Can It Run Crysis? An Analysis of Why a 13-Year-Old Game Is Still Talked About

[PEnnn]

I still have that GTX 8800, perfectly functional and stored safely in my closet.

I am tempted to slip it into my current PC and play Crysis on it again, just for the heck of it!! I remember the game ran quite well using it then; forgot though with CPU I had at the time, most likely a Pentium.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

I’m interested in playing it again for one reason. Back then my PC was pretty weak and my GPU while a GTX670 struggled big time. Worst of all I could never finish the game as the aircraft carrier level kept crashing and even when it didn’t it ran at like 5fps. It’s why I never bothered with Warhead. Be nice to run all three games again on my Zen 3 4700 and RDNA2 6800XT early next year.

 

[Lounds]

I think it really brought to the forefront the whole PC master race ideology of the only way to play PC games are at their highest graphic settings. I remember playing games like Fate of Atlantis, Monkey Island, Lands of Lore, and even Baldurs Gate and Half Life. Your main objective was always just getting the game to work. Patches were not downloaded but mailed to you. Even Half Life 2 was well optimized. Crysis came along and now it wasn't enough to play the game but to play it at the highest graphic level (I played it on medium setting on a 8600GT and it ran fine). People would comment a gaming PC that couldn't handle Crysis was a complete "waste of money" and you still see it today in comments when people post their potential game builds for feedback.

I also completed it on a 8600GT 256MB at Medium haha, I guess that would be similar to using a 1050/ti in today's terms as mine was powered by the PCIE port. I think I played it at 1024x768 as 1280x1024 was a big hit on performance without lowering the settings even further. I also ran it with a P4 @3ghz with 1GB of RAM lol.

 

[dirtyferret]

I also completed it on a 8600GT 256MB at Medium haha, I guess that would be similar to using a 1050/ti in today's terms as mine was powered by the PCIE port. I think I played it at 1024x768 as 1280x1024 was a big hit on performance without lowering the settings even further. I also ran it with a P4 @3ghz with 1GB of RAM lol.

off the top of my head I think my set up back then was an AMD Windsor Athlon 64 x2 6000 for a CPU. I want to say it was an Evga brand 8600GT but it had 512mb of ram and my system had 2GB of DDR3 800mhz ram. I was probably getting around 30FPS on my 1600x900 monitor.

 

[Randomneko]

That argument has been going on since the NES vs. SEGA wars.

I remember the ridiculous blast processing ads. The way of graphics

True enough today but to be fair at NES time graphics generally did indicate better games as most games were beyond redemption. Good graphics normally implied that development is not done by a guy without the first clue about graphics and game design. For every Contra/Mario there were dozens Bokosuka Wars/Jackyl and Hyde etc.
*AVGN intensifies*

Yeah the argument today is centered around the fight between AAA and indie with the former focusing on graphics to the detriment of story and gameplay. I can't count the amount of "pretty" empty experiences being churned out today. I'd say the graphics argument is done. I'd rather chunky sprites and compelling gameplay that doesn't bow down to the almighty focus test full of teenage boys lol.

 

[QuantumPhysics]

I remember the ridiculous blast processing ads.

SNES had superior graphics and sound. More importantly it had more buttons on the controllers for more functions.

 

[sac39507]

How about a reboot of the original Far Cry. That was awesome as well.

 

[fps4ever]

How about a reboot of the original Far Cry. That was awesome as well.

Plus one. I played it over with mods and really enjoyed it.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Fantastic article!

But lets face it, strip away the technical aspects of Crysis and it's just a very mediocre FPS.

We're only talking about it 13yrs later for all the wrong reasons.

Disagree. I felt it had very good gameplay elements as well. It was a rather open-world shooter that didn't follow the typical linear formula of forcing you to go from point A to point B by doing XYZ. Crysis 1 had a large open world in most of its levels and allowed you many different ways to accomplish an objective. Crysis also came out when many other FPS games were incredibly linear, so that should be counted as progress for its time.

 

[loki1944]

Disagree. I felt it had very good gameplay elements as well. It was a rather open-world shooter that didn't follow the typical linear formula of forcing you to go from point A to point B by doing XYZ. Crysis 1 had a large open world in most of its levels and allowed you many different ways to accomplish an objective. Crysis also came out when many other FPS games were incredibly linear, so that should be counted as progress for its time.

If you look at games like Daggerfall/Morrowind/Oblivion Crysis seems extremely limited in terms of open world. Far Cry 2 is really the game changer in my mind, not Crysis, as far as open world FPS, more so than Fallout 3 in terms of FPS centric mechanics.

 

[m3tavision]

I've been gaming since Wizardry....

It is articles like this, that inform the general gaming populace of epoch and history of gaming tech. Again, thank you....


Raster(ization) is what Gamer's want/need, everything else is just fluff.

 

[Arbie]

If you look at games like Daggerfall/Morrowind/Oblivion Crysis seems extremely limited in terms of open world. Far Cry 2 is really the game changer in my mind, not Crysis, as far as open world FPS...

Bluescreendeath stated it well. Crysis was more open than people realize. It did have fixed waypoints but there was great leeway between them. With its ability to save any number of starting points, you can go back and experiment with *not* following the indicated paths.

Far Cry 2, for all its openness (and in part because of that), was junk in comparison. Endless boring running around, using clunky weapons to fight stupid enemies. Plus game-breaking bugs. I pre-ordered it based on its roots and what must have been a drug-induced PC Gamer review. So I gave it a real chance. Worthless, and the sequels have only slowly improved.

 

[Dimitrios]

During vacation last year, I sat and played through Crysis, and Crysis 2. I only ever had Crysis 3 on Xbox. Did it on a 15" laptop with a GTX 1060, Core i7 and 16GB DDR4 with SSD.

All settings were turned to Max (on both games) and the resolution was 1080p.

It looked absolutely fabulous with water effects and jungle foilage that easily put just about every game made today to shame. Shoot through trees and they break- and can kill people they fall on. Demolishable buildings. Just about everything is interactive.

It's astonishing that game could even be made back in 2007.

Thing is, you literally saw the Crysis franchise wither on the vine from one main problem: exclusivity.
The market punishes exclusion.

Games like Fortnite and PUBG made themselves as inclusive as possible and are worth so much more.
The same can be said about Far Cry 3, 4 and 5.

Building a game that many people can't run, feel they can't run (despite scalability) or are poorly marketed too is a death sentence for a game.

Personally, I love Crysis, but I think most gamers pretty much got bored with it when the battles shifted from wide open sand box battles against specifically NORTH KOREANS to boring aliens.

I appreciate being able to kill enemies that look and act like "people". I never appreciated them shifting to "helmeted stormtroopers" in Crysis 2 and 3. A game so technologically sophisticated shouldn't have to take away unique enemies.

They could have sealed the deal with realistic blood, gore and death animations which games like Soldier of Fortune had way back in 1998.

Better AI like FEAR or Half Life would have worked as well. The enemies aren't very smart, but like Rainbow 6 Vegas, they are deadly because of pinpoint aiming.

View attachment 86844

Well said!

 

[loki1944]

Bluescreendeath stated it well. Crysis was more open than people realize. It did have fixed waypoints but there was great leeway between them. With its ability to save any number of starting points, you can go back and experiment with *not* following the indicated paths.

Far Cry 2, for all its openness (and in part because of that), was junk in comparison. Endless boring running around, using clunky weapons to fight stupid enemies. Plus game-breaking bugs. I pre-ordered it based on its roots and what must have been a drug-induced PC Gamer review. So I gave it a real chance. Worthless, and the sequels have only slowly improved.

Actually the sequels are worse.

15 things Far Cry 2 did better than Far Cry 5 | GameGrin

Far Cry 5 has recently launched, to vaguely positive reviews from the press.

www.gamegrin.com

10 years in, 'Far Cry 2' is still the most exciting of the series | Digital Trends

Far Cry 5 had problems blending story and gameplay. It should take a page from the series’ most experimental entry, Far Cry 2.

www.digitaltrends.com

Guns jam in real life. If you were aimlessly running around then you can't read a map. Compared to Crysis's almost corridor open world and bland story you can't even compare the two. It's a testament to Far Cry 2's environment and detail that I am often transported back to Africa when playing it.

 

[Eldritch]

Actually the sequels are worse.

15 things Far Cry 2 did better than Far Cry 5 | GameGrin

Far Cry 5 has recently launched, to vaguely positive reviews from the press.

www.gamegrin.com

10 years in, 'Far Cry 2' is still the most exciting of the series | Digital Trends

Far Cry 5 had problems blending story and gameplay. It should take a page from the series’ most experimental entry, Far Cry 2.

www.digitaltrends.com

Guns jam in real life. If you were aimlessly running around then you can't read a map. Compared to Crysis's almost corridor open world and bland story you can't even compare the two. It's a testament to Far Cry 2's environment and detail that I am often transported back to Africa when playing it.

Something as simple as having only a desolate bus stand with almost junk buses for you to travel back after a mission made the game that much more closer to real Africa.
Player having malaria, lack of medicine and warlords also helped.

 

[MaxSmarties]

Short answer: it was poorly written .

By the way, very good article.

 

[Yad]

I dont agree with you one bit. Crysis was, in my opinion, the last true groundbreaking games in terms of graphics, till this day. Everything was destructible, dinamic, and with some mods apllied it was photo realistic. This happened because they made it with the a high-end PC capabilities in mind, which are vastly superior than any console out there. Every other game is made with consoles in mind, since money talks.

Agreed.

For the time it was unrealistic,I remember I had to go to Lan Games places to play it as my pc couldnt handle it at the time.

 

[toooooot]

I purchased all 3 on Steam just to show that I appreciate games like this. I am deeply saddened that in the last 10 years so many games took a path of anime type graphics, giving up any attempts to improve realistic graphics, physics and new graphical innovations.
I still have a dream to one day play a game that looks 100% realistic and where I would be asking myself if it is real or not.

 

[actionjksn]

My first Video game was Far Cry, I had a P4 with a 6800GT graphics card and 1.5 or so gigs of ram, which was pretty good back then. Most new PC's had 512MB. I also used Vista on that system and it ran perfectly. The people having problems were the ones without enough RAM and integrated graphics. Far Cry had fantastic graphics.

Later on I built a system for Crysis. It had a Q9550 with 2 gigs of OCZ DDR2 RAM and dual GTX 275's in SLI, Antec TPQ 1000 power supply. I was so proud of that system, it's actually sitting right behind me and hasn't booted booted up in years. I have a laptop now but if I build another one I will probably use the old CoolerMaster case, it still looks good. Not sure if the old Antec will work on a new system but it's in great shape. I would not be afraid if it's compatible.

I know a lot of the real gamers love to say how the game looks doesn't matter at all and cartoon looking $hit is fantastic. I disagree, I want things to look as realistic as possible. I would love to see another Crysis that just hammers the $hit out of your system and brings cutting edge graphics that look better than anything else. That would probably inspire me to build a new system.

 

[Markoni35]

I also used Vista on that system and it ran perfectly.

That sounds so strange...... "Vista ran perfectly".

It's almost like saying: "Windows 8 was a fantastic OS, pity they releasd Windows 8.1"

 

[Arbie]

It's a testament to Far Cry 2's environment and detail that I am often transported back to Africa when playing it.

I agree that if you want an Africa simulator, FC2 is probably unmatched. My complaints against it are as an FPS; and BTW none of them were against the "realism" aspects. Don't attack what I didn't say.

 

[OptimumSlinky]

Correction: Dunia has, almost exclusively, only been used to power the Far Cry franchise under Ubisoft. Assassin's Creed games (including ACII) run off the Anvil and then AnvilNext engines.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

If you look at games like Daggerfall/Morrowind/Oblivion Crysis seems extremely limited in terms of open world. Far Cry 2 is really the game changer in my mind, not Crysis, as far as open world FPS, more so than Fallout 3 in terms of FPS centric mechanics.

It certainly doesn't compare to true open world games like Elder Scrolls RPGs, but it was a good hybrid of linear-story line driven games with scripted moments and the less story driven true open world FPS. It has far more open world elements than FPS games such as the COD series or Metro 1 & 2, and it has more story driven elements and scripted moments than total open worlds like the Far Cry series.

To me, that is a good balance of giving the player enough freedom, but not so much freedom that you remove most of the scripted/story driven gameplay that it becomes redundant and boring (eg. Far Cry 2-5 after a few hours of gameplay).

Crysis 1 (and Crysis Warhead) was the perfect balance of semi-open world + scripted story driven moments and it never became boring for me. I had a blast playing it from start to finish and playing it multiple times to try out different methods (eg. ignoring the missions where you drive a vehicle and just go on foot the entire time).

True open world shooter games like Far Cry 3 became boring around the same span of time because it was all the same cookie cutter randomly generated missions and randomly generated enemies without the epicness or uniqueness that well done scripted events and story-driven events could provide.

 

[Arbie]

Bluescreendeath puts it exactly right.

To anyone who simply passed on the Crysis series because of all the bad-mouthing - you missed gems that are still ahead of the pack. If you tried Crysis long ago and didn't like it, maybe try again now. These games hold up really, really well, for all the reasons that have been listed here.