Anyone try Crysis remastered yet?

It can't be denied that Crysis has become a game that is synonymous with PC gaming.

But I'm not sure what's going on with this 'remaster' though as it feels like I'm playing a controller game with KB/M.

It just feels off. I tried it at 120fps and it still feels off, somehow really awful to control.

Adjusting mouse settings didn't help either.

Anyone else have a chance to try it yet?

Is it me or is this just an awful console port?

Some more impressions:

• Game still runs on one core
• Controls feel like they were (lazily) ported over from console controls:
• lean is gone
• fists are gone
• gotta now press and hold jump to high jump in strengh
• that silly as shit hexagon filter in armour because i clearly forgot what mode I just switched to.
• toggle ADS is gone
• Ascension is gone

Just a really awful experience and a really lazy job.

Buyer beware. This is a quick and dirty console port.

Good to know, thanks. Gaming industry is saving me a LOT of money the past ten years with all the sh*t they shovel out the door.

This remaster was half-ass right from the initial reveal. It doesn't surprise me that there are so many issues. However, it is still pathetic that they are just trying to do a quick cash grab and the single core CPU issue is inexcusable in 2020.

@R4gn4r0k: Maybe because Crysis 2 and 3 were more console focused so they've made original Remaster feels the same

Crysis 2&3 had their problems, like small levels and streamlining the suit controls being some of them.

But I never remembered bad controls or awful 'laggy' feeling mouse controls being one of them.

At the end of the day they still felt like PC shooters.

God, what happened to Crytek?

Crysis is seriously like one of the greatest first-person shooters of all time (imo, obviously) and then they just went downhill.

I'm guessing it was that console money they were given for Ryse and later Crysis games. They had to create for the lowest common denominators, got greedy, and fell from grace.

Ah well, at least I can still play modded Crysis.

This is inexcusable. I mean seriously, why would Crytek dishonor their crowning achievement? The game that put them on the map.

This should have been a passion project for them, something to be proud of. Like "Hey we were proud of Crysis, but it's _ years later and we can make it better". But no, they make it worse apparently.

Is it out? Where did you get it from?

aaaaaaaaaaaaaand of course it's an Epic Store exclusive. Because **** us, right?

Ah well, I'll just buy it in a year for 20 dollars.

I bought it for 14 eur, instead of the regular 30, because Epic made a mistake but still I had to refund.

The game was in an unacceptable state. Both in its performance (even without RT effects) as well as its controls.

Let's hope it's fixed in a year. By the time it launches on Steam

I can't say I'm surprised, sadly. I didn't even think the remastered visuals looked right, and Crytek has otherwise been a trainwreck

Horrible they should of used the original base PC version to remaster the game.

Why would anyone buy this over just picking up the original version?

@R4gn4r0k: I forgot about this thread and been meaning to post this. Not sure if this will help but this comparison from the original vs remastered was really spot on:

In short, OG Crysis was way ahead of its time, its a damn shame the remastered is a joke.

@davillain-: I just got done replaying the original with the 2018 texture pack (includes sharper textures from Crytek themselves). And a fix that included Parallex Occlusion mapping as well as AFx16.

Along with some slight ini edits. And the game still looked gorgeous at times.

Sure the game has issues. But save youself the money, I'll be happy to point anyone in the right direction for the mods that don't change the art style but make the game look just a bit better ;)

Years back I tested the game out on my 4 core CPU. I set the affinity to only use 1 CPU, then 2, then 3 and finally all 4.

Here are the system specs to the best of my memory:

• CPU - Phenom II x4 940 @ 3.6GHz
• GPU - dual 8800 GTS 512MB in SLI (the ass kicking G92 chip, not the crappy 320/640MB G80 cards)
• RAM - 4GB DDR2 800
• HDD - 500GB 7200 WD Black Caviar
• OS - Windows XP 32bit

I wish I could find the information I copied down when I did this testing, sadly I can't find it and I don't remember where I posted my findings. What I can tell you is that the game (original) did utilize multiple CPUs, although it wasn't that well optimized for multiple cores.

I set the affinity for the game to utilize different amount of cores, then I'd play through an action heavy area with each setup. Affinity lists the CPU cores as Core 0, 1, 2 and 3.

Going off memory (12+ years now), here's what I recall.

Using 1 core, I want to say I averaged around 32fps. CPU Core 0 was constantly spiked 95%+ while gaming

You did get a bump in performance with 2 cores to run the game off of. Going from a single core to a dual core gained about a 30% improvement on my system. Let's say I was getting around 32fps on average with 1 core, I was getting around 41fps with 2 cores. Core 0 was usually around 70% and Core 1 was usually around 40% usage while gaming.

Going from 2 cores to 3 cores I noticed a minimal amount of an improvement - going from around 41fps to 43fps, which is about a 5% increase. Core 0 was around that 70% usage, Core 1 was around 30% and Core 2 was around 15% usage while gaming.

Going from 3 to 4 cores I noticed no change in the fps. Core 0 stayed around 70% usage, Core 1 was around 30% while Cores 2 and 3 both were around 10-15% usage while gaming.

I can't say for sure that Core 3 (fourth core on the CPU) was being utilized by Crysis. I saw no difference in fps counts going from 3 cores to 4 cores. I can only speculate and draw these possible conclusions.

1. Core 3 did very little work with Crysis that the usage of it is negligible.
2. Core 3 did very little work with Crysis and some of the activity I noticed on it was also from the OS doing background processes.
3. Core 3 did no work with Crysis and the activity I saw on it was the core simply handling background processes from the OS.

The multitasking of CPUs was there with Crysis, but any CPU with more than 2 cores really didn't benefit much; at least based on my testing.

Wow....it actually looks worse in many ways. Too many ways.

Jeez they even messed up the audio.

@neatfeatguy: The main culprit here seems to be AI. The more AI gets activated in a level = the higher the load on the CPU.

Seems to be messy programming on the dev's side.

People kept claiming it was 'future proofing' of the game, but there isn't a CPU that can run this game with locked 60fps: not even the highest clock speeds or the most cores/threads can get a consistent FPS in busy segments.

So, they released a CPU performance patch that does nothing and they broke the vegetation physics.... LOL

https://www.dsogaming.com/articles/latest-crysis-remastered-update-completely-breaks-vegetation-physics-interactions/

I know this is a PC forum but Crysis Remastered on the Switch and Switch Lite is actually pretty cool looking.

I used to run the original on a Phenom X4 955 at 3.7GHz, 8GB RAM and Geforce GTX 9800+ and it used to chug like hell, though I used to try and run at max settings.

The 9800 GTX+ was pretty much the same card at a 8800 GTS 512MB. I ran two of the 8800 cards in SLI, so I got better FPS over your card. It was still tough to get good frame rates on Crysis back in the day, the FPS number I put in my post were just for reference to prove my point of multitasking capabilities of Crysis, they aren't the actual numbers since I can't find that info anymore.