Crytek is all set to release the new Crysis 4!

[VBEaST]

A Crysis Battle Royale?

Some speculations are pointing towards the possibility of the new game being a Battle Royale. Or at least, providing the option of a Battle Royale. Having an open world Battle Royale with Crysis level graphics and coding would truly be a dream come true. However, the obvious “can it run Crysis” factor would still stand out.

Even Crysis Remastered, which was released 13 years ago, would give mid-range gaming CPUs a run for their money! The game consumes a whopping 4 GB of VRAM to be able to run at Max Settings and even then, only yields 40-60 fps on an RTX 3080!

 

A recent video posted by Linus Tech Tips revealed that the game was built with more than a million lines of code! This allows the game to look really good and almost holds up to today’s standards.

Quote

Crytek, the maker of the very well known game, Crysis, is currently working on an announced triple-A game. However, whether or not this is Crysis 4 or not is yet to be known.

Crysis Sequels release date?

Crytek was hacked into last year and a few hundred Gigabytes of files were leaked to the public. Apparently, this was the same group that hacked Ubisoft and leaked Watch Dogs: Legion’s source code. Coming back to the Crytek incident, a number of release dates of future Crytek sequels were released. The list, however, is relatively old as it also contained the release date of Crysis Remastered.

According to the release dates, Crytek was set to release Crysis 2 Remastered and Crysis 3 Remastered in 2021. However, seeing as how COVID-19 has restricted workflows, we wouldn’t be surprised if these dates are shifted up by some margin. In any case, the next possible sequel, Crysis Next, was estimated to be in 2022.

 

If anything, the “Can it run Crysis” meme is going to be more relevant than ever!

[Doobeedoo]

I remember them mentioning sometime after trilogy release that they have ideas and plans for a new Crysis game in the future and that it would be a different approach to it. That in it self is exciting, so I don't expect Crysis 4 but yeah probably something else name/story wise. Also hopefully for next Crysis I'd like to see more focus on MP too, it was so much fun with suit gameplay, really spiced up the gameplay.

[crystal6tak]

Not going to get my hopes up. Crysis Remastered was a huge let down, almost feels like a cash grab.

[StDragon]

8 hours ago, VBEaST said:

...run at Max Settings and even then, only yields 40-60 fps on an RTX 3080!

I say that's progress. Unless previous generations of Crytek, this one apparently is only one generation of GPUs ahead. I'm sure a 4080 card will run it like smooth butter.

[Amias]

Crysis Wars was a good game. Huge open maps, great little in game tactical management etc.

 

I'd like to play a game like that again, however I doubt Crytek of today can produce anything even remotely equivalent. 

[decolon]

Can the 3090 run crysis? Stay tuned for more

[RejZoR]

I find it strange how ray tracing done in software is so stupid taxing in Crysis Remastered when RTGI shader works so fast in ReShade which are bunch of effects bolted on top without any special HW acceleration. Granted, this is screen space method, but I can't see it causing 70% performance drop by making it real ray tracing. Besides, when you see RTGI in action, you sort of not even care it's screen space based when whatever you see in your view just feels so real thanks to physical lighting inside that field of view.

 

I might just bolt RTGI on top of existing Crysis games and make them "next gen" myself. Unless Crytek plans on releasing whole new game (and not just battle royale nonsense coz I hate that crap). I generally enjoyed Crysis games so I wouldn't mind new proper game from this franchise...

[The1Dickens]

21 hours ago, VBEaST said:

A recent video posted by Linus Tech Tips revealed that the game was built with more than a million lines of code!

This is not even a lot. DOOM 3 had 600K and came out in 2004. And Skyrim apparently has 46,765,000+ (based on here and here) and was released in 2012. Crysis came out in 2007, so only 1M sounds pretty low. Uncharted: Drake's Fortune apparently has ~2M lines of code, and also came out in 2007. I tried to find the count for other 2007 games like Halo 3, God of War 2, Portal, Team Fortress 2, Assassin's Creed, and Bioshock, but didn't get anything solid.

[Unixsystem]

7 hours ago, The1Dickens said:

This is not even a lot. DOOM 3 had 600K and came out in 2004. And Skyrim apparently has 46,765,000+ (based on here and here) and was released in 2012. Crysis came out in 2007, so only 1M sounds pretty low. Uncharted: Drake's Fortune apparently has ~2M lines of code, and also came out in 2007. I tried to find the count for other 2007 games like Halo 3, God of War 2, Portal, Team Fortress 2, Assassin's Creed, and Bioshock, but didn't get anything solid.

And more importantly since when does more code mean a better game? If anything, an identical game done with less code is probably a sign it's better optimized. 

[BigDamn]

Is anyone going to mention the complete lack of sources here? This looks like nothing but speculation.

[DildorTheDecent]

This reads like it was copied from some crappy tech publication.

 

A human didn't write this.

[Frizzybeats]

Nah

[Levent]

Gonna need source on that chief. Original work is not permitted here as "News".

[SansVarnic]

-= Moved to PC Gaming =-

Topic does not meet the posting guidelines.

 

Please update and request to move back once its proper.

Also, note that speculation and rumor topics are considered News, FYI.

 

Edited January 9, 2021 by LogicalDrm

[tim0901]

12 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Based this video on RTGI, it seems to be just as bad. COD black ops frame rates dropped from 300 to 50 FPS (skip to 8:26). Literally 83% reduction.

 

https://youtu.be/P11nEBPS92w

 

Yeah that doesn't surprise me. Shader-based raytracing has been around for a long time now, but there's a reason it was never implemented in any games. Performance is great vs CPU raytracing, but terrible compared to RTX.

 

19 hours ago, RejZoR said:

I find it strange how ray tracing done in software is so stupid taxing in Crysis Remastered when RTGI shader works so fast in ReShade which are bunch of effects bolted on top without any special HW acceleration. Granted, this is screen space method, but I can't see it causing 70% performance drop by making it real ray tracing. Besides, when you see RTGI in action, you sort of not even care it's screen space based when whatever you see in your view just feels so real thanks to physical lighting inside that field of view.

 

I might just bolt RTGI on top of existing Crysis games and make them "next gen" myself. Unless Crytek plans on releasing whole new game (and not just battle royale nonsense coz I hate that crap). I generally enjoyed Crysis games so I wouldn't mind new proper game from this franchise...

Bear in mind that Screen Space RT can't ever produce the same effects as proper RT.

 

You can't get physically accurate reflections because, as the name 'Screen Space' suggests, only the stuff that's on screen is usable. So it can't be used to generate reflections of any parts of the environment that's not on the screen. Similarly, the lighting isn't "accurate" because it's making assumptions about the nature of the objects in the scene due to not having all the information. Unlike RTX, it doesn't know all the details about every object in the scene, all it knows is what's in the gbuffer: position, normals, albedo and specular. One value of each for each pixel on-screen. That's it.

 

Because it doesn't have this information, it's not performing RT in the same way as RTX is. It isn't performing an intersection test with triangles - it can't as it doesn't have access to them. It's looking at the gbuffer and using that information to make an attempt at GI. (The code is on github - I had a look and that's exactly what he's doing).

 

From looking around a lot of people using RTGi complain at it oversaturating outdoor areas, which makes perfect sense due to how game designers normally light scenes (lots of tiny lights in places that aren't physcially possible). It also has problems with volumes (fog/water) due to the shader not knowing that they should be treated differently to other objects, leading to the effects being layered on top of them, rather than behind them as would be natural. And there's no way to get around this - the shader would need access to information beyond that which is provided by the gbuffer.

 

If the effect it produces is good enough for you then go ahead, enjoy! It's a cool technique, especially if he can improve the performance. But it's not the same, and it never will be. It's far too restrained by the lack of information at its disposal.

[RejZoR]

Shadow of Tomb Raider is using ray tracing, but is using screen space method... Looks pretty amazing, yet isn't entirely real... Also RTGI does have material recognition based on surface roughness and can create additional light reflection of surfaces. Even with screen space ray tracing, you realize how horribly wrong lighting is in games prior ray tracing.

[tim0901]

18 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Shadow of Tomb Raider is using ray tracing, but is using screen space method... Looks pretty amazing, yet isn't entirely real... Also RTGI does have material recognition based on surface roughness and can create additional light reflection of surfaces. Even with screen space ray tracing, you realize how horribly wrong lighting is in games prior ray tracing.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider uses RTX. I don't know where you got the idea that it uses screen space ray tracing for global illumination, but it is factually incorrect. If it were screen space then the RT hardware in RTX cards would not be able to accelerate it as it doesn't use the same algorithm.

 

What it does do is use ray tracing (referred to in this use case usually as ray casting) in order to calculate screen space reflections. But that's nothing new, and is completely different to what RTGI is doing. Ray casting is a common technique in games for anything visibility based and has been for many years.

 

It's also barely the same thing as ray tracing, as none of the complex shading or shadow generating parts of ray tracing are used. Aka the bits that are computationally difficult. All it involves is sending a ray from point A to point B and going "hey is there anything that will get in the way". It doesn't care what happens to the light after it hits an object, nor does it care about any of the properties of that object. It's also not going to send out any auxiliary rays like RTX does. All of which makes it incredibly easy to calculate, and makes it such that very few rays to be sent compared to RT based global illumination. This is why the term "ray casting" is generally used here - it's a far better description of what's actually happening.

 

It does use several other screen space effects as well for faked global illumination, such as screen space contact shadows (SSCS), but by the Dev's own admission it is disabled for RTX-enabled lights and they generally don't require any sort of ray casting.

 

RTGI on the other hand is using screen space RT for global illumination - to create shadows and lighting. It's not the same technique at all, merely based on the same fundamental building block of the 'ray'.

 

It also may well have material recognition, but that's not the issue I was talking about. I was talking volumetrics, which aren't materials. If anything, the volumetrics are going to break the material detection, by making it think that the material is something else by messing with the depth buffer.

 

Fog and water show up on a depth map - but that will cause a problem whenever an algorithm is generating effects based on that depth map - the fog looks no different to a solid object. So when the effects are layered on top of the scene, it looks wrong as they're placed on top of the fog, rather than inside it.

 

TLDR: No it doesn't. Shadow of the Tomb Raider uses RTX for ray traced global illumination. It does not perform screen spaced ray tracing in the same manner as RTGI

[JuliusLXIX]

They are fuming that its now "can it run Cyberpunk" instea of Crysis so this is their only option

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, tim0901 said:

Shadow of the Tomb Raider uses RTX. I don't know where you got the idea that it uses screen space ray tracing for global illumination, but it is factually incorrect. If it were screen space then the RT hardware in RTX cards would not be able to accelerate it as it doesn't use the same algorithm.

 

What it does do is use ray tracing (referred to in this use case usually as ray casting) in order to calculate screen space reflections. But that's nothing new, and is completely different to what RTGI is doing. Ray casting is a common technique in games for anything visibility based and has been for many years.

 

It's also barely the same thing as ray tracing, as none of the complex shading or shadow generating parts of ray tracing are used. Aka the bits that are computationally difficult. All it involves is sending a ray from point A to point B and going "hey is there anything that will get in the way". It doesn't care what happens to the light after it hits an object, nor does it care about any of the properties of that object. It's also not going to send out any auxiliary rays like RTX does. All of which makes it incredibly easy to calculate, and makes it such that very few rays to be sent compared to RT based global illumination. This is why the term "ray casting" is generally used here - it's a far better description of what's actually happening.

 

It does use several other screen space effects as well for faked global illumination, such as screen space contact shadows (SSCS), but by the Dev's own admission it is disabled for RTX-enabled lights and they generally don't require any sort of ray casting.

 

RTGI on the other hand is using screen space RT for global illumination - to create shadows and lighting. It's not the same technique at all, merely based on the same fundamental building block of the 'ray'.

 

It also may well have material recognition, but that's not the issue I was talking about. I was talking volumetrics, which aren't materials. If anything, the volumetrics are going to break the material detection, by making it think that the material is something else by messing with the depth buffer.

 

Fog and water show up on a depth map - but that will cause a problem whenever an algorithm is generating effects based on that depth map - the fog looks no different to a solid object. So when the effects are layered on top of the scene, it looks wrong as they're placed on top of the fog, rather than inside it.

 

TLDR: No it doesn't. Shadow of the Tomb Raider uses RTX for ray traced global illumination. It does not perform screen spaced ray tracing in the same manner as RTGI

It literally says it's using screen space reflections in the settings itself. You can also see this by moving camera and you can see water reflections strangely distorting at the edges of the screen which shouldn't be happening if it's a full on ray tracing. Same can be seen with shadows which get weirdly cut off at certain angles because the terrain/mountain tops are outside of screen space and they appear as you're moving camera up. You can do reflections and global illumination within screen space only and it'll still be realistic within that field. May glitch slightly as I've described. Luckily, it's rare occurrence and most players won't even spot them coz they don't even see the difference with rasterized screen space reflections and ray traced ones anyways. I can spot the difference clearly.

 

I think they just bolted ray tracing and GI on top of rasterizer. Coz I know game launched without it initially. So I wouldn't be surprised they've done it this way. It still looks incredibly nice, but there are visual glitches. Only difference is they could make reflections and shadows perspective correct because they are the makers of the game engine unlike RTGI which works front to back using basic depth buffer access and cannot know how things look from back to front.

[tim0901]

10 hours ago, RejZoR said:

It literally says it's using screen space reflections in the settings itself.

Dude did you read beyond the first line of my comment? I said this in the second paragraph!

11 hours ago, tim0901 said:

What it does do is use ray tracing (referred to in this use case usually as ray casting) in order to calculate screen space reflections. 

If you're going to say I'm wrong, at least properly read what I've written. But, as I explained above, screen space reflections are implemented in a completely different manner in Shadow of the Tomb Raider than in RTGI, so you can't assume that the capabilities of one dictate the potential capabilities of the other.

 

10 hours ago, RejZoR said:

I think they just bolted ray tracing and GI on top of rasterizer. Coz I know game launched without it initially. So I wouldn't be surprised they've done it this way. It still looks incredibly nice, but there are visual glitches. Only difference is they could make reflections and shadows perspective correct because they are the makers of the game engine unlike RTGI which works front to back using basic depth buffer access and cannot know how things look from back to front.

Yes... and no. This is indeed how RTX works. It is a hybrid rendering technique: the standard rasterization is calculated in parallel with the ray traced global illumination and reflections, which are then layered on top before output to the monitor. (The only games that use raytracing in a non-hybrid manner are those that are fully path traced. I.e. Minecraft and Quake 2 RTX.)

 

But saying "bolted on top of rasterizer" implies that rasterization is a single-step process, when it very much isn't. Rasterization doesn't generate the final picture on your screen in one go, it gradually builds it up using multiple layers of information . Each frame can easily take 10+ layers of information to construct - one of which happens to be the output of RTX. No games these days will render the image you see on your screen in one go - it's just not how things work anymore.

 

For Shadow of the Tomb Raider, there's at the very least the following passes:

Spoiler

• Depth prepass
• Normals pass
• Albedo
• Ambient Occlusion
• Shadow pass
• RTX (if enabled)
• Screen space reflections
• Volumetric lighting
• Hair rendering (multiple passes required)
• Exposure and tonemapping (HDR/SDR)
• Lens flares
• Bloom (multiple passes required)
• Antialiasing
• Motion blur (amount of passes depending on what's moving)
• Mud/snow/rain on the camera
• UI pass

(Not calculated in this order, also I've probably missed some).

Screen space reflections are simply one layer in this stack. It is known as a deferred shading algorithm, meaning the reflections are calculated after most of the rest of the scene is rendered. This is necessary because the reflections are generated by literally copying the appropriate parts of the frame onto the reflective surface, which is also why it only works with things that are on-screen. But the order in which things are done is important - for example if you did the UI pass first, it would be completely unreadable by the time the motion blur pass has finished!

 

And this is what RTGI is doing as well - it's just one more pass in the stack. Except RTGI doesn't get to choose where in the stack it goes - it goes dead last, even after the UI pass. (This is a limitation of ReShade, not RTGI itself, hence it's recommended to use a UI Mask when running ReShade otherwise you''ll end up with shadows on your menus.) So while RTGI might end up layering a shadow on top of some fog, the game itself doesn't have that problem because the fog doesn't exist at the point it's placing the shadows - it's rendered in at a later stage in the stack.

 

This is why screen spaced reflections look better in Shadow of the Tomb Raider than when generated by RTGI. The technique doesn't have access to any more information just because it's part of the game engine - it's still restricted to using only the screen-space buffers - the result is better simply because the scene is being constructed in the correct order. it's like trying to build a house by starting with the roof, then building the walls underneath it - it's just not going to work.

[RejZoR]

You're throwing too many things into it and calling it "RTX" to top it off. RTX is just a buzzword. It's either DXR or DXV and both are essentially just RT in short. You're giving it too much credit honestly. Especially when things are not exactly the way it should be and Shadow of Tomb Raider is a prime example of that. It too often looks like things are clashing and are literally bolted on top of classic rasterizing which is further reinforce by the fact this game was released first without ray tracing and then they updated it. And it shows. Often it seems like rasterized screen space reflections are interfering with ray traced ones, offscreen information missing when it should be present to even use ray tracing properly and because of technical execution, you need to run ray tracing with DLSS, otherwise it's just crashing non stop before you even enter the main menu. Which in general looks amazing at native 1440p until you have puzzles with rays of light that look like it's rendered at 320p and it's all blocky as well as some shadows which are for whatever reason rendered at 320p apparently and look worse than they have in games 25 years ago. This game in particular is a weird execution with a lot of technical issues.

 

I've played many games with RTGI and even if it's screen space GI it makes amazing use of it to a point most people wouldn't even be able to distinguish it from real ray tracing except with water where it just doesn't work as it's literally an effect bolted on top. And the amount of games it has improved visually is almost shocking. I prefer to keep it down and not all out reflective like some do on Youtube and it still changes lighting and shading to such degree games feel totally different and you start to appreciate how much more realistic lighting is when it's ray traced, even if only within screen space.