Crysis Remastered Performance is... horrible.

[TheBluePotato]

Heyo!

 

I excitedly bought Crysis Remastered and I have to say;

 

I am... Dissapointed.

 

This is likely going to be a rant here.

I don't get how they butchered the performance so bad. I know Crysis is supposed to be the almighty hardware-crushing game, but come on.

 

From todays standarts, even on highest settings the Graphics look like a mediocere, mid-tier game at best. It is supposed to keep the original flavor, I know I know.

 

But Seriously. If you compare it to Crysis 3 (Which people WILL do, it is a Crysis game after all) - It just doesn't look good!. Sure, compared to the Original, everything is miles better, but compared to any modern day title? Meh.

 

 

Now that is not what my problem is. My problem is the performance. How could they make it look average at best, but perform so poorly that even with an RTX3080 Linus only got a pathetic 35 fps on highest settings?

How is it that I, beeing able to play Crysis 3 at near, or max settings (At 3440x1440) and other titles like Battlefield 1, Borderlands 3 and so on - have to play an ALL LOW, and not even get my 75fps all the time? Heck, in some levels and scenes it dropped down to 35-40 at best. on all LOW.

 

This is so confusing to me. Did they program this to run as horrible as it possibly could? Just for the sakes of "Can it run Crysis"?.

 

If someone could explain why it is running so absolutely poorly and why the couldn't have solved it differently, I'd love to hear it.

 

I'm mad AND dissapointed... I di´dn't want to be, I love this game, but I cant even run it properly.

 

 

My System consists of:

 

Ryzen 9 3900x

on Crosshair VIII Formula

32Gb Trident Z RGB @ 3200mhz

and 2 1070 Amp! Editions in SLI. (Yeah, yeah the game doesnt support SLI)

 

How come I can run Borderlands 3 just fine on high settings( not max), but not this...

[Aereldor]

Probably just shitty optimization to make it demanding for the sake of being demanding. Disappointing, especially when Flight Simulator crushes PCs more but the difference in visual fidelity is undeniable.

 

I will say that if you're trying to run Ray Tracing on a GTX 1070 with DXR, expect unbelievably crappy performance.

[ki8aras]

i don't think they even wanted the game to run good, theyre going for the whole "hardware crushing" shtick

[Moonzy]

7 minutes ago, TheBluePotato said:

Just for the sakes of "Can it run Crysis"?.

yes, it's more of a benchmark than a game if you ask me

 

they're a meme and they're running away with it

[Sauron]

24 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

Probably just shitty optimization to make it demanding for the sake of being demanding.

Just like the original then

[tikker]

It seems to suffer the same problem as the original: not (fully) taking advantage of multi-core CPUs. A real shame. I'll just go back to the original then, doesn't look that bad still

[xAcid9]

IMO, a modded original Crisis look better than the Remastered. 

[Praesi]

I just watched a detailed side by side test to the Original. What a Joke this is. Missing Levels, missing Features, no free save, bad performance, trees and stuff are locked to 30fps if you shoot it, no matter your settings.

Just a console version ported to pc "can it run crysis?" What a Joke.

No Buy.

[TheBluePotato]

5 hours ago, Praesi said:

I just watched a detailed side by side test to the Original. What a Joke this is. Missing Levels, missing Features, no free save, bad performance, trees and stuff are locked to 30fps if you shoot it, no matter your settings.

Just a console version ported to pc "can it run crysis?" What a Joke.

No Buy.

Yeah, I regret paying full price for this as well. Should've waited for a sale. And even then, Crysis modded runs better and looks "good enough".

The only reason you could want remastered is Ray tracing, and thats impossible to play with it enabled because it doesn't run smooth enough for a first person shooter.

[xAcid9]

3 minutes ago, TheBluePotato said:

The only reason you could want remastered is Ray tracing, and thats impossible to play with it enabled because it doesn't run smooth enough for a first person shooter.

Apparently there is a "bug" where ray tracing won't turn off completely even if you disabled it in graphic settings, hence bad performance. 
Also there's another "bug" that it couldn't recognize RTX GPUs so it was not able to utilize the RT cores for ray tracing. 

[Aereldor]

12 hours ago, Sauron said:

Just like the original then

Not even slightly. Crysis 1 was designed with the ultra settings in mind, then the graphics were potato-ized to varying degrees to accomodate lower hardware. 

 

Later games, like Crysis 3, were designed with the medium settings in mind. As a result, the medium settings look great, are the best optimized, and are the best visuals-to-FPS ratio. High and ultra are afterthoughts.

 

This is becoming more and more of a problem, with reviewers problematically benchmarking all titles at horribly-performing 'ultra' settings and PC enthusiasts circlejerking about it.

 

Crysis 1 did not have this problem, because the ultra settings were the original vision, and for the time it was released, it wasn't unreasonably demanding. It ate your GPU alive but it looked amazing, still holds up even today. 

 

This video better articulates my point, and uses examples from Crysis 1 and 3.

 

 

[PlayStation 2]

6 hours ago, Aereldor said:

Not even slightly. Crysis 1 was designed with the ultra settings in mind, then the graphics were potato-ized to varying degrees to accomodate lower hardware. 

 

Later games, like Crysis 3, were designed with the medium settings in mind. As a result, the medium settings look great, are the best optimized, and are the best visuals-to-FPS ratio. High and ultra are afterthoughts.

 

This is becoming more and more of a problem, with reviewers problematically benchmarking all titles at horribly-performing 'ultra' settings and PC enthusiasts circlejerking about it.

 

Crysis 1 did not have this problem, because the ultra settings were the original vision, and for the time it was released, it wasn't unreasonably demanding. It ate your GPU alive but it looked amazing, still holds up even today. 

 

This video better articulates my point, and uses examples from Crysis 1 and 3.

 

 

I think you missed the point of what he (not 2kliks, the person you quoted) was talking about: Crysis was designed as a PC benchmark first and a game with optimization second. It wasn't built with multithreading in mind (although in context, it makes sense) but more importantly, the game itself was built to just be pointlessly demanding. Yes, it's a good looking game at ultra, but it's hard as fuck to even run the game at ultra even today just because the game wasn't built with scalability in mind. 

Crysis 2 and 3 did this way better, where the ultra settings, while not as ridiculous of a step up from the medium or high settings, still looked absolutely gorgeous and, while demanding, wasn't something that can't be unrealistically achieved on a modern PC, or even a PC of the time.

Hopelessly demanding games aren't a vision for a game to hold up in the future, they almost never are. They're just that: hopelessly demanding and poorly optimized. The games that tend to hold up the best are games that are built to scale but not so dramatically to where the visual style looks horrible if you go any lower than ultra.

[Sauron]

7 hours ago, Aereldor said:

Not even slightly. Crysis 1 was designed with the ultra settings in mind, then the graphics were potato-ized to varying degrees to accomodate lower hardware. 

Ultra settings included super sampling... in 2007