Can It Run Crysis?! Is probably a scam

[Pitou]

First of all let me start by saying i have 0 proof of my theory below im just giving my opinion.

So after watching linus's video and a couple other ones im pretty sure the can it run crysis is 100% artificial, id put money that crytek is adding some extra background processes or purposefully doing inefficient rendering processes that artificially increase how much strain it puts on the computer. This might be bullshit, this might be correct and already known, idk im just giving my opinion on the subject. It would be interesting if someone who had more resources or cared more than i do look into this once it officially launches. Until then im just going to chalk it up to a meme.

[Stahlmann]

I agree, the game looks not nearly as good as it should for being so taxing on the GPU. There is for sure some sort of artificial stuff going on to make it a "benchmark" for the next gens and years.

[Senzelian]

Your theory is based on ... nothing?

So it's not "is probably a scam" but instead "is most likely not a scam".

[Pitou]

Just now, Senzelian said:

Your theory is based on ... nothing?

So it's not "is probably a scam" but instead "is most likely not a scam".

yup its called a clickbate title buddy, worked too

[Moonzy]

2 minutes ago, Stahlmann98 said:

the game looks not nearly as good as it should for being so taxing on the GPU

furmark donut doesnt look good, but it sure is punishing to GPUs

[Stahlmann]

3 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

furmark donut doesnt look good, but it sure is punishing to GPUs

Yes because it is made that way. My point is, that they tried to make the highest preset as taxing as possible and not as good looking as possible. The game looks not like some AAA title from the last few years imo.

[Pitou]

1 minute ago, Moonzy said:

furmark donut doesnt look good, but it sure is punishing to GPUs

yeah but isnt furmark a synthetic test, designed to be as taxing my any means necessary, while a game would be a real world benchmark where the actual process in its own is taxing not just taxing for the sake of it. Im just saying if crytek purposefully used less efficient processes to just stress tf out of your system and not because the game actually needs those resources, than it would be a bit of a letdown.

[trag1c]

The biggest thing holding back the visuals with the remaster is geometry. But with that said polygon count at this point in technology contributes very little performance penalty. There's dedicated circuits for shader pipeline functions on cards to optimize this as much as possible. Where performance sinks in todays games is textures and post processing  because they often require reprocessing the entire scene several times. The are the effects which the remaster is no short supply of because thats the easiest way to remaster the game is to add shit like global illumination models, tessellation, multi step AA techniques, forward rendering for transparency effects add up to very demanding games. It doesn't take much to bring a GPU to its knees if you know what you're doing. Now the other thing you're adding to the mix is both software and hardware raytracing and you have a recipe for burning your god damn GPU down like we're back to the GTX 480s.

 

TLDR 

They tossed 13 years of technological advances and massive paradigm shifts in development at a game that was already ridiculous.  Developers will also typically scale techniques way back to meet current hardware but in this case Crytek said fuck it and went ham.

[Pitou]

6 minutes ago, trag1c said:

 

 

TLDR 

They tossed 13 years of technological advances and massive paradigm shifts in development at a game that was already ridiculous.  Developers will also typically scale techniques way back to meet current hardware but in this case Crytek said fuck it and went ham.

so what your saying is they just gave the existing game the most hardcore facelift possible the brings the gpu to its knees, vs if they rebuilt the game from the ground up with these processes in mind like say the demon souls remake where they literally just remade the whole game form 0. Doing that would have made the game have the visual fidelity people are expecting while still being as taxing, but would have cost way more time and money than crytek could and would have put into the project. Please correct me if im wrong ive been taking network+ practice quizes all day and my comprehension is shot for the day lol

[GhostRoadieBL]

from the video, which doesn't deep dive into the game setting changes much at all, but from the visuals of it and what's been posted about it I have some explanations. 

 

the "can it run crysis" setting can:

1 - redirects to 8k textures instead of the normal 4k or under ones. This exponentially increases the VRAM usage and strain on the CPU (since direct load to GPU isn't available yet) causing frame timing to go all over the place

2 - Draw Distance increased causing more polygon draws per frame and ray tracing complexities per object onscreen

3 - number of Rays, since they are using a combination of software and hardware ray tracing they can increase the number of drawn rays above what RTX cards can do in hardware and cause more CPU and GPU (non-tensor) cores to be loaded causing more slowdowns

4 - most importantly, this is a pre-release copy of the game with next to no optimizations done on the engine. 

 

the game is literally brute force rendering scenes so it makes sense the cards did "poorly" when set to gpu torture settings. 

[Morrie Sells Wigs]

What about dropping "yeah, but can it run Crysis" and replace it with "yeah, but can it run Flight Simulator 2020"?

 

 

[Pitou]

1 minute ago, Maury Sells Wigs said:

What about dropping "yeah, but can it run Crysis" and replace it with "yeah, but can it run Flight Simulator 2020"?

 

 

big facts

[trag1c]

16 minutes ago, Pitou said:

so what your saying is they just gave the existing game the most hardcore facelift possible the brings the gpu to its knees, vs if they rebuilt the game from the ground up with these processes in mind like say the demon souls remake where they literally just remade the whole game form 0. Doing that would have made the game have the visual fidelity people are expecting while still being as taxing, but would have cost way more time and money than crytek could and would have put into the project. Please correct me if im wrong ive been taking network+ practice quizes all day and my comprehension is shot for the day lol

Essentially. TBH i don't think they could truly remade the game without spending 5+ years on it. The shear amount of game assets would make the art side take way too much time and money than a remaster should. This is especially true since every single asset would have to be remade because I am sure none to very little of it at the time was procedurally generated because that was not how games were made back then. So you're stuck because have to honor the look and feel of the old title.

 

In modern games the biggest move is to shift as much of the artwork to programmers as possible because a computer can generate art faster than a human can. This is the only way that AAA studio's can stay on budget and on time with current titles. For housing as an example an artist would make essentially building block portions of a house which a computer algorithm can take to make numerous permutations and combinations of to make a 1000 different houses of a few dozen models instead of an artist making a 1000 different houses.

[trag1c]

18 minutes ago, Maury Sells Wigs said:

What about dropping "yeah, but can it run Crysis" and replace it with "yeah, but can it run Flight Simulator 2020"?

 

 

Really at this point nothing can run FS2020 because it simply runs like a bag of shit because it doesn't work. You can tell it was extremely rushed because it doesn't hammer the GPU nor does it hammer the CPU. You're stuck with horrible utilization so you simply don't have good bench mark to judge things by. At least the original crysis and the remaster were optimized enough to punish things and not just leave it in a state of constant artificial bottle necking on both sides of the processing spectrum.

 

From looking at their in game performance statistics it looks like their UI engine is shitting the bed because it takes more frame time than any other game system.

[Morrie Sells Wigs]

45 minutes ago, trag1c said:

Really at this point nothing can run FS2020 because it simply runs like a bag of shit because it doesn't work. You can tell it was extremely rushed because it doesn't hammer the GPU nor does it hammer the CPU. You're stuck with horrible utilization so you simply don't have good bench mark to judge things by. At least the original crysis and the remaster were optimized enough to punish things and not just leave it in a state of constant artificial bottle necking on both sides of the processing spectrum.

 

From looking at their in game performance statistics it looks like their UI engine is shitting the bed because it takes more frame time than any other game system.

Absolutely. 

 

Though, they seemingly expect it to run on the new Xbox consoles (and even currently on XboxOne X?) - so I don't know how that's going to work when pretty beefy rigs are struggling to run it.

 

Or, is it only at 4k that pc is struggling to hit more than 25-30fps - even on the most up to date gpu/cpu combination?

 

[trag1c]

12 minutes ago, Maury Sells Wigs said:

Absolutely. 

 

Though, they seemingly expect it to run on the new Xbox consoles (and even currently on XboxOne X?) - so I don't know how that's going to work when pretty beefy rigs are struggling to run it.

 

Or, is it only at 4k that pc is struggling to hit more than 25-30fps - even on the most up to date gpu/cpu combination?

 

It's pretty much any resolution with any settings. You can crank stuff way down and be lucky to gain 1 fps. Which 1 fps gain when you were running at like 30 is pretty significant but you're pretty lucky to get any performance improvement from what I have seen. 

[SolarNova]

Did u know that running a game at 1080p on a 1080p display isnt fully utilizing the full resolution of the display ?

This is why when u force a game to render at 4k on a 1080p display, it looks better. But ofc uses way more GPU power.

 

Crysis Remastered can indeed be as tough to run as it looks when maxed out, because all they have to do is not completely 'gimp' the final image so that its 'playable' but instead allow everything on screen to be fully rendered at its maximum detail. This puts MASSIVE loads on the GPU way more than any modern game would 'normally' do, because its actually rendering everything at full detail.

 

IF a game like say TombRaider, was not using a whole bunch of various FoV settings to reduce GPU load, and instead rendered everything at its highest detail, the game would reduce to a literal slide show.

 

There is no hidden GPU burner running to artificially increase load, its simply taking the crutches of and saying "here u go , take the full amount do what u can" (and probably not even that, i bet they still have some FoV settings built in to make it at least somewhat playable)

 

Now could they make the game more efficient if they rebuilt it form the ground up? .. yes ofc, but thats not he point of a 'remaster' ..thats the point of a 'remake'. Its called 'Crysis Remastered' for a reason.