News Crysis remaster is most certainly happening

Horizon Queen

Something On The Horizon
Oct 19, 2018
875
5,402
93
29
crysis site updated to this today


your probs going to counter with well queen i used element inspect and it mentions april fools

well i say welldone

but

their facebook page posted 3 updates today 1 the link two updated profile pic and 3 background image, they hadnt posted prior since 2018 when announcing m,ultiplayer server shutdown

ontop of this crytek just a few days ago posted a tech video showing games using their engine which ends with a teaser showing crysis (this isnt showing updated graphics like some other sites are reporting because they are dumb and probs dont even know difference between switch and xbox)


add on top of all of this ea saying remasters are happening, why not remaster crysis.

all aboard the queen hype train i dare you enver doubt a queen
 

ISee

Oh NO!
Mar 1, 2019
1,830
4,207
113
It's Crysis, the engine needs to be 5 years ahead and crush current systems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lashman

Aelphaeis Mangarae

MetaMember
Apr 21, 2019
356
593
93
Even if this is just an April Fools, Crytek are up to something. The teaser in August 2019 was just a really nice tech demo.
But the Never Stop Achieving trailer is different. The Crysis snippet is not the PC version, and it's not the console version. It looks like a hybrid of both. The base assets look like the PC version, but the lighting is different, the subsurface scattering on vegetation is different (the original had a cheap scatter effect but it didn't look like this -- this one looks much "lusher"). There's a richness of colour and saturation to the scene that you just don't get with PC Crysis. The game appears to have global illumination, seeing how the scene is lit indirectly as he runs up the hill. When Nomad activates cloak, it's the cloaking effect from the console versions. On PC, the effect darkens and turns transparent. On consoles, it brightens and turns transparent but with a clear hexagonal pattern. The UI is more centered like the console version instead of being near the screen edges like the PC version. Also, when he sprints, speed mode activates and suit energy drains. (Potentially controversial, unless they do something like offer a toggle between N1 and N2 suit styles.)

I don't understand what's going on with the SCAR. That's not the Scar from Crysis. Nor Crysis 2. Nor Crysis 3. It's missing the two little rings on the rear of the gun. Even the console port of Crysis 1 had them. I also don't recognize the sight it's using. I initially thought the sight was missing, but it looks like two raised nubs, one on the carry handle, the other at the base of the gun.

The gun looks... weirdly simple. All the Crysis games had super detailed guns. This one looks kinda odd, but it could just be a placeholder or something. I dunno. But considering they could have just booted up Crysis 1 and taken some pictures, it's really weird they're showing off a version of Crysis with a different SCAR, different lighting, console cloak and suit behavior, and more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lashman

The Janitor

Junior Member
Jul 13, 2019
28
91
13
I'd totally replay Crysis with multithreading and ray tracing.
That's really the only thing Crysis needs, a Dx11/DX12/Vulkan patch that fixes performance.
If they're gonna switch engine and make all the mods not work, and consolize the controls then I'm not too excited about a remaster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ISee

Swenhir

Spaceships!
Apr 18, 2019
1,254
2,708
113
Given Crytek's harassment of CIG, I find myself conflicted. CryEngine and Crysis are dear and close to my heart but this is something I'll be hard-pressed to buy after what happened. Still, I'll keep an eye out :).
 
Last edited:

Aelphaeis Mangarae

MetaMember
Apr 21, 2019
356
593
93
Crysis that uses more than one CPU core?

I'm in.
This is a slight misconception. The original Crysis was designed to take advantage of the newfangled Core Duo CPUs which launched in 2006. It tries to spread its workload across two CPU cores, but can't really scale beyond that. And it is true that there was a general assumption that "moar Hertz" were on the horizon. Instead, clock speeds largely flatlined. Making game engines efficiently multi-threaded was extremely daunting. It still is, but it was more daunting in a time when single core CPUs were the norm. Valve were somewhat ahead of the curve when they added fairly comprehensive MTing to Source in 2006, which turned up in the Orange Box version of the engine. Valve's Source engine goes multi-core - The Tech Report

STALKER released the same year and it is completely single threaded. This makes it prone to stalling, and it means that performance buckles pretty quick when you use mods to increase A-Life distance and stuff. I think the Open X-Ray engine has improved a lot in this regard.

Much like CDPR and The Witcher 2/3, Crytek were forced to "git gud" if they wanted their games to run above single digits on consoles. They rewrote the engine to be far more efficient, and these improvements helped all versions. They were never able to get good performance out the PS3, though.

As far as I'm concerned, the issue with Crysis was never that it went multiplatform (a financial necessity) or that it went to urban environments (a change of pace that I have no issue with). The issue is that it stopped feeling like a PC military shooter. Just as Rainbow 6 and Ghost Recon stopped feeling like PC tactical and military shooters respectively. There is a certain "vibe" to PC military/tactical shooters going back to 1998's Delta Force, Rainbow 6, etc.

This has a different vibe:

To this:

It's a FEAR vs FEAR 2 thing. And I think it's maybe reflective of PC vs console gaming culture clashes. Audience expectations and cultural reference points. Crysis 2 is a hugely ambitious game. It doesn't get enough credit for its tech, for its complex environments with physics and GI and relatively decent AI and stuff like that. But the tone is off. It's the little things all accumulating. For example, the guns are too big. The FOV in Crysis 2 isn't hugely different to Crysis 1, but it feels way narrower because the guns are filling up half your vision for some reason.

Crysis 3 tried to return to the series' roots, and I think it's an underappreciated game. But it still doesn't feel right. And it's not just "oh, consoles". It's the demographics and tastes the game is chasing.

These are both "Crysis on consoles"...

but they're worlds apart in feel. And the worst part is that games like Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 ended up sacrificing their identity. They ended up being seen as "me too" games by the kind of people familiar with Halo and Killzone and Call of Duty. What makes this game special? Crysis 1's mechanical and aesthetic identity is very clear. But with Crysis 3, it kinda blurs into the morass of Killzone, Resistance, and all those Unreal Engine 3 FPS games from the era. It just looks really good and has amazing physics.

Under Ubisoft, Far Cry did the exact same thing. Modern Far Cry doesn't feel like a PC military shooter anymore. When Ubisoft ported Far Cry 1 to consoles, they absolutely butchered it. The physics are completely gone, just like modern Far Cry games. It's insulting.

I remain a bit annoyed that Ubisoft managed to completely defang the FC series. But to its credit, Ubisoft Far Cry managed to carve out a reasonably clear identity (centered around FC3) with very few competitors. Because they didn't lean into what made the IP unique, Crysis 2/3 failed to stand out. They failed to provide an experience you couldn't find anywhere else.
 

Swenhir

Spaceships!
Apr 18, 2019
1,254
2,708
113
t's a FEAR vs FEAR 2 thing. And I think it's maybe reflective of PC vs console gaming culture clashes. Audience expectations and cultural reference points. Crysis 2 is a hugely ambitious game. It doesn't get enough credit for its tech, for its complex environments with physics and GI and relatively decent AI and stuff like that. But the tone is off. It's the little things all accumulating. For example, the guns are too big. The FOV in Crysis 2 isn't hugely different to Crysis 1, but it feels way narrower because the guns are filling up half your vision for some reason.

Crysis 3 tried to return to the series' roots, and I think it's an underappreciated game. But it still doesn't feel right. And it's not just "oh, consoles". It's the demographics and tastes the game is chasing.

These are both "Crysis on consoles"...
Beautiful post, but this I agree with in particular. Movement speed is changed too. I did love Crysis 2 anyway as a graphics nerd, and the game did have a lot going for it but you are undoubtedly right there.

I wish I could articulate what it was beyond movement speed, fov, gun behavior and enemy precision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lashman

Phoenix RISING

A phoenix always RISES!
Apr 23, 2019
951
1,225
93
36
Ann Arbor, MI
www.geeksundergrace.com
This is a slight misconception. The original Crysis was designed to take advantage of the newfangled Core Duo CPUs which launched in 2006. It tries to spread its workload across two CPU cores, but can't really scale beyond that. And it is true that there was a general assumption that "moar Hertz" were on the horizon. Instead, clock speeds largely flatlined. Making game engines efficiently multi-threaded was extremely daunting. It still is, but it was more daunting in a time when single core CPUs were the norm. Valve were somewhat ahead of the curve when they added fairly comprehensive MTing to Source in 2006, which turned up in the Orange Box version of the engine. Valve's Source engine goes multi-core - The Tech Report

STALKER released the same year and it is completely single threaded. This makes it prone to stalling, and it means that performance buckles pretty quick when you use mods to increase A-Life distance and stuff. I think the Open X-Ray engine has improved a lot in this regard.

Much like CDPR and The Witcher 2/3, Crytek were forced to "git gud" if they wanted their games to run above single digits on consoles. They rewrote the engine to be far more efficient, and these improvements helped all versions. They were never able to get good performance out the PS3, though.

As far as I'm concerned, the issue with Crysis was never that it went multiplatform (a financial necessity) or that it went to urban environments (a change of pace that I have no issue with). The issue is that it stopped feeling like a PC military shooter. Just as Rainbow 6 and Ghost Recon stopped feeling like PC tactical and military shooters respectively. There is a certain "vibe" to PC military/tactical shooters going back to 1998's Delta Force, Rainbow 6, etc.

This has a different vibe:

To this:

It's a FEAR vs FEAR 2 thing. And I think it's maybe reflective of PC vs console gaming culture clashes. Audience expectations and cultural reference points. Crysis 2 is a hugely ambitious game. It doesn't get enough credit for its tech, for its complex environments with physics and GI and relatively decent AI and stuff like that. But the tone is off. It's the little things all accumulating. For example, the guns are too big. The FOV in Crysis 2 isn't hugely different to Crysis 1, but it feels way narrower because the guns are filling up half your vision for some reason.

Crysis 3 tried to return to the series' roots, and I think it's an underappreciated game. But it still doesn't feel right. And it's not just "oh, consoles". It's the demographics and tastes the game is chasing.

These are both "Crysis on consoles"...

but they're worlds apart in feel. And the worst part is that games like Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 ended up sacrificing their identity. They ended up being seen as "me too" games by the kind of people familiar with Halo and Killzone and Call of Duty. What makes this game special? Crysis 1's mechanical and aesthetic identity is very clear. But with Crysis 3, it kinda blurs into the morass of Killzone, Resistance, and all those Unreal Engine 3 FPS games from the era. It just looks really good and has amazing physics.

Under Ubisoft, Far Cry did the exact same thing. Modern Far Cry doesn't feel like a PC military shooter anymore. When Ubisoft ported Far Cry 1 to consoles, they absolutely butchered it. The physics are completely gone, just like modern Far Cry games. It's insulting.

I remain a bit annoyed that Ubisoft managed to completely defang the FC series. But to its credit, Ubisoft Far Cry managed to carve out a reasonably clear identity (centered around FC3) with very few competitors. Because they didn't lean into what made the IP unique, Crysis 2/3 failed to stand out. They failed to provide an experience you couldn't find anywhere else.

Excellent post. Beautiful. I wish I could add more, but you hit on everything.

Crysis 2 was a beautiful, but generic COD clone.

Crysis 3 tried to turn things around, but it was too little, too late. Too much of Crysis 2, not enough Crysis 1.

Ironically, Crysis would be AMAZING if the games returned to open worlds like those in Far Cry. Far Cry 5 with a nanosuit would be a fantastic playground!
 

Aelphaeis Mangarae

MetaMember
Apr 21, 2019
356
593
93
Details have leaked from this page which Crytek failed to lock down properly. Cookie Policy | Crysis Remastered

"From the makers of Far Cry, Hunt: Showdown and CRYENGINE, Crysis offers first person shooter fans the best-looking, evolved, and innovative gameplay, enabling players to adapt in real time to survive. Crysis Remastered brings new graphic features, high-quality textures, and the CRYENGINE's native hardware- and API-agnostic ray tracing solution for PC, PlayStation, Xbox, and – for the very first time – Nintendo Switch."


Crysis 3 was revealed on April 16, 2013. I wouldn't be surprised if the remaster reveal is coming very soon. Especially now the cat is out of the bag.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lashman

Aelphaeis Mangarae

MetaMember
Apr 21, 2019
356
593
93

Here's a mirror. I kinda feel sorry for Crytek's marketing team having all this stuff leaking left and right ahead of time. But I think it probably does more good than harm. People are genuinely excited to see Crysis back. However, there is the caveat that we haven't seen the remaster running on PC/PS4/XBO/Switch yet. I suspect the teaser footage from March 24 might be the Switch version. Just a hunch. But the other versions? If they're adding fancy ray tracing effects and redone textures and stuff, that's a whole other ball game, and people will scrutinize the quality of the remaster.

I wonder if this teaser is actual "in-engine" graphics or just a prerendered thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gabbo and lashman

Aelphaeis Mangarae

MetaMember
Apr 21, 2019
356
593
93
There's an anon on /v/ claiming that Crytek are using assets from Crysis 3's Lost Island DLC for the remaster. They also clarified some points that should be taken with a grain of salt because of course this is 4chan. I picked the posts that seem to be coming from the same person. I can't trace this image they posted, which does lend some credence.


There was going to be a Nomad expansion pack for 3, similar to Warhead for 1.
It got cancelled halfway into development after EA decided not to contract the DLC due to disappointing sales, the stuff that was already done got turned into hastily put together multiplayer maps DLC called Lost Island.

Edge AA and MSAA from original is being replaced by TAA.

Less EA's fault (other than forcing consoles) and more Crytek, company was (and still is) bleeding money. Hunt Showdown keeps it afloat now though, did much better than projected.

The only thing I can say on Crysis 4 is that remaster needs to sell very well.

What about Warhead?
"remaster needs to sell very well."

The basic codebase in terms of mechanics is from the PS3/X360 version, you'll be able to tell it by interface the most which is a bit closer to the center of the screen instead of touching the edges like in original PC release.
AF/POM issue was an issue with early shader implementation, this was already fixed in CryEngine 3 long ago.

Is the Crysis Remaster getting AI improvements?
Not that I know of.
Dev started in late 2018.

What is Crytek's attitude towards modding now?
No mod tools planned as of now.
This seems to imply the game is using the Crysis 360/PS3 nanosuit controls. Which might be a controversial move. But truth be told, most of the people who complain about the changed nanosuit have never actually played Crysis 1 for consoles. Their impression of the control changes is Crysis 2 which has a myriad of knock-on design changes and concessions. This definitely does seem like an area where Crytek should pay close attention to feedback. The base movement speed needs to feel brisk like Crysis 1's speed mode instead of sluggish like Crysis 2 and 3. They need to make jumping feel crisper, too.

Hopefully we get a release date soon. And hopefully the remaster is well priced.
 
Last edited:

Shahem

Junior Member
Jan 26, 2020
273
356
63
There's an anon on /v/ claiming that Crytek are using assets from Crysis 3's Lost Island DLC for the remaster. They also clarified some points that should be taken with a grain of salt because of course this is 4chan. I picked the posts that seem to be coming from the same person. I can't trace this image they posted, which does lend some credence.



This seems to imply the game is using the Crysis 360/PS3 nanosuit controls. Which might be a controversial move. But truth be told, most of the people who complain about the changed nanosuit have never actually played Crysis 1 for consoles. Their impression of the control changes is Crysis 2 which has a myriad of knock-on design changes and concessions. This definitely does seem like an area where Crytek should pay close attention to feedback. The base movement speed needs to feel brisk like Crysis 1's speed mode instead of sluggish like Crysis 2 and 3. They need to make jumping feel crisper, too.

Hopefully we get a release date soon. And hopefully the remaster is well priced.
Thanks for digging this up. I'm not even going to try to pretend this would not be disappointing. Those assets don't look too good by 2020 standards.
I expect much more for a remaster.
 

gabbo

MetaMember
Dec 22, 2018
1,633
2,449
113
Toronto
Thanks for digging this up. I'm not even going to try to pretend this would not be disappointing. Those assets don't look too good by 2020 standards.
I expect much more for a remaster.
What about them doesn't look good (the fish looking a little plastic aside)? Looks fine to me, unless you expect a remaster to melt computers like the original did
 

Shahem

Junior Member
Jan 26, 2020
273
356
63
What about them doesn't look good (the fish looking a little plastic aside)? Looks fine to me, unless you expect a remaster to melt computers like the original did
They barely look like PBR assets to me. They would look really good back in 2013 though like Crysis 3.
In 2020 even for a relatively low budget remaster I expect things to look a lot more in line with modern games. The latest version of the CryEngine can no doubt do a lot better than that.

With ray tracing the remaster could very well end up destroying PCs like the original. I fully expect ultra settings to be super demanding especially at 4k.
 

Aelphaeis Mangarae

MetaMember
Apr 21, 2019
356
593
93
Thanks for digging this up. I'm not even going to try to pretend this would not be disappointing. Those assets don't look too good by 2020 standards.
I expect much more for a remaster.
Can't say I entirely agree with that appraisal. One of the things about Crysis 3 is that its asset fidelity was so high, it kinda represents the wall where making assets look better on a game-wide scale is very hard. It's really noticeable when you look at stuff like character faces in FPS games. Far Cry 5 is 5 years newer than Crysis 3, and it's a PS4/XBO game instead of a turbocharged 360 game, and we haven't seen the kind of meteoric jump people had expected. You'd think every game would have Hellblade-tier facial animation by now, but it's rare. Some big budget games have downright bad faces and animation. Most games struggle to have facial animation half as good as Crysis 3. What has noticeable improved is skin shaders to give characters a certain lushness. (And like you say, the use of PBR solves the problem of cloth that doesn't look like cloth, skin that doesn't look like skin, and so on). For games not made by Crytek, subsurface scattering was a huge improvement to character faces around 2014 onwards, but of course Crytek had been using subsurface scattering since 2007. (Not in the console versions of their games, though, IIRC.)

Crysis 3 (2013)

Far Cry 5 (2018)

Far Cry New Dawn (2019)

Especially if they're hand-made and not photogrammetry. It's part of why Crysis 3 holds up so well visually outside poly starved character outfits. There is the PBR pipeline issue, but that's more of a workflow issue than anything else. PBR allows you make things have the correct material appearance in a strightforward way instead of hand-tuning assets. It was a boon for working with materials.

Lost Island was a supposedly bunch of half-finished assets, so it's not like all the assets in this remaster will be from Crysis 3's DLC. They'd have no choice but to make a lot of new textures and stuff to fill in the gaps. But I imagine they're trying to cut costs and economically reuse what they can. I think trying to make Crysis 1 look as close to Crysis 3 as they can reasonably manage is a pretty good goal to aim for. They won't necessarily hit that because Crysis 3 was just bleeding money from every pore, but if they can make sure you don't stumble across ugly or clashing assets, I think it'll hold up well. Some official screenshots would be nice, though.
 

Ge0force

Excluding exclusives
Jan 12, 2019
2,063
6,205
113
Belgium
I still don't understand why Crysis 2 got so many good reviews. The freedom and open world approach were replaced by linear levels with an occasional choice between a left or right path. One of the biggest disappointments ever for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ISee

Swenhir

Spaceships!
Apr 18, 2019
1,254
2,708
113
One of the things about Crysis 3 is that its asset fidelity was so high, it kinda represents the wall where making assets look better on a game-wide scale is very hard.
Funny thing is, while you are absolutely right, if I remember those GDC slides correctly, Crysis 3's brand of PBR wasn't entirely right. I can't recall what the precise issue was but I think it wasn't completely physically accurate and still relied on diffuse maps to some extent. I might be misremembering though, feel free to correct me!

Crysis 3 really had a crazy level of fidelity that was expertly taking advantage of the game's rendering novelties (SSR, Height Volumetric Fog, Caustics, etc), but the game I find myself most wanting to go back to is actually Crysis 2. The setting really appeals to me whereas outside of Crysis 3's early levels and those in city ruins, well, doesn't really strike a chord.
 

Aelphaeis Mangarae

MetaMember
Apr 21, 2019
356
593
93
Press release has some more details.

Crytek to release a remaster of Crysis 1 for PC, Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and Nintendo Switch this summer
Thursday, April 16, 2020 — The classic first person shooter is back with the action-packed gameplay, sandbox world, and thrilling epic battles players loved the first time around – with remastered graphics and optimizations for a new generation of hardware co-developed on CRYENGINE with Saber Interactive. Starting this summer, Crysis Remastered will be available for PC, Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and for Nintendo Switch.
Crysis Remastered will focus on the original game’s single-player campaigns and is slated to contain high-quality textures and improved art assets, an HD texture pack, temporal anti-aliasing, SSDO, SVOGI, state-of-the-art depth fields, new light settings, motion blur, and parallax occlusion mapping, particle effects will also be added where applicable. Further additions such as volumetric fog and shafts of light, software-based ray tracing, and screen space reflections provide the game with a major visual upgrade.
“We are excited to be working on the Crysis franchise again, and to bring all the Crysis fans a remaster worthy of their passion for the game,” said Crytek CEO Avni Yerli. “It’s an exciting opportunity to be able to bring Crysis back to PCs and current consoles – even Nintendo Switch! – so that a whole new generation of players can experience the thrill of a battle in the Nanosuit.”
In Crysis 1, what begins as a simple rescue mission becomes the battleground of a new war as alien invaders swarm over a North Korean island chain. Armed with a powerful Nanosuit, players can become invisible to stalk enemy patrols, or boost strength to lay waste to vehicles. The Nanosuit’s speed, strength, armor, and cloaking allow creative solutions for every kind of fight, while a huge arsenal of modular weaponry provides unprecedented control over play style. In the ever-changing environment, adapt tactics and gear to dominate your enemies, in an enormous sandbox world.


So no multiplayer by the sounds of it. Saber Interactive are co-developing. The remater is coming in "Summer". The fact is says "campaigns", plural, is kinda interesting. Makes me wonder if they're accidentally admitting to something like Warhead being DLC. The list of upgrades sounds very appealing. And Saber do fantastic work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swenhir

Shahem

Junior Member
Jan 26, 2020
273
356
63
Can't say I entirely agree with that appraisal. One of the things about Crysis 3 is that its asset fidelity was so high, it kinda represents the wall where making assets look better on a game-wide scale is very hard. It's really noticeable when you look at stuff like character faces in FPS games. Far Cry 5 is 5 years newer than Crysis 3, and it's a PS4/XBO game instead of a turbocharged 360 game, and we haven't seen the kind of meteoric jump people had expected. You'd think every game would have Hellblade-tier facial animation by now, but it's rare. Some big budget games have downright bad faces and animation. Most games struggle to have facial animation half as good as Crysis 3. What has noticeable improved is skin shaders to give characters a certain lushness. (And like you say, the use of PBR solves the problem of cloth that doesn't look like cloth, skin that doesn't look like skin, and so on). For games not made by Crytek, subsurface scattering was a huge improvement to character faces around 2014 onwards, but of course Crytek had been using subsurface scattering since 2007. (Not in the console versions of their games, though, IIRC.)

Crysis 3 (2013)

Far Cry 5 (2018)

Far Cry New Dawn (2019)

Especially if they're hand-made and not photogrammetry. It's part of why Crysis 3 holds up so well visually outside poly starved character outfits. There is the PBR pipeline issue, but that's more of a workflow issue than anything else. PBR allows you make things have the correct material appearance in a strightforward way instead of hand-tuning assets. It was a boon for working with materials.

Lost Island was a supposedly bunch of half-finished assets, so it's not like all the assets in this remaster will be from Crysis 3's DLC. They'd have no choice but to make a lot of new textures and stuff to fill in the gaps. But I imagine they're trying to cut costs and economically reuse what they can. I think trying to make Crysis 1 look as close to Crysis 3 as they can reasonably manage is a pretty good goal to aim for. They won't necessarily hit that because Crysis 3 was just bleeding money from every pore, but if they can make sure you don't stumble across ugly or clashing assets, I think it'll hold up well. Some official screenshots would be nice, though.
While in places Crysis 3 is quite the looker (those water caustics!) I can't get behind the assets presented earlier as being suitable for a 2020 remaster. Far Cry 5 is hardly the posterchild for character rendering by the way, contrast Crysis with Uncharted 4 or Detroit Become Human and you have your generational jump easily, in that department at least.

SVOGI is good news but I'm waiting to see what level of assets will actually be included before rejoicing.
 

Aelphaeis Mangarae

MetaMember
Apr 21, 2019
356
593
93
I still don't understand why Crysis 2 got so many good reviews. The freedom and open world approach were replaced by linear levels with an occasional choice between a left or right path. One of the biggest disappointments ever for me.
Bear in mind that while it doesn't offer quite the same experience as Crysis 1, and it's fair enough to find that disappointing, Crysis 2 is still a huge breath of fresh air by 2011 FPS standards where the market was dominated by super linear, super scripted FPS campaigns where the AI opened all the doors for you. Crysis 2 had sprawling environments, fairly complex AI compared to the likes of Call of Duty, and it does a lot of stuff really well. It's not unlike how Far Cry: Instincts got solid reviews. It wasn't quite like Far Cry 1, but it was an interesting execution of the formula. Multiple reviewers were blown away by having the AI actually fight back instead of doing the Modern Warfare "shoot, me, shoot me" mime dance. Granted, Crysis 1 already did this, but in context it left an impression.

By the same measure, Crysis 2 is the counterpoint to the open world craze that started with Skyrim in 2011 and really took off with Far Cry 3 in 2012. Soon everything was jumping on the open world bandwagon, leaving Crysis 2's more intimate, complex, and vertically oriented level design as a template certain developers found interesting. Crysis 2 always felt like a victim of execution, not concept. The core concepts of Crysis 2 are pretty solid. And aspects of its plot are genuinely interesting. Its portrayal of a plague sweeping through New York is incredibly memorable. And the revelation that the plague's purpose is to dissolve humans into biodegradable substances to solve the problem of corpse disposal is something that really sticks with me. It's just the way they were executed. I think a lot of issues with Crysis 2 are the kind you could fix with a relatively conservative Definitive Edition. Add more interconnection to levels. Make the AI sharper and more aggressive. Make the colour palette a bit less harsh. Fix the sluggish-feeling movement. As with Crysis 3's, it's a game that needed to go back in the oven for another 9 months, but I think its problems were fixable.
 

Shahem

Junior Member
Jan 26, 2020
273
356
63
Speaking of Crysis 2's plot after all these years I find myself remembering Jacob Hargreave's lines.
This one in particular stroke a chord in me for some reason :
""So - here you are. Theseus, at last. Welcome. Scant reward for so much effort, eh. Crack the labyrinth, and you would at least expect to see the Minotaur before it kills you. Ah well, it seems only fair. Come, then. Masks off. I am here. Shocked? I would be. I'd revel in it, if I were you: that sudden jump of the pulse, the cram of flight or fight chemicals into the belly. So sweet while it lasts. But it's been so very long since I felt any of it. A century or more since my pleasures were anything but cerebral. I took the path Karl Rasch refused, the cold road to immortality. I'd hope to wear Prophet's suit myself. Take on the weapons he brought us, wear his armor. Enter the labyrinth and confront the minotaur. But now... You. You will have to finish what Prophet began "

I did not expect such a well writen character....in a Crysis game. Crysis 3 is sadly not very good in that department.

I mostly agree with Aelphaesis, I quite liked Crysis 2 in spite of how much of a stepback it was compared to the original in several ways. It sure felt like Crytek was aching for a real breakout in terms of sales, but the game did not follow the Call of Duty template. I must have completed it three times while I could hardly get through Call of Duty campaigns aside from the 2007 one.

Crysis 3 was an interesting mix of C1 and C2. While playing it I also thought it must have been the victim of some sizeable budget cut, the game was a bit too low on content.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Swenhir

Aelphaeis Mangarae

MetaMember
Apr 21, 2019
356
593
93
There are some suspicious plurals showing up, IMO.

The Crytek press release also states:
"Crysis Remastered will focus on the original game’s single-player campaigns..." It's quite possible the person who wrote the press release was a non-English speaker, but when you combine it with Tim Willits saying, "it's exciting to work with Crytek to bring these games to new audiences", that kinda implies they have plans beyond the original game. The most obvious candidate is Warhead, and I imagine further development would probably hinge on how well the remaster sells.

This wording in the press release is also a bit odd:
"Starting this summer, Crysis Remastered will be available for PC, Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and for Nintendo Switch."
I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of the versions is delayed. "Starting" implies a staggered release of some kind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lashman

Shahem

Junior Member
Jan 26, 2020
273
356
63
Yea, it's a collaboration. Crytek veteran Vladimir Kajalin tweeted this. (He's worked for Crytek since 2000, and is best known for inventing/introducing Screen Space Ambient Occlusion in the original Crysis.)
Thanks for digging this up.

Hype rising or should I say.......rYsing hehehe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lashman

Phoenix RISING

A phoenix always RISES!
Apr 23, 2019
951
1,225
93
36
Ann Arbor, MI
www.geeksundergrace.com
Aelphaeis Mangarae excellent posts. Very technical. I enjoy reading that stuff cuz I don't understand it, but it makes sense when you are explaining.

While in places Crysis 3 is quite the looker (those water caustics!) I can't get behind the assets presented earlier as being suitable for a 2020 remaster. Far Cry 5 is hardly the posterchild for character rendering by the way, contrast Crysis with Uncharted 4 or Detroit Become Human and you have your generational jump easily, in that department at least.

SVOGI is good news but I'm waiting to see what level of assets will actually be included before rejoicing.
Is comparing third person action/adventure games to FPS games even fair? ESP because the latter only run at 30FPS on consoles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shahem and lashman

Shahem

Junior Member
Jan 26, 2020
273
356
63
Aelphaeis Mangarae excellent posts. Very technical. I enjoy reading that stuff cuz I don't understand it, but it makes sense when you are explaining.



Is comparing third person action/adventure games to FPS games even fair? ESP because the latter only run at 30FPS on consoles.
Crysis runs at 30fps on consoles as well. I was also specifically alluding to character rendering. Detroit is amongst the very best in the business, along with The Order 1886 and Uncharted 4.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phoenix RISING

Swenhir

Spaceships!
Apr 18, 2019
1,254
2,708
113
Crysis runs at 30fps on consoles as well. I was also specifically alluding to character rendering. Detroit is amongst the very best in the business, along with The Order 1886 and Uncharted 4.
I recall Ryse being amazing as well and if anything else, S42 is looking incredibly promising on this front as well, especially for the scale. I'd argue that Hellblade was as well. 3Lateral knows their stuff and it's hard to fault either CE or UE4 on character rendering.
 

Trisolarian

MetaMember
Jul 12, 2019
984
1,517
93
I don't' want to mean but not seeing the purpose for the end user here.

Crysis, lets be real, was a decent quasi open world FPS in 07-08 with a great opening and claustrophobic finish.

Crytek is using this as a vehicle for its engine, which I hope they succeed with. Gaming has moved beyond the game Crysis though and there's no way back Jack.
 

Swenhir

Spaceships!
Apr 18, 2019
1,254
2,708
113
I don't' want to mean but not seeing the purpose for the end user here.

Crysis, lets be real, was a decent quasi open world FPS in 07-08 with a great opening and claustrophobic finish.

Crytek is using this as a vehicle for its engine, which I hope they succeed with. Gaming has moved beyond the game Crysis though and there's no way back Jack.
Crysis was a great game and I'd have been personally very happy to pay for a good remaster, had Yerli not gone after CIG's backer money.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lashman

Trisolarian

MetaMember
Jul 12, 2019
984
1,517
93
Crisis was a great game and I'd have been personally very happy to pay for a good remaster, had Yerli not gone after CIG's backer money.
To me, it started great for its time. Pre Far Cry 3, released alongside Stalker SOC, it was play as you want FPS of 2007. Until it wasn't. :/

I've played all of the Crysis games and Crysis 1 is the best. (Crysis 3 close in some respects). I wouldn't say no to tooling around for an hour with a ray traced version but considering were the gameplay and story went later on within the game and the series, no appeal. :(

We need Cryteks tech tho.

Disclaimer: I've purchased maybe a handful of remastered games in my gaming career, all of those that I purchased I had not played the original. I'm not one for remasters or remakes in general
 
  • Like
Reactions: lashman

Aelphaeis Mangarae

MetaMember
Apr 21, 2019
356
593
93
Warhead is sadly not included :
I remain sceptical. I think it's very strange for multiple people from multiple companies to "accidentally" refer to this project in a way that strongly implies Warhead at least is getting a Remaster. ("Original game's singleplayer campaigns", "these games", etc.) All that said, even if the remaster is just Crysis with a question mark over the future, I hope that they backport the Ceph AI from Warhead to the original game. They were much more dynamic in Warhead.

I don't' want to mean but not seeing the purpose for the end user here.

Crysis, lets be real, was a decent quasi open world FPS in 07-08 with a great opening and claustrophobic finish.

Crytek is using this as a vehicle for its engine, which I hope they succeed with. Gaming has moved beyond the game Crysis though and there's no way back Jack.

It depends on what you mean by "moved on". Crysis is the product of a somewhat dead gaming philosophy where immersion, reactivity, interactivity, and complexity were king. In the 2000s, PC-oriented developers were shooting for the moon.

In the FPS space, there is no modern equivalent to classic Rainbow 6. There is no modern equivalent to Crysis. Everything is simplified, everything is nailed down, everything is afraid of alienating casual players.

The reason people are excited for STALKER 2 is because they want modern games that are as good as games used to be. Metro is fun, but it just doesn't cut it. People loved Prey because it felt like System Shock 2, compared to the simplified BioShock. BioShock was the product of focus testing with people who could not handle a proper immersive sim. The devs just kept removing features until they could handle it. But Prey plays like something from the good old days. 2000-2007 had some peak videogame design, and by and large it's been downhill from there. There have been QoL improvements that are welcome, but games got a whole less TACTICAL.

One of the things about Crysis is that it's a very tactical game. You have these tools, and the nanosuit has these different modes with cost/benefit tradeoffs. So each situation calls for you to scope it out with binocs and think about how to best deal with it. One of the big tell-tale signs that something is wrong with modern Far Cry is how scoping out outposts with your binocs is largely unnecessary. In FC1, knowing where everyone was in an outpost was life or death. Modern Far Cry has extremely forgiving difficulty. They paste on all these mechanics like crafting and leveling to distract you from the fact that the actual gameplay has gotten a lot shallower, a lot less reactive.

What do Crysis fans want from Crysis 4? To a large degree, they want to wind the clock back. Discard the years of contemporary AAA fluff, and go back to how games used to be.

Part of the appeal of Crytek's Hunt: Showdown is that it places an emphasis on stuff most contemporaries don't. It's pretty hardcore, even with the changes Crytek have made to try to widen its appeal. It has extremely complex sound design including things like stepping on branches making loud snapping noises that can be heard by other players. The recent patch introduced gunshots causing your ears to ring. Its environment is non-destructible, but that's an MP design issue more than anything else. When you look at Hunt, you see a style of game that fell from favor because publishers wanted something that played like Halo, or like Call of Duty. Or played like all the super janky Battle Royale games.

Crytek games are historically about using technology to create more immersive game experiences. Crytek's definition of immersive in the Crysis 1 days centered on things like the environment reacting. You shoot a leafy plant, and the leaves whip around. You throw a man into a hut, and the hut collapses. Crysis 1 is scripted so that when you shoot a car fuel can, and the car goes up in flames and then explodes, a tire will typically bounce in your general direction. And that is a nice little art touch that truly sells that you are GOD in this domain and the world WILL OBEY YOUR EVERY WHIM. If you want to cut down all the palm trees, nobody can stop you.

The appeal of Crysis and Prey have a fair bit of overlap. And it's a curious coincidence Prey is a CryEngine game. If I want to pick up every cup and place them in a pile, and then fire a missile launcher into that pile so the cups tank the physics engine, your game must allow that. If your game stops me, your game is bad and you should feel bad for making it.

Most modern FPS games are flat, non-reactive, sterile affairs. The open world games are even worse in this regard because they go for scale over depth. To Crytek, it really mattered that you could chop down palm trees. But it's not a design priority to Ubisoft. Nor pretty much any other big AAA developer.

That's why the Xbox 360 port of Crysis 1 has better physics and reactivity than Far Cry 5. Because physics and reactivity were not a core design priority for Ubisoft. An obsession with physics and reactivity is a product of old school PC gaming sensibilities. The sensibilities that gave us Jurassic Park: Trespasser. Ubisoft's version of Trespasser is basically King Kong. Which is a really cool game, but glaringly simplified for a very mainstream audience. Trespasser was janky and frustrating, but what people want is all that ambition and complexity in a polished package. They don't want the complex baby thrown out with the janky bathwater.
 

Trisolarian

MetaMember
Jul 12, 2019
984
1,517
93
I remain sceptical. I think it's very strange for multiple people from multiple companies to "accidentally" refer to this project in a way that strongly implies Warhead at least is getting a Remaster. ("Original game's singleplayer campaigns", "these games", etc.) All that said, even if the remaster is just Crysis with a question mark over the future, I hope that they backport the Ceph AI from Warhead to the original game. They were much more dynamic in Warhead.



It depends on what you mean by "moved on". Crysis is the product of a somewhat dead gaming philosophy where immersion, reactivity, interactivity, and complexity were king. In the 2000s, PC-oriented developers were shooting for the moon.

In the FPS space, there is no modern equivalent to classic Rainbow 6. There is no modern equivalent to Crysis. Everything is simplified, everything is nailed down, everything is afraid of alienating casual players.

The reason people are excited for STALKER 2 is because they want modern games that are as good as games used to be. Metro is fun, but it just doesn't cut it. People loved Prey because it felt like System Shock 2, compared to the simplified BioShock. BioShock was the product of focus testing with people who could not handle a proper immersive sim. The devs just kept removing features until they could handle it. But Prey plays like something from the good old days. 2000-2007 had some peak videogame design, and by and large it's been downhill from there. There have been QoL improvements that are welcome, but games got a whole less TACTICAL.

One of the things about Crysis is that it's a very tactical game. You have these tools, and the nanosuit has these different modes with cost/benefit tradeoffs. So each situation calls for you to scope it out with binocs and think about how to best deal with it. One of the big tell-tale signs that something is wrong with modern Far Cry is how scoping out outposts with your binocs is largely unnecessary. In FC1, knowing where everyone was in an outpost was life or death. Modern Far Cry has extremely forgiving difficulty. They paste on all these mechanics like crafting and leveling to distract you from the fact that the actual gameplay has gotten a lot shallower, a lot less reactive.

What do Crysis fans want from Crysis 4? To a large degree, they want to wind the clock back. Discard the years of contemporary AAA fluff, and go back to how games used to be.

Part of the appeal of Crytek's Hunt: Showdown is that it places an emphasis on stuff most contemporaries don't. It's pretty hardcore, even with the changes Crytek have made to try to widen its appeal. It has extremely complex sound design including things like stepping on branches making loud snapping noises that can be heard by other players. The recent patch introduced gunshots causing your ears to ring. Its environment is non-destructible, but that's an MP design issue more than anything else. When you look at Hunt, you see a style of game that fell from favor because publishers wanted something that played like Halo, or like Call of Duty. Or played like all the super janky Battle Royale games.

Crytek games are historically about using technology to create more immersive game experiences. Crytek's definition of immersive in the Crysis 1 days centered on things like the environment reacting. You shoot a leafy plant, and the leaves whip around. You throw a man into a hut, and the hut collapses. Crysis 1 is scripted so that when you shoot a car fuel can, and the car goes up in flames and then explodes, a tire will typically bounce in your general direction. And that is a nice little art touch that truly sells that you are GOD in this domain and the world WILL OBEY YOUR EVERY WHIM. If you want to cut down all the palm trees, nobody can stop you.

The appeal of Crysis and Prey have a fair bit of overlap. And it's a curious coincidence Prey is a CryEngine game. If I want to pick up every cup and place them in a pile, and then fire a missile launcher into that pile so the cups tank the physics engine, your game must allow that. If your game stops me, your game is bad and you should feel bad for making it.

Most modern FPS games are flat, non-reactive, sterile affairs. The open world games are even worse in this regard because they go for scale over depth. To Crytek, it really mattered that you could chop down palm trees. But it's not a design priority to Ubisoft. Nor pretty much any other big AAA developer.

That's why the Xbox 360 port of Crysis 1 has better physics and reactivity than Far Cry 5. Because physics and reactivity were not a core design priority for Ubisoft. An obsession with physics and reactivity is a product of old school PC gaming sensibilities. The sensibilities that gave us Jurassic Park: Trespasser. Ubisoft's version of Trespasser is basically King Kong. Which is a really cool game, but glaringly simplified for a very mainstream audience. Trespasser was janky and frustrating, but what people want is all that ambition and complexity in a polished package. They don't want the complex baby thrown out with the janky bathwater.
So, clearly there is a LOT going on in this post. Which I'm down with. We're all here, hanging out on a niche as fuck, hyper-enthusiast forum. A certain subset of games drew all of us into this space and for you, it was your Stalker, SS2, Far Cry 1 and the like.

Up front, we have some fundamental divergences between our gaming experiences. For your, Crysis 1 and Warhead were tactical games, where you planned many encounters and had your own set of strategies for certain situations and outcomes. Scope the town, plan your point of insertion, pick your attachments for each weapon before you even start the encounter as to risk being caught without the correct one when the time comes. Now, its been a LONG ass time since I've played Crysis 1, probably 2015 at the latest. During my first play through I vaguely remember doing some of the same, especially in early levels. I also vaguely remember the complete abandonment of much of these strategies the moment aliens and vehicle levels joined the picture. My memory is of a half assed commitment to this tactical gameplay you enjoy.

(I haven't played Cryteks The Hunt, so I can't speak to that)

Now, your experience with Far Cry 5 and mine appear to be vastly different. You mention almost never using the binoculars when scoping out enemy strongholds, mostly due to the lack of difficulty. Well, I scoped out those encampments all through the game and found it critical during many encounters. Hell, even scoping out a stronghold was never a 'win button' to me, I faced a decent amount of trial and error. Snipe this guy, start this fire and approach from southwest.... Died during reinforcement. Bring a truck with a machine gun and try to set up a choke point... Plane attack. Stealth first and fortify with turret placement to defeat reinforcement, success, with a special friend alongside of course. Crysis 1 and Warhead didn't have these kinds of choices. Sure, certain elements in the game world didn't have the same interactivity, I couldn't collapse a shack (that looked like 100 other shacks), the leaves didn't move the same way but your dismissal of Far Cry 5 as have zero tactical gameplay just isn't my experience.

Crysis 1 and Warhead have far less in common with Prey and SS2 than the latter two games have with Deus Ex and Dishonored. Not once did I play Crysis with the feeling that I was having anything remotely close to a sim experience. Its closer to Far Cry 1 than either of those games and that's exactly what it reminded me of back in 07. I'd never consider Far Cry to be a sim of anything. Stalker is in its own class in every regard.

I'm going to finish this with minor side eye directed toward the tired 'DUMDED DOWN!!!' bent of your entire post. I've played SS2, Stalker 1-3, Deus Ex, Far Cry 1,2,3,5, Crysis 1,1.5,2,3, and of all of those, my lived experience with Crysis is that it feel somewhat toward the bottom of games were I needed to use my brain to advance. Regardless of the number of cups I could explode. Crysis 4, which isn't the point of the thread, may be balls to the wall, all in on physics simulation and tactical bonanza you wish it to be. Crysis 1 abandoned that by the fourth hour. The remake is a new coat of paint.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lashman

Phoenix RISING

A phoenix always RISES!
Apr 23, 2019
951
1,225
93
36
Ann Arbor, MI
www.geeksundergrace.com
So, clearly there is a LOT going on in this post. Which I'm down with. We're all here, hanging out on a niche as fuck, hyper-enthusiast forum. A certain subset of games drew all of us into this space and for you, it was your Stalker, SS2, Far Cry 1 and the like.

Up front, we have some fundamental divergences between our gaming experiences. For your, Crysis 1 and Warhead were tactical games, where you planned many encounters and had your own set of strategies for certain situations and outcomes. Scope the town, plan your point of insertion, pick your attachments for each weapon before you even start the encounter as to risk being caught without the correct one when the time comes. Now, its been a LONG ass time since I've played Crysis 1, probably 2015 at the latest. During my first play through I vaguely remember doing some of the same, especially in early levels. I also vaguely remember the complete abandonment of much of these strategies the moment aliens and vehicle levels joined the picture. My memory is of a half assed commitment to this tactical gameplay you enjoy.

(I haven't played Cryteks The Hunt, so I can't speak to that)

Now, your experience with Far Cry 5 and mine appear to be vastly different. You mention almost never using the binoculars when scoping out enemy strongholds, mostly due to the lack of difficulty. Well, I scoped out those encampments all through the game and found it critical during many encounters. Hell, even scoping out a stronghold was never a 'win button' to me, I faced a decent amount of trial and error. Snipe this guy, start this fire and approach from southwest.... Died during reinforcement. Bring a truck with a machine gun and try to set up a choke point... Plane attack. Stealth first and fortify with turret placement to defeat reinforcement, success, with a special friend alongside of course. Crysis 1 and Warhead didn't have these kinds of choices. Sure, certain elements in the game world didn't have the same interactivity, I couldn't collapse a shack (that looked like 100 other shacks), the leaves didn't move the same way but your dismissal of Far Cry 5 as have zero tactical gameplay just isn't my experience.

Crysis 1 and Warhead have far less in common with Prey and SS2 than the latter two games have with Deus Ex and Dishonored. Not once did I play Crysis with the feeling that I was having anything remotely close to a sim experience. Its closer to Far Cry 1 than either of those games and that's exactly what it reminded me of back in 07. I'd never consider Far Cry to be a sim of anything. Stalker is in its own class in every regard.

I'm going to finish this with minor side eye directed toward the tired 'DUMDED DOWN!!!' bent of your entire post. I've played SS2, Stalker 1-3, Deus Ex, Far Cry 1,2,3,5, Crysis 1,1.5,2,3, and of all of those, my lived experience with Crysis is that it feel somewhat toward the bottom of games were I needed to use my brain to advance. Regardless of the number of cups I could explode. Crysis 4, which isn't the point of the thread, may be balls to the wall, all in on physics simulation and tactical bonanza you wish it to be. Crysis 1 abandoned that by the fourth hour. The remake is a new coat of paint.
Once again, I side with Aelphaeis Mangarae .

PPL give Bioshock high praise, and tell me that it's like System Shock.

Well I went back to play the System Shock Remaster, then Prey (2016) soon after that, and Bioshock strikes me as linear. Not DOOM linear, but you have go to point A, B, C, before D, even though backtracking through B and C with new abilities and encounters seems different.

In System Shock and Prey, you can skip entire floors or sections and go back through. Some things are entirely skippable/missable. Multiple styles of approaches to encounters and puzzle solving.

In Far Cry 5, you can go in guns blazing, or if you have Grace snipe people from a distance. Not quite the sandbox style enemy encounter in Crysis.
 

Trisolarian

MetaMember
Jul 12, 2019
984
1,517
93
Once again, I side with Aelphaeis Mangarae .

PPL give Bioshock high praise, and tell me that it's like System Shock.

Well I went back to play the System Shock Remaster, then Prey (2016) soon after that, and Bioshock strikes me as linear. Not DOOM linear, but you have go to point A, B, C, before D, even though backtracking through B and C with new abilities and encounters seems different.

In System Shock and Prey, you can skip entire floors or sections and go back through. Some things are entirely skippable/missable. Multiple styles of approaches to encounters and puzzle solving.

In Far Cry 5, you can go in guns blazing, or if you have Grace snipe people from a distance. Not quite the sandbox style enemy encounter in Crysis.
Well, I just gave my experience. Nothing from my memory of playing Crysis 1 reached the 'tatics' level of something like SS2 and guns blazing worked pretty good in Crysis as well.

Not sure how Far Cry 5 is not as "sandbox" as Crysis.... I mean minus the suit powers I guess...

Also lol, I understand the futility of pushing back against Crysis in a thread about its remaster, where most of the posters on this entire board extol its virtues but, I call it like I see it.
 

Aelphaeis Mangarae

MetaMember
Apr 21, 2019
356
593
93
Now, your experience with Far Cry 5 and mine appear to be vastly different. You mention almost never using the binoculars when scoping out enemy strongholds, mostly due to the lack of difficulty. Well, I scoped out those encampments all through the game and found it critical during many encounters. Hell, even scoping out a stronghold was never a 'win button' to me, I faced a decent amount of trial and error. Snipe this guy, start this fire and approach from southwest.... Died during reinforcement. Bring a truck with a machine gun and try to set up a choke point... Plane attack.
I've played Far Cry 5 on the hardest difficulty, and aside from the insane difficulty spike during the opening car chase, much of the game was enjoyable but trivial. The fact you can heal without any healing supplies in post-FC2 games means that it's more about attrition than anything else. You just spam the heal button and run in and out of buildings to break line of sight, and you essentially cannot die. The AI companions are a huge safety net, and FC5 lets you bring two of them. You can hide in a corner and just keep ducking out to revive companions when you get hurt, and do this indefinitely.

This is arguably partially why New Dawn has enemy leveling mechanics and outpost/expedition escalation where enemies are more armoured and they carry rocket launchers and stuff. But this solution didn't fix the lack of consequences for tactical errors. And this is an industry-wide trend that took the bite out of these kind of games. Think about something like classic Rainbow 6. You have the perfect plan. Everything is going fine. You're 10 minutes into executing the mission. And then your entire Team 1 gets killed by a single gunman as they step through a door. Complete massacre. You can't revive them. They are dead. You have a second team. Oops, two of them just got shot in the back of the head. This just doesn't happen in modern FPS games. There are no real consequence for tactical errors anymore.

These games have lifelines baked into the core design. It's very distinct from adding Easier difficulties to be more forgiving. (OG Far Cry even had an optional dynamic difficulty system, and snipers were programmed to miss their first shot, and slowly get more accurate and stuff like that.) And on that note, some older games have super shitty onboarding. All these mechanics that are unnecessarily confusing because they're not conveyed to the player. Remember how HL1 expected you to know how to crouch jump? That's thankfully gone now.

However, there is too much of a good thing (player friendly mechanics, better onboarding, etc) BioShock ended up removing all meaningful consequences for dying, and it added enemies always missing their first shot. So not only did death mean basically nothing, but the game went out of its way to keep you alive, anyway. A game having some teeth and those teeth being part of its core design is great.
 

Aelphaeis Mangarae

MetaMember
Apr 21, 2019
356
593
93
Xbox page for Crysis Remastered has appeared.



The compression used on these images is absolutely terrible. All the fine detail has smudged. The SMG's text is a blurred mess. I'm sure the actual remaster will look fine, but these aren't doing a great job of selling it. On the plus side, the asset quality is clearly higher than OG Crysis. The side by side comparisons will be illuminating. A lot of people forget how bad a lot of the assets in OG Crysis actually looked up close.

The gameplay trailer is going live in 38 hours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pommes and lashman

Aelphaeis Mangarae

MetaMember
Apr 21, 2019
356
593
93
The trailer has leaked.


I'm seeing some pretty substantial asset and lighting improvements. Not entirely keen on the highly saturated outdoor aesthetic. But they've clearly put a lot of work into this, and they're taking full advantage of the fact modern CryEngine can render more than like 5 lights at a time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pommes and lashman