So, running an 13 year old game on your current engine with all old assets is called "remaster". Cool story bro.

labidas:

So, running an 13 year old game on your current engine with all old assets is called "remaster". Cool story bro.

You don't know which assets are those, neither what engine version it is now. Personally I found that trailer made it look worse than original in more than one instance. Everything looked low quality and unpolished. Definitely needs more work, and I do hope for extra content. Tweaking graphics alone just won't cut it. If crytek wants for people to talk about them again - the graphical leap needs to be massive. But then again "crysis on switch" so what am I hoping for won't happen.

They did nothing with the xbox 360 version when it appeared on the XBO back compat in 2018, although on the XBX version at least it is locked to 30fps and does not dip below that, unlike the 360 version which was always all over the place.

Trailer reminds me of running that 10+ years ago on 8800gtx, but moments where it was possibly worse?? I'm more worried that Crytek themselves released the trailer thinking that it was going to be a positive impression of their product. Doesn't bode well for the future to me.

I'm not sure why, but the bit 28 seconds in just didn't give me the wow factor I got from the original or hoped from the remaster. Lacked depth and "pop". Perhaps it's my lofty expectations or rose tinted glasses.

Crysis: Reshaded

Sorta, lighting and many of the post processing effects and shaders are clearly a lot better as is a lot of the materials and textures but the immediately visible cuts to vegetation and overall draw distance / level of detail makes it look like a step back plus things like the ray traced reflections are more subtle with focus on the initial beach area not really showcasing those very well. There's some clear upgrades and improvements for this version of Cry-Engine and what it can do for the game but the media and trailers also shows various cuts to I assume balance performance and it doesn't showcase some of these effects all that great though the comparison images available already do show a bit of what they have improved though also much that needs additional work so the delay is quite welcome but we'll see how much they can fix and if that will be enough or not. 🙂 https://metacouncil.com/threads/crysis-remaster-is-most-certainly-happening.1927/page-2 The color saturation and change to time of day and overall look of the game is a bit mixed and many of the materials seem overly reflective and then improvements to various shaders and assets though offset by reduced vegetation and a lower LOD distance. No info on gameplay far as I can tell so unknown if that has seen any changes.

Am I the only one worried about the 3rd paragraph where they mentioned a 'storefront'. Like what? That an In game store to sell us skins or something? Cause if so nope I'm out.

They could not figure that out themselves before releasing the trailer? This does not bode well for this project.

Crysis was a great game, but not all great games age well. Games back then were beautiful can't compete with newer tittles. And people will criticise hard if you just stick new textures and do a couple of tweaks. The game needs to be colour corrected, SSAO, TAA, Tesselation, god rays, AO, etc.

Wait, this means that crap that was leaked before was really supposed to be the actual graphics of the remaster!? 😱 I´m speechless... And i´m a Crysis fan.

Embra:

They could not figure that out themselves before releasing the trailer? This does not bode well for this project.

Not boding well is an understatement. When EA or Ubisoft publish a trailer, they cherry-pick all the moments that look best and aren't broken. In many game trailers, they just use pre-rendered/scripted cutscenes rather than actual gameplay. Then when you play the game, you find out you need 10GB of patches and it's still a broken mess. With Crysis, not even the trailer looks good. That's a pretty major screwup when the one thing you can artificially improve still looks bad. Although Crysis wasn't a bad game, the gameplay wasn't particularly special either. It was largely known for being graphically and technologically way ahead of its time (and as a result, made for a good benchmark) so when the remaster is graphically worse and technologically boring, kinda gets you to wonder what exactly Crytek was hoping to achieve here. I agree with @ITGuru that they'd have been better off remastering Farcry.

It's sad to think they're so broke there's no way they could make a new Crysis game and had to go for a Remaster. It's tragic to think they managed to completely fail at remastering by somehow making the game look worse than it used to...

Well I not played Crysis for a long time, but from what I remember this doesn't look much different to the original in terms of graphics. I suppose you gotta do comparitive screenshots or something to know for sure.

The original game by this point is pretty flat looking which is something the prior X360 version already addressed but with shortcomings of their own for what compromises were needed even though the game now ran on Cry Engine 3.x instead of 2.x for that port. This adds more of that and other effects but again has some compromises and the implementation from the trailer appears to be very over saturated and with a lower gamma curve almost or very heavy contrast combined with a much stronger color filter particularly the greens although some areas are also seeing some heavy blues and some of the effects like the implementation of the new fog and global illumination effects might be part of why it kinda bleeds through like that until improved. No idea what the trailer was going for though mixing in earlier 2006 - 2007 moments with the remade version of the game should have focused more on the included tech and comparisons instead of trying to redo the existing footage in the new build for the game and more clear comparisons of what they did add or update. EDIT: Trailer footage doesn't make for the best source for comparisons either but plenty were made between the original and the new version and even the X360 version. 🙂 https://www.dsogaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Crysis-vanilla-PC-graphics-comparison-3.jpg https://www.dsogaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Crysis-Remastered-graphics-comparison-3.jpg https://www.dsogaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Crysis-vanilla-PC-graphics-comparison-4.jpg https://www.dsogaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Crysis-Remastered-graphics-comparison-4.jpg EDIT: I think they're on the right track for a remaster here although it needs more work and I don't know if they have enough time even with this delay to do as much as would be required but we'll see. 🙂 There's been worse attempts, there's been better too almost on par with a remake and then there's the in-between that could be good but has tech issues or other flaws.

Most of these remakes are merely feeding off of player nostalgia sadly. We should not support them unless they are actually remade in some manner with new tech. Pretty much a money grab.

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

Crytek postpones Crysis Remastered. The developer made that decision after many negative reactions appeared when leaked trailer got out. Crytek wants to improve the game to better meet the expectation... Crytek postpones Crysis Remastered after criticism of leaked trailer

Too bloody right, that trailer was embarrassing. I am guessing more folk bought the original Crysis for it's visuals and to see how their PC at the time would cope than the gameplay, especially since the gameplay starts out ok and tails off too boring. So a trailer of a 'remaster' that has questionably improved visuals, certainly nothing that matches up with today's standards and no signs of changes or improvements to the gameplay only leads too one question. Who exactly was this trailer aiming the game at?

This fail just reminded me how low Crytek has fallen, scratch that, I'm actually surprised they still exist, I thought they long ago gone bankrupt.

Hunt Showdown probably helped but the missteps early on with multiple studios and venturing into VR and how licensing for the engine faded in favor of Unity and Unreal Engine plus the sale to Amazon resulting in Lumberyard and legals around Star Citizen could probably have worked out better. Not sure how Hunt is doing actually but it sounds like it is getting updated and has a active player base so it can't be doing too badly much as the market for both free and paid online gaming is incredibly competitive though developers are still actively trying to break into it but only a few are hitting the huge payoffs from this. (Ubisoft is doing a reveal soon of another free to play game I hear.) ...They're not doing collectible online mobile games yet at least. (Think that's a billion dollar industry now, small surprise it's so popular but also incredibly risky.) EDIT: This is handled by a external studio as well, wonder if releasing on Switch is a big target though the other platforms could also help but ports like Witcher 3 probably saw increased interest from several publishers not that everything will be that successful and then the port itself kinda has to be good too or at least playable. (Not that this is anything new, PC's aren't the only systems which has had to deal with rough borderline unplayable if not worse releases.) EDIT: It's a less risky investment re-releasing existing games on new platforms but there is still work to be done before publishers or developers can reap the benefits plus increased interest and more titles to choose from particularly for the Switch here also increases competition but that should hopefully reduce the amount of cash grab attempts, at least in theory.

By comparison, check out the Demon's Souls remaster: PS3: https://images.pushsquare.com/c6f1270061d09/demons-souls-ps3.original.jpg PS5: https://images.pushsquare.com/0b0da63f58d29/demons-souls-ps5.original.jpg