Crysis remastered

>high-quality textures
>an HD texture pack
????
>state-of-the-art depth fields
>motion blur
whoa

Attached: 1569260542281.jpg (546x896, 90.58K)

Sounds great but I'm immeasurably disappointed that consoles are getting it too. The original was a PC exclusive that show cased crytek's technology. It's not supposed to be a console game. Fuck console scum. They ruined PC's MW2. Now they want Crysis too.

Attached: 32862ca707d613ffbfe385cd0ae7b9301bbf8acd32d608dd79ea8ac87c36598f.gif (132x99, 20.66K)

Maybe the charade of this game actually being good will finally end once more people have a chance to play it.

>wont it look exactly the same?
Maybe for the Switch version
The original game didn't age well.

Attached: ScreenShot_55.jpg (1920x1080, 1.58M)

No. If anything the "just a tech demo" autism will finally die once more people play it. It'll especially die once more people play Warhead, which doubles down on the good gameplay from Crysis while trimming everything else.

>Why make a game when you can sell a existing game twice?
Crytek have made plenty of games.

The Climb
Robinson: The Journey
Hunt: Showdown

They're revisiting the Crysis IP because it's close their heart and people love it. If they're making Crysis 4, it makes sense to make a shiny new version of Crysis.

There's a reason people only talk about the first half of the game where you're bullying gooks, the second half is fucking awful with muh aliums.

I can't imagine playing delta difficulty with a controller.

Well it is a tech demo though, however it's a legitimately good game as well.

>how can you improve the graphics of a 13 year old game

Basically, it means they're replacing and upgrading a lot of textures in the game. And on top of that, the PC version will have an HD texture pack with none of the textures resized to make them more efficient. Maybe the Xbox One X will get it, too.
>motion blur
Crysis 1's motion blur isn't directional. It can't blur things moving towards and away from the camera. Only rotationally. This was one of Crysis 2's big improvements.

Is Crysis Engine good if I want to make something quick or is it too complicated

Name 1 (one) game with better graphics. The best looking game of the last ten years is FFVII, a game that is 23 years old and looks fifteen.

Attached: final-fantasy-vii-remake-graphics-ps4-ps4-pro.original.jpg (3840x2160, 540.42K)

People who don't like the Ceph are a vocal minority. They're just like the people who don't like the Skedar in Perfect Dark.

If they use the ray tracing like in their neon noir demo I bet it will look pretty. For the uninitiated the ray tracing Crytek used doesn't require RTX cards.

GORE
GIBS
IT IS 2020
ENOUGH WITH SHITTY 2000S RAGDOLLS

You port it to the latest Cryengine so it can take advantage of proper multithreading and all the new rendering features that have been added over the years so it no longer looks like hot aliased garbage and runs at 30FPS average on a fucking Titan because of the hardcore CPU bottleneck and you also recycle all the high quality assets used for the Island DLC they made for Crysis 3.

They're gonna use it to show off their in-house raytracing solution, at least on the PC version. The swtich version will be a complete meme

>Is Crysis Engine good if I want to make something quick or is it too complicated
Solid engine with decent tools, but it doesn't have kind of accessable dev community and documentation that Unreal has. It being "hard to use" is overblown. In a lot of ways, CryEngine was way ahead of its time. It has a realtime editor. Always did. You'd just place things in the map, hit CTRL+G, and you'd spawn where the editor camera was. So much better than Unreal and id Tech and Source and all those other engines. Back in the mid-2000s, CryEngine should have been bigger. It was just so much better than the other engines for a lot of stuff.

>Name 1 (one) game with better graphics.
Crysis 2.
Crysis 3.
A lot of games.

The remaster is going to look how people THINK Crysis looks in their heads.

Attached: crysis3_2013_02_19_01brs9w.jpg (1920x1080, 640.65K)

>Switch
Oh God what the fuck. Yes I know the NVIDIA shield with a similar chip can run Crysis 3 but this is just ridiculous.

that's not maxed out. here's what the game looks like maxed-out.

Attached: 1557870538750.jpg (3840x2160, 3.7M)

>The swtich version will be a complete meme
No, I think it'll be a new tech showcase for the Switch. Remember that Crysis 1 is one of the most impressive games for 360/PS3. The Switch is a lot more powerful than them, so it'll get a fairly impressive port, hopefully.

This looks better than the other 2 CoD-style console Crysis games.

of course most assets are low-res, the best card at the time had 500mb of VRAM

>13 years later
>Cryshills still pretend their """"game""" has the best graphics of all time

That tree aliasing can actually be fixed

No, that's just a cherry picked position and time of day. Crysis has really bad aliasing and the texture quality is all over the shop, and it can't handle indirect lighting.

Attached: 17300_screenshots_20200323223152_1.jpg (1920x1080, 397.83K)

by injecting some better AA, right? but then there's no option to disable the integrated Edge AA I think.

Don't be delusional. Crysis 3 looks better than Crysis 1 in every single measurable aspect. Crysis PS3/360 has massively better lighting than Crysis PC. The nostalgia goggles for Crysis PC are absurd.

Attached: Crysis GI PC vs 360.png (1280x1440, 1.29M)

Unironically based anti nostalgia faggotry answer
Also Remaster can usually be made to fix performances or both (see Borderlands 2 Remastered) instead of just graphics/textures

>graphic will be better than Battlefront EA, Battlefield 5 and modded GTA 5
>gameplay will be dumbed down for console like Crysis 2 and 3

No matter how much you mod it, Crysis PC can't look like this. And the new remaster is going to have Voxel GI and directional AO, in addition to ray tracing tech. It's going to look amazing.

Attached: Crysis 360 Lighting.png (1280x720, 784.43K)

>mad
>posting obviously low settings pic
I never understood your camp and never will. Crysis 2 and 3 are console CoD shit with worse graphics, period.

But will they fix the terrible shooting and garbage campaign though?

Crytek had no choice but to develop global illumination solutions for Crysis 2 because the game takes place in urban environments where you're often not in direct sunlight. They need to make the sunlight look natural when you were in alleyways, building interiors, etc. They did a pretty good job. That same year, DICE were doing similar stuff with Battlefield 3.

Attached: Lighting_001.bmp.jpg (1280x720, 124.61K)

Crysis 3 and 2 were also both better games gameplay-wise, even if the latter was more of a corridor.
Crysis original was too easy except for the part where you are actually still forced into a corridor like in Crysis 2 (freezing island)
At least Crysis 2 had better gunplay and more useful nanosuit powers

>>gameplay will be dumbed down for console like Crysis 2 and 3
Have you ever actually played Crysis PS3/360? People I feel like most of the people whining about the controls conflate Crysis 2 and 3 which were intentionally much slower with the control schemes themselves.

Reducing shader quality disables it, but it also kills SSAO.

Partially unrelated but imagine BF3/4 style multiplayer with vehicles and Nanosuits...damn
Now I want Crysisfield

Attached: 1587236779996.png (900x722, 197.44K)

>temporal anti-aliasing
Urgh

Attached: 1584942383256.jpg (436x365, 17.55K)

will the volumetric clouds in the beginning still rape my computer

I'll never understand why Crysis attracts such high levels of PC Mustard Race autism while Far Cry seems relatively unaffected. If anything, a lot of people openly beg for Far Cry Instincts to be ported to PC.

the hell were they even thinking making a game PCs couldn't even run at the time

this one is running at medium or maybe high. You can tell because it's lacking any post processing except bloom and a bit of antialiasing, and the LOD is very low.

Attached: 1585553409869.jpg (2560x1440, 955.26K)