Support NeoGAF

[MrOogieBoogie]

Because for a game that released nearly EIGHT years ago, it's still a bitch to run. It'll humble most modern PCs. It just doesn't seem like there is any way to maintain a solid 60fps without frequent dips and stutters into the 20s/30s/40s. It's really bizarre and not something I've encountered with any other game.

Crysis 2, by comparison, performs much better.

 

[Truant]

For a game released nearly eight years ago, it also looks completely amazing.

 

[diffusionx]

They were doing a ton of new stuff and maybe didn't do it the most efficient way. I'm not sure that counts as poorly optimized since it's still an amazing looking game.

Crysis 2 looks great today too, but they reworked the engine for console and the levels are a bit more cut up.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I was able to maintain >30fps in Crysis on the mid-end $800 PC that I built in 2008. So I definitely don't consider that to be poorly optimized.

... Not on Ultra, obviously.

 

[rrs]

Crysis had a zillion trees and was open world, both things that decimate framerate

 

[Shai-Tan]

It's very CPU bound and isn't threaded enough to take advantage of multicore

edit: also reading that DX10 mode isn't properly optimized but that may be irrelevant now with current GPU power. Anyway, it suggested using DX9 mode with the graphics options modded in config files to match DX10 quality

 

[Syril]

For a game notorious as the ultimate PC killer it scaled really well even when it was originally out.

 

[Bren McGuire]

The problem with Crysis is that it only supports up to two cpu cores. With most modern cpus prioritizing number of cores over single core performance you need to overclock your machine to not be cpu constrained.

 

[0.1.1.2.3.5.8.13.21.34.55]

(2) 970's run it fine without any dips below 60 downsampling @ 2880
looks stunning.
the future was then.

 

[nilbog21]

Na, I had a well optimized midrange PC back when it came out and it ran AWESOME

Game way ahead of its time. RIP Crytek.

 

[Oemenia]

No its terribly optimised, its scaled really poorly compared to games that have released since then.

 

[MrOogieBoogie]

For a game released nearly eight years ago, it also looks completely amazing.

Definitely, and its visual flair is exaggerated by the incredible feel and movement animations. But it's damn hard to experience it in all its glory with the uneven frames.

It's strange to me to have a more difficult time running Crysis than Last Light, both on very high settings.

 

[Femmeworth]

A couple of sections definitely aren't optimized well like the Ascension level.

They were so focused on the GPU front that they dropped the ball on the CPU side.

 

[Windom Earle]

Definitely badly optimized. Crysis 2 was much better in that regard.

Modern GPUs don't have an issue in brute forcing the game, but CPU bottlenecks can still cause pretty hefty framedrops in AI intensive situations.

 

[Tagyhag]

Indeed it was, it was both demanding and unoptimized. What a glorious game it was though.

 

[daninthemix]

I was able to maintain >30fps in Crysis on the mid-end $800 PC that I built in 2008. So I definitely don't consider that to be poorly optimized.

... Not on Ultra, obviously.

Yep - that's the key. If you have to run everything at Ultra then your view on whether or not something is optimized will be warped.

 

[Pooya]

The last level was broken for sure.

 

[Akuun]

I don't think the original was well optimized. Crysis Warhead looked slightly better, but ran a hell of a lot better for me.

 

[Journey]

Sometimes optimizing can mean making cuts and Crysis was one of the first groundbreaking balls to the walls in terms of pushing GPUs to their limit and beyond with Zero compromises. It took years before GPUs were powerful enough to push the game as is at 60fps with all it's glory and at a good resolution.

 

[Ape]

I wonder if there will ever be another "crysis" moment in gaming.

 

[hoserx]

The game ran as it should have on the hardware you had. It was a forward looking game.... every upgrade I performed made the game run better. That seems reasonable to me. Power = performance in a game that looked so amazing at the time. (and still does)

 

[Ric Flair]

I wonder if there will ever be another "crysis" moment in gaming.

That'll depend largely on the popularity of PC gaming going forward. If the market is there, I'm sure the games will be as well.

 

[hoserx]

I don't think the original was well optimized. Crysis Warhead looked slightly better, but ran a hell of a lot better for me.

I think most people would agree (and did, if you do a search) that Warhead was a step down graphically from Crysis.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

It was, Crytek admitted as much. They got pretty close to mid level (at the time) PC performance when they ported it to CryEngine 2 on PS360.

Games like Far Cry 2/3 and Crysis 2/3 are still graphical beasts on PC but much more hardware friendly.

 

[Kezen]

It was, Crytek admitted as much. They got pretty close to mid level (at the time) PC performance when they ported it to CryEngine 2 on PS360.

Games like Far Cry 2/3 and Crysis 2/3 are still graphical beasts on PC but much more hardware friendly.

Far Cry 3 hardly ever was a "graphical" beast imo, it looked good for the time but has aged rather poorly.

On topic : the game is extremely CPU bound in some places, my framerate does drop below 60 on occasion.

 

[diggmcbadass]

Definitely badly optimized. Crysis 2 was much better in that regard.

Crysis 2 released looking worse and without the physics, so obviously it should run better. The great thing about the original Crysis is that it is flexible enough that you could play it back then, and you can still scale it to take advantage of everything modern hardware has to offer. You can't really say that for most games released in the PS360 era, since they usually only scale on resolution and they would even get 100+ fps on contemporary hardware.

The fact that people expect to max out every game on current hardware is a poison to innovation.

 

[Fafalada]

It would help to define "well optimized" first.
If we're looking at it as overall utilization perspective, equation for game real-time efficiency looks something like this:

c / m

Where
c = Effort + Time tech team puts into flow and compute optimization
m = ( Total Number of people on the project * Number of supported platforms )

Crysis did alright in this regard as the team was relatively small by modern standards and a lot of focus was on the top part of the equation.

 

[texore]

"But can it run Crysis?"

 

[The Baron Count]

The problem with Crysis is that it only supports up to two cpu cores. With most modern cpus prioritizing number of cores over single core performance you need to overclock your machine to not be cpu constrained.

And yet as I recall, they marketed it for quad cores didn't they?

 

[Rushersauce]

Because for a game that released nearly EIGHT years ago, it's still a bitch to run. It'll humble most modern PCs. It just doesn't seem like there is any way to maintain a solid 60fps without frequent dips and stutters into the 20s/30s/40s. It's really bizarre and not something I've encountered with any other game.

Crysis 2, by comparison, performs much better.

You forgot to mention that Crysis looked miles better than 2.

 

[Salbug]

For a game released nearly eight years ago, it also looks completely amazing.

This. I remember Crysis being the talk of the town in terms of how "next-gen" it looked back when it was originally released.

As for being poorly optimized? I'd say not considering it runs perfectly fine on my computer.

 

[Tain]

Hard to quantify, but I certainly think that Crysis looked great and ran appropriately well.

 

[Bleepey]

Nowadays only Ubisoft and Warner Bros shitty optimisation gives CPU and GPUs a workout.

 

[SunBroDave]

No. It scaled beautifully.

 

[ClaptoVaughn]

The game was so scalable if you dug into the config files, you could get it running fairly well and looking good (for the time) on even mid range gaming pcs.

Even if you had to run it on lowest settings, the size of the maps and freedom in gameplay was still impressive at the time.

 

[KKRT00]

Yes and no.
Yes in a sense that most of its features were optimized to hell in CE 3 and CPU scaling was bad due to being locked to two threads.
No, because it tried some completely new tech which we know is not always completely optimized when pioneered and it actually had decent lower quality settings.

It definitely used bruteforce approach for some of the stuff though.

---

You forgot to mention that Crysis looked miles better than 2.

No, it didnt.

 

[dgrdsv]

No. It scaled beautifully.

Not really. It scaled and is still scaling very poorly. That's the main issue CE2 had.
But it wasn't badly optimized.

 

[Demon Lizardman]

That final fucking boss had so much shit going on it crashed my game 3 times.

 

[Hystzen]

Shame only half of Crysis is amazing then totally falls apart it damn it looked nice

 

[Durante]

Far Cry 3 hardly ever was a "graphical" beast imo, it looked good for the time but has aged rather poorly.

In many ways, Far Cry 3 didn't even look good at the time. E.g. it's SSAO was terrible.


On the other hand, Crysis 1 basically invented SSAO, and its implementation still holds up visually. No, Crysis 1 was not "poorly optimized".

 

[Kezen]

In many ways, Far Cry 3 didn't even look good at the time. E.g. it's SSAO was terrible.

It had a "cartoony" look which was intentionnal I'd assume, but visually it didn't floor me at all. Indeed the crude black halo over everything was jarring but thankfully you could chose HBAO and HDAO.
The game employed a PBR pipeline (http://fr.slideshare.net/stevemcauley/calibrating-lighting-and-materials-in-far-cry-3) and had a nice GI from what I recall.

I would not rank it as equally impressive as Crysis back in 2007 however.

 

[SymbiantXenos]

But did you pick up the turtles on the beach and power throw them.

 

[Dictator93]

No.

It was from the god damn future. A future in which PCs spit blood and drank nails.

A lot of the "optimization" brought into C2 is quite different than one would think.
1. making the game engine more multi-threaded (4 cores only became super popular right before crysis shipped, so the game was only lightly threaded).
2. creating multi-tiered effects for different hardware configs. Instead of Very High turning on any and every effect, reduced graphical settings (high and to low) would still have the same effects but just with decreasing sample counts, accuracy, etc.

It was, Crytek admitted as much. They got pretty close to mid level (at the time) PC performance when they ported it to CryEngine 2 on PS360.

Games like Far Cry 2/3 and Crysis 2/3 are still graphical beasts on PC but much more hardware friendly.

Kind.... of. They say some things were bruteforced at the time (they invented them... hence)... but a lot of the optimization in the sequel was about thinking about scaling in a different manner.

 

[thelastword]

Surely, Crytek should have remastered Crysis 1 already to take advantage of more CPU cores, it's still a great looking game along with Warhead....... So the PC does need remasters afterall?? I'd surely jump in if they remade it using the latest Cryengine.

 

[Windom Earle]

The people in this thread saying it was optimized... Even a Crytek dev admitted it was an unoptimized mess!

 

[Dictator93]

The people in this thread saying it was optimized... Even a Crytek dev admitted it was an unoptimized mess!

Can you find those quotes? Because direct documentation regarding how they changed up things in C2 points to the fact that their were multiple paradigm shifts regarding settings and hardware and not the fact that the game was coded poorly.

Xzero never said the game was misusing hardware for example...

 

[The Lamonster]

I was able to maintain >30fps in Crysis on the mid-end $800 PC that I built in 2008. So I definitely don't consider that to be poorly optimized.

... Not on Ultra, obviously.

This was going to be my response. My 8800 GT was able to run this game fairly well at the time.

 

[Lazaro]

I don't know if Crysis is unoptimised but the graphics felt very raw.

Maybe the game runs like shit because none of the shaders are diluted?

 

[TheAdmiester]

Definitely unoptimised.

It came out in 2008 and I still can't max it at 60fps on a 980Ti/3570 combo (with only 2xMSAA at 1080p). There have been games since that run and look better, and since that's my basis I'll say definitely yes.

 

[Nokterian]

When i think back there were bugs at the start they did release a bunch of patches but my PC couldn't handle it anyway back then like it went haywire because i cranked up the graphics too much poor video card and cpu. But overall it still runs great and still looks great.