A new Crysis game is seemingly on the way

Humza

Posts: 776   +161
Staff member

The gaming community holds a special place in its heart for EA's Crysis franchise. The sci-fi shooter trilogy developed by Crytek featured an engaging story and gameplay mechanics, but what really stood out in the series were the gorgeous visuals that humbled even the most powerful rigs at the time and made it an unofficial hardware benchmark for years to come.

The graphics also garnered plenty of interest from modders, one of whom managed to run the game at 8K at a mighty 2 fps on 2014 hardware, while a more recent experiment added ray tracing. In both cases, the results only spoke of Crytek's impressive achievements from seven years ago.

With all the tech advancements taking place since then, the time seemed ripe for a new Crysis game packed with the latest graphical bells and whistles to once again push current and upcoming hardware to its limits. Thankfully, a new tweet from the game's official Twitter account is a strong indication of that happening.

Whether the new title is Crysis 4 or a remaster of previous releases remains to be seen, but what's almost certain is that the new game will be built on Crytek's technically ambitious CryEngine, whose ray-tracing capabilities were shown off in the Neon Noir demo last year.

A modern Crysis on the latest PC hardware and upcoming consoles could well set the bar for gaming visuals once again, which is why this teaser has not only got fans excited but also received amusing replies from big names like Xbox, Nvidia, and Corsair.

Permalink to story.

 

yRaz

Posts: 3,476   +3,116
I Would love a remaster of the original Crysis, it was not only amazing visually but also a great work of Sci-Fi. I still play Crysis 1 about once a year and I wish they would have expanded on the world in that tropical Climate.

Frankly, I think the reason the reason that the Crysis sequels didn't do as well as they could have was because of the environmental settings. They went from a beautiful world to a run down, dystopian world and it really hurt the visuals. The sequels were built on a better engine but the setting couldn't show case its potential. I think "you can't polish a turd" is an appropriate way to describe them. It doesn't matter how good the engine is, if the setting is ugly the game will look ugly.
 

Adi6293

Posts: 634   +786
I would love a remaster since Crysis 1 still works like crap on modern computers, but it has to be said the story in those games was super rubbish I just loved going invisible and the nano suit voice was great : - P
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter Farkas

Adi6293

Posts: 634   +786
I Would love a remaster of the original Crysis, it was not only amazing visually but also a great work of Sci-Fi. I still play Crysis 1 about once a year and I wish they would have expanded on the world in that tropical Climate.

Frankly, I think the reason the reason that the Crysis sequels didn't do as well as they could have was because of the environmental settings. They went from a beautiful world to a run down, dystopian world and it really hurt the visuals. The sequels were built on a better engine but the setting couldn't show case its potential. I think "you can't polish a turd" is an appropriate way to describe them. It doesn't matter how good the engine is, if the setting is ugly the game will look ugly.
I think the setting was fine, not as good as jungle Ofc but the story was terrible and made little sense going from 1 > 2 > 3
 

yRaz

Posts: 3,476   +3,116
I think the setting was fine, not as good as jungle Ofc but the story was terrible and made little sense going from 1 > 2 > 3
I can see that. Really, it was Crysis 2 that killed it for me because of the cramped, close quarters stuff they tried to pull. They wanted to put Crysis 2 on consoles and they had to make compromises in the environment to account for that.

Crysis 1 had TONS of potential to build on as far as Sci-fi goes. The mountain falling apart towards the end of the game was intense. I Always thought that it would have been cool to have crysis 1 as an open world map like we see in so many games today.

From best to worst I'm going to say its 1>3>2. I blame EA for 2 and 3 was basically Crytek repairing damage done to 2 by EA executives.
 

Dimitrios

Posts: 706   +553
I can see that. Really, it was Crysis 2 that killed it for me because of the cramped, close quarters stuff they tried to pull. They wanted to put Crysis 2 on consoles and they had to make compromises in the environment to account for that.

Crysis 1 had TONS of potential to build on as far as Sci-fi goes. The mountain falling apart towards the end of the game was intense. I Always thought that it would have been cool to have crysis 1 as an open world map like we see in so many games today.

From best to worst I'm going to say its 1>3>2. I blame EA for 2 and 3 was basically Crytek repairing damage done to 2 by EA executives.
So agree!
 

Arbie

Posts: 176   +336
I absolutely loved - and still do love - playing the original Crysis AND its successors. With isolated exceptions (!) the game engine is superb, the AI excellent, the level design outstanding, and the production top-notch. Crysis 2 and 3 made some concessions as console games - primarily in less-fluid combat - but still provide jaw-dropping graphics, meticulous design, good scripts, perfect voice acting, great music, and terrific gameplay. The boss battles in 3, especially, are just magnificent.

Crysis 1 / Warhead also had "quicksave" so you could try and retry endless variations on tactics over the wide range of levels and combat situations. This extended the replay value to nearly infinite and was, *****ically, dropped in the Crysis 2 & 3 as some kind of bow to console praxis.

In Crysis 1 I disliked only the post-mine sequence, travelling through the cave; and I found the ice levels less intuitive and more linear than the first half. But, so much else was wonderful.

Crysis was so hyped before release that massive numbers of gamers were poised to hate it. They found an excuse in the graphics settings, where Crytek had unwisely attempted some future-proofing. Despite it obviously being beyond the capabilities of 2007-08 GPUs, users insisted on turning the graphics "up to 11" - and then bitching about performance! Go figure.

In fact the game was incredibly scalable. I first played it on a GeForce 4 card with 256MB, on a circa 2000 Pentium. This was at minimum resolution, but it ran and was a blast. Today it runs on my Dell tablet. To ever question its playability was either specious trolling or truly ignorant.

I constantly look for another FPS with anything like the gameplay and polish of the Crysis quad. But we get almost nothing beyond endless stupid melee concoctions. Instead of enemies intelligently taking cover, standing off, or flanking, they just mindlessly run at you. That's because melee requires only a fraction of the programming smarts as do Crysis-level ranged tactics. When we do get something with a few brains, the combat mechanics (movement, weapon aiming etc) are wretchedly clunky compared to all the Crysis games.

But after Crysis 3... nothing. I bought "Hunt" partly to throw some support to Crytek but the graphics and combat are really inferior. A new Crysis in the mold of the first would be fantastic. Hoping...
 

sac39507

Posts: 355   +179
I absolutely loved - and still do love - playing the original Crysis AND its successors. With isolated exceptions (!) the game engine is superb, the AI excellent, the level design outstanding, and the production top-notch. Crysis 2 and 3 made some concessions as console games - primarily in less-fluid combat - but still provide jaw-dropping graphics, meticulous design, good scripts, perfect voice acting, great music, and terrific gameplay. The boss battles in 3, especially, are just magnificent.

Crysis 1 / Warhead also had "quicksave" so you could try and retry endless variations on tactics over the wide range of levels and combat situations. This extended the replay value to nearly infinite and was, *****ically, dropped in the Crysis 2 & 3 as some kind of bow to console praxis.

In Crysis 1 I disliked only the post-mine sequence, travelling through the cave; and I found the ice levels less intuitive and more linear than the first half. But, so much else was wonderful.

Crysis was so hyped before release that massive numbers of gamers were poised to hate it. They found an excuse in the graphics settings, where Crytek had unwisely attempted some future-proofing. Despite it obviously being beyond the capabilities of 2007-08 GPUs, users insisted on turning the graphics "up to 11" - and then bitching about performance! Go figure.

In fact the game was incredibly scalable. I first played it on a GeForce 4 card with 256MB, on a circa 2000 Pentium. This was at minimum resolution, but it ran and was a blast. Today it runs on my Dell tablet. To ever question its playability was either specious trolling or truly ignorant.

I constantly look for another FPS with anything like the gameplay and polish of the Crysis quad. But we get almost nothing beyond endless stupid melee concoctions. Instead of enemies intelligently taking cover, standing off, or flanking, they just mindlessly run at you. That's because melee requires only a fraction of the programming smarts as do Crysis-level ranged tactics. When we do get something with a few brains, the combat mechanics (movement, weapon aiming etc) are wretchedly clunky compared to all the Crysis games.

But after Crysis 3... nothing. I bought "Hunt" partly to throw some support to Crytek but the graphics and combat are really inferior. A new Crysis in the mold of the first would be fantastic. Hoping...
I agree, the first was awesome and better than some of today's games. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it the first game where you could interact with any object in the game? I loved picking up the animals and chucking it at an enemy
 

Xclusiveitalian

Posts: 834   +226
Watch how they f this up! Crysis is going to get a next level upgrade!!!!.... runs on Xbox One X at 60 FPS and 5 year old PCs run it fine because it was limited by Consoles, eh no thanks, we have mods. Do it right or don't do it at all.
 

ross01

Posts: 46   +19
I Would love a remaster of the original Crysis, it was not only amazing visually but also a great work of Sci-Fi. I still play Crysis 1 about once a year and I wish they would have expanded on the world in that tropical Climate.

Frankly, I think the reason the reason that the Crysis sequels didn't do as well as they could have was because of the environmental settings. They went from a beautiful world to a run down, dystopian world and it really hurt the visuals. The sequels were built on a better engine but the setting couldn't show case its potential. I think "you can't polish a turd" is an appropriate way to describe them. It doesn't matter how good the engine is, if the setting is ugly the game will look ugly.
this guy just called crysis a turd , that's blasphemy. you will be HANGED SIR, I say hanged good day to you.
 

3ogdy

Posts: 27   +15
Played the games. Loved Crysis 3. Amazing games and here's hope they come up with Crysis 4 or 3 UHD.
 

Markoni35

Posts: 866   +339
Crysis 1 was slow because it had huge open natural environments, with real-time shadows and lighting, which was a novelty at that time. While games like PUBG are equally slow as Crysis 1, but with horrible graphics, much worse than Crysis 1, even though it's a much newer game. Crysis 1 has an excuse for being slow, PUBG is just crap.

But nowadays graphics cards are monsters and I'm pretty sure that new Crysis will look fantastic while running smoothly on new hardware.