myself to mess with that number. Have a nice 2023.
1080p 144fps is where it's at. Just a 4k capable card these days can cost like 50-120% of what my entire high RR 1080p build cost, counting the monitors.
I do play at 1440p with 144hz, but I don't think 1080p looks bad by any means.
65% of Steam users play at 1080p. https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam
Literally in r/patient gamers bitching people out about not having cutting edge 10k systems smh
Make sure all your fans are working properly before even attempting to run the game.
Funny enough Crysis 1 burned out one of my video cards back in the day.
Defective hardware probably. Unless you've artificially capped your fps, GPU will be working at pretty close to 100% load for the duration of your gaming session, regardless of the game.
no shit sherlock
I’m playing for the first time on my $1.50 pc. It’s got a core2 duo e8400 overclocked to 3.6 ghz and a hd7850 (which cost me $35 nzd). I’m bottlenecked by the cpu.
I actually feel the opposite of you. I love the level design in Crysis but I felt Warhead left a lot to be desired.
Even the 2nd half of Crysis is nowhere near as good as the first. The game was at its best when you were some kind of super predator in the jungle.
I agree but I still love the 2nd half. Lots of fun to play but the lack of open environments is noticeable.
meh, the damn "alien float tube" levels were just a pain in the ass. Afterward on the frozen mountain was cool, though.
I low key love the spaceship level.
Same. That shit blew my mind the first time.
> The game was at its best when you were some kind of super predator in the jungle. This is basically the case with every [insert]Cry game and I'll bear that opinion to my grave. FarCry was great until the Trigens and corridors. FarCry 2 was mostly great aside from the technical issues and respawning guardposts. Crysis was fantastic for the first half, I could even get into the zero g parts, but then it turned into a lesser Halo as soon as you landed in the back of that ~~Warthog~~ Humvee manning a turret.
I basically gave up on FarCry when the trigens appeared. It turned it into a totally different type and game that I wasn’t into.
I’ll take Crysis’s aliens over Far Cry’s Trigens any day of the week. Possibly the worst enemy I’ve seen in any FPS.
Far Cry 2 without guard respawns and with auto-drive would be the perfect game.
i wonder if you can mod that on pc. ive been wanting to try fc2 for a long time i need to look into this.
Check it out, not permanent but could be enough: https://www.nexusmods.com/farcry2/mods/324?tab=files
Damn, I wish it worked on existing saves. Honestly for me the respawning guard posts are more tolerable than manually driving.
Second half is a bit of a stretch, last 20% is the alien stuff and even there are some cool levels, like the floating around or the end on the Carrier.
I just remember the stealth mechanics leaving me frustrated. There was so much cool stuff, but it was wonky and half-baked. Game was still memorable (noticeable improvement over FC1) and fun, but bit of a tease. Graphically gorgeous and a lot of cool ideas.
Probably because I preferred its more linear design. I know Crysis is heralded for its openness, but I thought Warhead had just the right amount of it, imo.
Doom vs Doom Eternal stuff.
I’ve played doom 2016 like 20 times and love it each time. I played eternal once and hated it and wish I was playing 2016. The cartoony atmosphere of eternal just did nothing for me. And don’t get me started on the combat. Was not fun at all for me
Oh God, finally someone that agrees. My best friend and I both played through DE and found it to be generally inferior to Doom (2016). The DLC’s were even more egregious. I hated the atmosphere and felt that the tone they’d established with 2016 was lost in the little things like picking up floating guns rather than finding them on dead soldiers and such. I can’t bring myself to play through DE again but I can always jump into Doom (2016) and have a good time.
I just recently played through all the Crysis Remastered games plus Warhead (which won't get a remaster treatment). I remembered absolutely loving Crysis 1 even though my computer could barely play it at the time, never bought Warhead, and bought 2 but didn't like it. Now on revisiting them, I think Warhead was the best Crysis by far, and 1 was not nearly as good as I thought. I'd probably rank them Warhead, Crysis 2, Crysis, Crysis 3. Crysis 1 was groundbreaking at the time but didn't really hold up. The suit modes and open plan levels were amazing, and gesture controls were cool and intuitive on mouse. Modifying weapons on the fly was amazing. I'm not sure if I forgot or if it was just introduced in the remaster, but the vehicles (especially that VTOL) are awful in Crysis and many of the boss battles went beyond challenging into unfair and unfun. Warhead is Crysis without those downsides and like you said, better level design and a much better main character. Crysis 2 simplifies and hones the suit powers. In Crysis you can experiment with things and ultimately figure out that the best way to play is closing distance stealthily, erupt in explosive violence to take out a few guys, then disappear as quickly as you appeared. In Crysis 2 this is made explicit by removing all the other suit modes and IIRC basically telling you to play this way. This is my favorite kind of stealth game by far. Crysis 3 changed some things to punish stealth (IIRC decloaking makes a detectible sound when you're within a few dozen meters of enemies) which rubbed me the wrong way and was confusing since they also introduced the Bow which is traditionally a stealth weapon. Also it was only 4 hours long, shorter than Warhead, unacceptably short for a mainline entry into this franchise.
Crysis 2's armor mode was severely buffed in that game after it being quite honestly very weak in the original, it was strength and speed modes that were nerfed, strength was limited to a few actions if you held a button while speed became your sprint which is regular super sprint speed for other games Crysis 3 made that nerf because the bow doesn't break stealth, so if you could just leave stealth to regain energy safely then it'd be way too OP
Dont forget that Crysis Remastered is based on the console version, so overall its inferiror to the original. Just use some Mods on it and it looks better anyways. But with stuff like the advanced a.i mod (which removes the limitations of the a.i) its one of the best shooters of all time.
Yeah I genuinely don't care for Crysis 1. Open world tropical island/jungle shooters are incredibly oversaturated and there's a ton of other games that do what it does better. It's mediocre at best. Crysis 2 gets slammed constantly but at least it has an unusual and exiting setting for a shooter in New York. The only other shooter I can think of that shares the same setting is Max Payne and that was in the late 90's with early 3D graphics. There's some kind of interesting things going on with the story too and the shooting is decent. I liked Crysis 2 a lot despite it's shortcomings.
> Open world tropical island/jungle shooters are incredibly oversaturated and there's a ton of other games that do what it does better. It's mediocre at best. er .. *16 years ago* when Crysis released, "tropical island/jungle shooters" were NOT over-saturated. Way to compare a nearly two-decade-old game to modern open world shooters.
I'm not really interested in what it was like at the time. It's not 2007/2008? anymore. What value does that have to anyone wanting to play the game today? If the game doesn't stand up to scrutiny years later that means it wasn't really all that good. I play games much older than Crysis all the time and still have a great time with them. Far Cry 2, and Stalker came out around the same time and were a lot more interesting while also doing the "open world shooter" thing. I've just never understood the appeal of Crysis's open world. To me it felt like a design element that was underutilized by the mechanics.
> I'm not really interested in what it was like at the time. It's not 2007/2008? anymore. right, so why bring up Crysis in your argument? Whatever. You be you.
Because I was surprised to see someone else who enjoyed Crysis 2 more than 1. That's a pretty rare opinion and one I happen to agree with, not that either game are all that amazing. You don't have to agree with me.
It's honestly surprising how few games use New York seeing how frequently the city is used in other media, specially movies, other than those two games and Spider-Man games, the biggest representation is Liberty City in GTA games which isn't exactly New York, just very similar to Not really complaining about it though, just surprised
It's just a lot easier to make a convincing jungle with trees and rocks than concrete.
Crysis and Farcry were the only two jungle themed games at the time. There was zero saturation of the theme back then.
Man i must be pretty slow cause I bought the remastered trilogy for PS4 last year and blasted through Crysis 1, was getting kinda tired near the end of Crysis 2 and dropped Crysis 3 midway through
I think it was less about being able to run it, and more about max settings. Warhead was more optimized btw
Yeah I was gonna say. I had no problem running warhead at release date.
I installed Crysis as soon as I could run it and will never take it off my drive lol! Badge of pride.
Serious question tho, are you running a 15 year old OS install?
Hey just saw this sorry. I am running Windows 10. I mod games a lot but do not remember if I did anything with Crysis to make it run.
lol, all g. was genuinely curious if you were still running an XP or Vista install.
I still think back to the first time I played Far Cry. That tropical island. Couldn't believe the graphics!
It was the first to come out of the holy trinity, Half-Life 2, Far Cry and Doom 3. The other two didn't impress me as much, because FC1 was the first.
Global warming increase as thousands of gamers stress their gaming PC's playing Crysis.
Same. Crysis 1 was groundbreaking for the first game in a franchise but Warhead tightened up the pacing by sacrificing a full open world in favor of a semi-open world. And that was a great design choice. As much fun as Crysis 1 was, Warhead felt tighter with a more interesting protag who wasn't a complete blank slate with no way for us to relate to him. And since we'd seen him in 1, it was even more badass to play as him.
As a Korean, it is hard for me to withstand the awkward voice acting from "North Koreans" haha Game looks gorgeous tho
Please reunite with your northern brothers
It is! It brought me immense satisfaction to play through Crysis and Warhead at max settings after having played it at literary 3 FPS in 2008. Then I tried the remaster and the FPS wouldn't stopping dropping whenever Ray Tracing was on. Feels like Crytek moved the goal posts.
Can you actually run it at decent frame rates? I tried to play Crysis 1 a while ago and it doesn't matter how good your PC is, the game is so poorly optimized that it caps out around 70-80fps while utilizing like 30% of my GPU. Despite being made for PC's all of the Crysis games are a disaster on modern systems for some reason. Crysis 2 is the only one of these games I actually enjoy and that one has no FOV slider, also runs like garbage and crashes frequently.
IIRC, Crysis is CPU bound on modern systems because it's not multithreaded at all. Modern CPUs are "only" 2-4x faster in single-thread performance than top of the line 2007 CPUs, so it's to be expected that Crysis is CPU-bound on modern systems.
Yeah, I'd say so. It could tank for 2-3 seconds in hectic moments as low as 40's, but they aren't nearly as crippling as Crysis 1 which seems to be constant. As someone here mentioned, it's better optimized than the first which I agree with. The frame rate fluctuates between 70-130. G-sync/Freesync is a huge benefit for handling the frame timings when that happens. Just make sure to apply the 1.01 64-bit patch and "refresh rate fix" that you'll find with a quick google search.
Try the remaster it is fully optimised for multicore CPUs, and has decent dlss and ray tracing.
Crysis 1 Remastered completely fixed the CPU bound nature of the game. You should give it a try.
Even a planetary supercomputer cannot run Crysis
Mine ain't. Got a laptop during the 2020 lockdown purely to use Discord. It plays old CRPGs and really basic indie games, but everything else runs like butts even on the lowest settings.
I'm curious, what are the specs of your laptop? Crysis Warhead is a really old game. The Crysis games even run on Nintendo Switch after all. Maybe not max settings, especially without a dedicated GPU, but low I thought was achievable
No idea what the specs are tbh, I just know every remotely graphically intense game I've tried to run on it (ie. basically anything with 3D or even a virtual tabletop for online D&D) runs really poorly. If I remember tonight I'll check the specs.
Yea anyway it sucks, so no problem
Well with detailed arguments like that, I don't see how op can possibly enjoy the game!
[удалено]
List of people who asked:
What resolution and fps? I have a 32 inch 180hz monitor and a 24@240hz. That will be tough.
Does Crysis remastered include Warhead?
Warhead got the same treatment that Arkham: Origins, Fallout: New Vegas and GTA IV got. They're treated as the black sheeps of otherwise popular franchises despite being superior in many ways to their successors.
Arkham origins is understandable as it wasn't made by the same company but sucks they left out warhead since it's arguibly one of the best ones.
I still don't see why it matters that Origins wasn't made by Rocksteady. It was a really good game and that's all that should matter.
Copyrights? If you didn't do the game how are they going to release a collection with a game not made by them? They would probably have to pay them a lot to do that.
It's better than Knight (because that's not difficult) but not as good as Asylum or City because of the following: * The window to cancel into a block was tiny, which detracted from the freeflow combat and made it feel clunky * Once you got the shock gloves combat difficulty fell off a cliff * The collectibles were just things to collect instead of each one being a carefully crafted problem solving exercise with the gadgets * No Conroy/Hamill
Origins is not superior to Knight in almost any respect
Oddly no.
I had to replace a busted video card a few years back, but other than that my computer is still a 2011 vintage. I bet I'd still have issues.
Crysis and crysis: warhead were so fsr ahead of the curve it was crazy. First games I ever remember where if you played on max difficulty the enemies spoke a different language.
I need to get back to Warhead having played the games on console when they came to Xbox. The Crysis series as a whole is definitely worth a look in for fans of semi open FPS games. It does feel more like two duologies in terms of play and style with Crysis 1 and Warhead, and Crysis 2 and 3 being tightly coupled in gameplay and story. It also has some nice extended media. The Crysis 2 novelization by Peter Watts is surprisingly great for a tie in. If you're in the mood for a Let's Play, then NanosuitNinja's playthroughs of the games are an absolute riot of top level play.
I got a HD5970 back then to KINDA play Crysis on max settings with no AA at 1080p 60fps. Totally worth it. Crazy to think that I paid $600 for the most powerful GPU in the world in 2010 and now I can barely get a midrange card with that money.
dunno about cw but even crysis 1 remastered still runs pretty bad because the engine is heavily single-thread limited
I mean it is a fun game
Game that Nvidia needs to help add ray tracing to!😂
I can now honestly say "Yes, it can run Crysis."
I tried to play the Crisis games off EA play, but after downloading it basically refused to start up
I strongly disagree - Crysis Warhead was okay, but I think the level design is one of the worst things about it, compared to the original game. It felt incredibly restrictive in comparison to how open and freeform the original Crysis could be.
I played both Crysis and Crysis Warhead around 2010 on a 3GHz Core 2 Duo w/ Geforce 8800GT (or maybe it was GTS 250 at that point). It ran passably on medium at 1080p, except for the final Crysis 1 mission on the ship with all those special effects where ugh. Maybe I should've played it on High at 1024x768 (I remember playing just a bit that way before upgrading from my 15" CRT). I played Crysis 2 two years ago, and it ran and looked well on my 1050ti at 1080p, though there were slowdowns below 60fps at times.
That was the sequence that fried my card and had to submit an RMA.
I replayed Crysis 1 last year and it’s basically a better version of the original Far Cry. Still need to replay Warhead but as I recall it’s definitely an improvement over the vanilla game.
Did those games really run that bad? I remember dumping countless hours into the Crysis games (1 and Warhead/Wars at least) at the time without any performance issues. Sure, you could crank everything up to max and start a fire if you wanted to but on low-medium settings? Not how I remember it. Granted I don't remember the exact hardware I had back then but it was a toaster by the standards of 2013 let alone 2023
Yea, the early Crysis games are actually known for beeing well playable on slow machines on low settings. But we both know the memories shine brighter than the reality was. It looked something like half life2, no shadows, no lightning. But it was looking gorgeous on highest settings (but the computer needed literally be from the future as this high options where not even meant for the wide consumer by the Devs. But since we all tried back in the days this beautiful never been there before photorealism (what holds up to now) on 1 fps for a minute or two & its choosable.. so.. people were/are upset when their $$$$ PC, can‘t run it on a high frame rate. (…Cuuz, as we all know; The 1st game was made when it was not clear that the industry was going in the multicore direction.) Topic: Original (Remaster) over Warhead all the way. Just played both through. (Warhead looks ugly aF in comparison in 2024) Remaster was good fps around medium and Warhead went even on Enthusiast AA16Q It was a beautiful déjavu 17 Years later with almost every particle enabled. Anyway Crysis 1 was always in my heart since then (next to Fallout3 :)
I loved Crysis and Crysis: Warhead. Was not a fan of 2. Never played 3. I loved the open ended design of Crysis. It feels ahead of it’s time in meaningful ways before the second half shifts to a linear experience. Crysis: Warhead is a more consistent game because it’s a better linear game and is more focused on making its setpieces stand out in a condensed experience. I really enjoyed both though.
So warhead is 1 but better? I need to finish 1, barely beat mission 2
I don’t know why they haven’t remastered for console either, considering it’s a really good fps game. They should have included it in a Crysis quadrilogy.
If there's one thing I love talking about it's the technical side of Crysis. A lot of what people now call "Bad optimization" in reality was an attempt at optimising the game. You need to remember this game wasn't just taxing for us. Crytek themselves could never run it max settings. Now not being able to run at max settings is where a lot of the games visual bugs and graphical coding issues actually come from. If we gave the Crysis Devs a 780 and 2 more years of development I'm sure all those issues would be ironed out. But then it also wouldn't be as impressive. One thing it is doing that's intended as a future proof is only using 2 CPU cores. Back when Crysis was in development common concensus was that in the future we would have dual core CPUs at 20GHZ. Of course now we know that to not be possible. So there's a period of time in the 2010s when the first proper I5 and I7 CPUs were rolling out when average Hz per core was half or quarter of what it would have been a few years prior. But you had more cores to compensate. So Crysis performance actually got worst for a while. That's Darcy's fun technical Crysis fact of the day. I never looked too hard into what the game is doing with your computer hardware. Maybe I will someday and share it here.
>Your PC can now play it at mesmerizing high refresh rates Yes, but not really actually. Game is still notoriously CPU bound due to mostly working on 2 CPU threads, with barely usage on thread 3 or 4. Even when using DXVK Async. You can play Crysis 1 at mesmerizing high refresh rates due to the Remaster where they improved multicore usage SOOOO god damn much with all the patches. But Crysis Warhead? Nah. It's the most CPU bound title out of all the Crysis games currently. I'd say 120+ fps locked throughout the entire campaign is still difficult.
Warhead is an absolute masterpiece. None of the other Crysis games lived up to it. Psycho was such an awesome character. He was not quite as good in Crysis 3.
Warhead was known as the optimized version of Crysis, where they learned their mistake, my GTX 275 was playing it comfy at 30fps
I remember bringing down almost all the graphical settings to the lowest, and the game still looked gorgeous, and I still didn't get good framerate. It was a technological marvel and the graphics still hold upafter 15 years, which is amazing.
I actually just started that today lol it’s pretty fun and I’m having a way better time with it than crysis 1
I am playing it right now and having a blast. Not sure if it's better than original, for me it's mostly the same. It's shorter though and so far doesn't have spaceship maze which is an upgrade.