Crytek Releases 8K Crysis Remastered Trailer

[PanicLake]

The textures are magnificent, the particles look good too so do the reflections, but the models lack polygons, a lot of them.
I have a question though, how in the name of all that's holy in Chrome (8K) my hopeless RX5700 drops frames like hell, but in edge it works smoothly??

No issue here with Chrome and an 8 year old CPU (2600K) but I have a 2060 Super.

 

[watzupken]

While this is a good game back in the old days, remaking it is just trying to milk it further without going through as much effort as creating a new game. Also, I feel most people are likely just using this to see how "good" their graphics is, rather than enjoying the gameplay.

 

[Bubster]

I have to agree - although I have nothing against the remastered Crysis, it's a fact that out of all the games from that era (and quite a bit later as well) it almost certainly needs it the least. Just the other day I was at a friend's place and he had just installed it again (exactly in anticipation of the remaster - he's a huge fan of the series which I've never really been) and I have to say, it still looks great at 1440p and everything maxed out. The only real problem is its incredible single thread dependency - you rarely see more than 70 fps in most cases, unless looking at the sky (this wasn't helped by his 3700x, but still, I've never really seen more than about 85 anyway, regardless of cpu)

I get 80-90 Fps on 4K ultra on most games (SLI tweaked by Studio /developer)...something to do with settings perhaps???

 

[Vayra86]

Actually, you need to adjust yours. I'm not tying myself to a store, Epic is removing any choice for the consumer to buy a game (they didn't develop or publish) from other stores. There aren't many game stores, but there are certainly more than one, though that's not the case when Epic steals preorders for games out from under other stores they may have already been set up for presale at. That is the definition of anticompetitive. Don't try to claim "But the developers get more money from Epic!" Sure that's all well and good, but consumers as a group only care about price and availability. As a large group they do not care about the conditions behind that game... see Walmart's rise to retail dominance as an example of this group behavior. No one has boycotted any of the other game stores, including brick and mortar, because they collect 30% of the game revenue. Seriously, I have no idea how any of you Epic supporters can pull off these mental gymnastics to defend the removal of consumer choice as somehow being better than having an actual non-binary choice.

No. Just no. Sorry. Customer choice also means not buying. This will urge publishers to sell their content elsewhere and that will change competitiveness of EGs. That is how the market of supply and demand works. The publishers in the end want your dollar.

So far, it seems EGS is quite successful in tying customers to its platformand publishers are happy as their risk is substantially lower . Customers are winning free games that also serve to drive sales. All I see here is a successful business model with all stakeholders getting what they want. Thats the vakue of 13% right there, landing in everyones lap.

Everything else is emotion and therefore irrelevant. Nobody lost anything here and if you think you do, you really need to get help.

 

[Octopuss]

Actually, you need to adjust yours. I'm not tying myself to a store, Epic is removing any choice for the consumer to buy a game (they didn't develop or publish) from other stores. There aren't many game stores, but there are certainly more than one, though that's not the case when Epic steals preorders for games out from under other stores they may have already been set up for presale at. That is the definition of anticompetitive. Don't try to claim "But the developers get more money from Epic!" Sure that's all well and good, but consumers as a group only care about price and availability. As a large group they do not care about the conditions behind that game... see Walmart's rise to retail dominance as an example of this group behavior. No one has boycotted any of the other game stores, including brick and mortar, because they collect 30% of the game revenue. Seriously, I have no idea how any of you Epic supporters can pull off these mental gymnastics to defend the removal of consumer choice as somehow being better than having an actual non-binary choice.

Drugs are bad.

 

[Fluffmeister]

Boring remake. Meh~

I love Crysis as much as the next man and was blown away at the time, but the remastered version still looks dated.

 

[djisas]

Firefox also hates 8k...
I guess not even on edge it plays well...

 

[wrathchild_67]

Customer choice also means not buying.

Wow, that's a terrible argument. "Hey you used to have three+ places to buy this game that you were really looking forward to, now they're unavailable and you can only go to this one place to get it. They support developers, by giving them a larger cut, but you will still pay full price. Or you can wait a year for the game to be available at those other places. Don't like it? Don't buy it." That's not consumer choice. You really have no idea what anti-competitive means. There are many scenarios that describe anti-competitive business behavior and what Epic does with pre-orders is just one of them. Whether they remove the ability of one specific competitor, or many to sell the same product, it's textbook anti-competitive behavior. It doesn't matter what their public justification for doing this is, it's anti-competitive. There is no argument you can make otherwise.

Customers are winning free games that also serve to drive sales.

You speculate quite bit without evidence. There are many people who haven't spent a penny on the Epic store, they just collect the free games. That's exactly what they don't want. There are also people who are going to buy a particular game no matter what, whether it's on EGS, Steam, Windows Store, etc. But there are also many people who now won't buy the game at all, pirate it instead, or will wait a year for the exclusivity to end on the EGS simply because they don't like what Epic is doing.

 

[Vayra86]

Wow, that's a terrible argument. "Hey you used to have three+ places to buy this game that you were really looking forward to, now they're unavailable and you can only go to this one place to get it. They support developers, by giving them a larger cut, but you will still pay full price. Or you can wait a year for the game to be available at those other places. Don't like it? Don't buy it." That's not consumer choice. You really have no idea what anti-competitive means. There are many scenarios that describe anti-competitive business behavior and what Epic does with pre-orders is just one of them. Whether they remove the ability of one specific competitor, or many to sell the same product, it's textbook anti-competitive behavior. It doesn't matter what their public justification for doing this is, it's anti-competitive. There is no argument you can make otherwise.




You speculate quite bit without evidence. There are many people who haven't spent a penny on the Epic store, they just collect the free games. That's exactly what they don't want. There are also people who are going to buy a particular game no matter what, whether it's on EGS, Steam, Windows Store, etc. But there are also many people who now won't buy the game at all, pirate it instead, or will wait a year for the exclusivity to end on the EGS simply because they don't like what Epic is doing.

But you didn't have three+ places to buy said content before EGS either. You're living in fantasy land here. GOG has its exclusive content, for example in the shape of its retro gaming catalog that is all made to run on recent OS'es. Steam has a certain form of exclusivity through its long term investment in distribution, developers simply find it first because its too big to ignore, and generally only release on Steam because of the framework it offers them. At the same time, this enslaves them to the 30% cut. Steam also carves out a form of exclusivity through VR content. EGS is now another option for each of these developers. Thát is where the competition is happening. Its not a competition for us consumerrs, its one between publishers and distributors. We can just sit on the sidelines, eat popcorn and enjoy the rain of free content that is falling off the competition train as these giants fight their battle. If store A has a discount, we can enjoy that discount over there, and when Store B fights back, we can go to store B. You're not restricted in any way.

Steam is going to have to make a move if EGS is here to stay and so far, even just riding on the prolonged Fortnite success, they can keep doing as they do for a loooong time.

You describe the existence of another competitor to the market for distribution, as anti-competitive. It is twisted logic, and you're free to think otherwise, but this is how the market works. There is no law preventing EGS doing what it does, just as there is no precedent for what, for example, Apple and Google do on their platforms, locking everything down with a hefty distribution fee and buying up start ups left and right. In that sense, EGS is playing it very nicely, giving each developer full freedom in what they want to push on the store, and supporting them financially in doing so.

As good as GOG is for retro gaming and 'ownership' of games, EGS is for the publishers under its wing and for diversity in games as a whole. You can either see it or you don't. It is what it is, boycot all you like, its going to be your loss, and yours alone.

 

[razzaQ]

Now remake the original Far Cry pls!

Yes PLEASE !

I loved the original Far Cry !

 

[INSTG8R]

Time to get used to it.

I broke down....I also had a coupon apparently so I got it really cheap. Still feel dirty...

 

[Octopuss]

I watched a few streams for a while, and while the textures do look great, the geometry is painfully shit at times. What kind of remaster is it with crappy 10+ years old meshes?