Why Crysis 3 ?

[Hongky98]

I'm following Linus since high school, now I'm in university. When Linus makes a video about new system he always says "will it run Crysis?" When I checked Google, the game is 5 years old and I'm pretty sure the new rig is going to crush Crysis but why he always said that? And why sometimes he's didn't satisfy with it? I'm curious

[Jurrunio]

the Crysis meme?

 

Basically, the first Crysis is soooo hard to run, even the top gaming rigs during its release couldnt get 30fps, hence the Crysis name being used to describe a game being super demanding. 'Will it run Crysis' meme starts here to describe whether a gaming machine is qualified to call itself 'a gaming machine'.

[Ross Siggers]

Infact, Crytek were known for producing highly demanding and pretty games. On initial release, all their products had relatively high requirements, it was simply Crysis was the most extreme example.

You'll notice that for a while, LMG used the Crysis 3 skybox as a burn real-world burn in test for graphics cards.

[BuckGup]

Crysis looks great but is sorta poorly optimized in today's world

[Coaxialgamer]

The "can it run crysis" meme is WAYY older than Crysis 3 . It dates back to the original Crysis release in 2007. The game was so demanding and so poorly optimized that it became kind of a legend as far as intensive games go .

For reference , the fastest GPUs at the time of Crysis's release were the 8800GTX and 8800 Ultra .

 

At 768p ( a fairly standard res for the time ) , the 8800 ultra barely pushed past 30 fps at very high . And that was with no AA.

If you were to bump everything up to max at 1920*1200 , 1600*1200 or even a more common 1280*1024 , you'd still barely be pushing single digits as far as frame-rates go.

 

https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/Graphics_Cards-Geforce_8800GT-Crysis-DX10,review-29779-10.html

 

[Ross Siggers]

I wasn't implying the meme started with 3 though...

[.Apex.]

10 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

The game was so demanding and so poorly optimized

23 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

Crysis looks great but is sorta poorly optimized in today's world

Crysis was very well optimized, it was just very demanding, and that 2007 game still looks fantastic in 2018 standards.

[Coaxialgamer]

47 minutes ago, syn2112 said:

Crysis was very well optimized, it was just very demanding, and that 2007 game still looks fantastic in 2018 standards.

Crysis runs fine today . I'm talking about at launch . They improved things quite a bit with patches

[Syntaxvgm]

It was only the original Crysis that really pushed the boundaries of what you could do in games. 

This was 2007, right about a year after the launch of the ps3! 11 years ago. It was really impressive at the time and for years after that. Even had shit like moving foliage, destruction, and good lighting. 
For reference, it was launched a month after halo 3 and about the same time as cod4, so it was competing with this 


It was the true PC e-peen enhancer, setting apart the pc master race years before Ben Croshaw coined the term, proving once and for all that even in the beginning of a great console generation pc still had it, but unfortunately game the reputation of pc gaming being expensive and a headache. 


These days benchmarks are about maxing games and stuff, it's hard to imagine a company having the balls to make a game that didn't run near maxed on any current hardware. Crysis had to be played at 720p 30fps for most of us and out of the question for budget gamers, thus the "but can it run crysis tho" meme was born
 2 and 3 were nothing like it. 
I'm not saying games should be like crysis, but I've noticed a trend that if games can't be maxed with current hardware, they're "unoptimized" even if they settings are ridiculous and future proof, so we've moved away from adding stuff to games you might turn on 5 years from now. 
Remember 8x and 16x msaa? Wtf happened to that? Why does BF1 look so good but the AA looks like a jpeg? Why can my 1080 max current games? Older games look better at 1080 than new games in 1440p imo!

[tikker]

2 hours ago, Syntaxvgm said:

I'm not saying games should be like crysis, but I've noticed a trend that if games can't be maxed with current hardware, they're "unoptimized" even if they settings are ridiculous and future proof, so we've moved away from adding stuff to games you might turn on 5 years from now.

On one hand I'd say not, after all, we want the eye candy now. On the other hand, I do think it'd be a nice incentive for improvements in the GPU area or similar if we had games that would bring down even the highest end hardware on ultra. Although nowadays that would turn into the question what should be considered the highest end Ti, Titan (or today 2080, 2080 Ti).

Taking Shadow of the Tomb Raider as an example, with my 1080 Ti and 7700k I still reach 100+ or even 120+ FPS easily in most areas, and this card is 2.5 years old by now.

[trag1c]

Fun fact crysis warhead is still pushing more geometry among other things than the latest call of duty games.

[Cyanara]

I found this video to be an excellent explanation of why the meme still exists so long after the game came out:

 

TLDR:

Spoiler

It was designed at a time when the developers thought ever higher CPU single core speeds were the way of the future, not multi-core CPUs. Sadly, the physical properties of silicon begged to differ.

I still love the game though, despite its flaws (looking at you, short campaign length).

[aezakmi]

8 hours ago, Coaxialgamer said:

The "can it run crysis" meme is WAYY older than Crysis 3 . It dates back to the original Crysis release in 2007. The game was so demanding and so poorly optimized that it became kind of a legend as far as intensive games go .

For reference , the fastest GPUs at the time of Crysis's release were the 8800GTX and 8800 Ultra .

 

At 768p ( a fairly standard res for the time ) , the 8800 ultra barely pushed past 30 fps at very high . And that was with no AA.

If you were to bump everything up to max at 1920*1200 , 1600*1200 or even a more common 1280*1024 , you'd still barely be pushing single digits as far as frame-rates go.

 

https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/Graphics_Cards-Geforce_8800GT-Crysis-DX10,review-29779-10.html

 

I remember playing it with a sempron and the 8400 back in the day, at 480p probably, but it was amazing that computer could run it, I don't remember about the FPS as I knew nothing of monitoring and stuff, it ran pretty well tho because I finished it and then Warhead.

 

to amaze me even more, that computer could run crysis 2 and 3

I underestimated its power

[Gale]

9 hours ago, BuckGup said:

Crysis looks great but is sorta poorly optimized in today's world

"In today's world"? It was always poorly optimized. People think Crysis was demanding because of its pretty graphics, but it was because it wasn't coded very well.

[InMiseryWeSeekPancakes]

8 hours ago, Coaxialgamer said:

Crysis runs fine today . I'm talking about at launch .

Then you should have regarded the fact that it was unoptimized in the beginning now your saying that? Otherwise you make it seem as you were talking about it being unoptimized in general. Either way I don't want to start an argument.

 

7 minutes ago, Gale said:

but it was because it wasn't coded very well.

Have you even ever played it? Where are you getting this information from? Are you just pulling it out of your ass? Alot of people to this day used it to test graphics cards performance including Linus, a games unoptimizationness doesn't make it a qualification. The game wasn't coded by kids and took a tremendous amount of work, every single fucking line of code was designed to perfection and at the time was considered a masterpiece. The engine was hand made by the developers unlike alot of other titles and was unique and was made so absloutely no flaws were made.  

[.Apex.]

1 hour ago, Gale said:

"In today's world"? It was always poorly optimized. People think Crysis was demanding because of its pretty graphics, but it was because it wasn't coded very well.

and what makes you think that? do you even know what poor optimization is? 

[Coaxialgamer]

17 hours ago, InMiseryWeSeekPancakes said:

Then you should have regarded the fact that it was unoptimized in the beginning now your saying that? Otherwise you make it seem as you were talking about it being unoptimized in general. Either way I don't want to start an argument.

That's why i used the past tense ? "Was" vs "is" ?