*Confirmed* Original Crysis Bound for *PS360

[Cyan]

I think you're misunderstanding what optimsiation is. Optimisation is making the best use of your resources, and not necessarily doing most new-and-exciting things. A well optimised PS1 game can't do any of the modern technqiues, but it's still well optimsied because it's making great use of what the hardware is capable of. Crysis wasn't well optimised because the harwdare was underutilised relative to what it was possible of achieving. By all means make the claim that CryTek were focussing more on techniques and pushing game tech forwards than they were concerned with getting the best use of the hardware, but don't confuse the two. the fact that CryTek have been able to revisit their code and tune it much better to run on less capable hardware proves that it was not well optimised. If it had have been well optimised, the hardware running the game would have been maxxed out and lesser hardware wouldn't have been able to achieve the same results!

I must add, I have not had much technical knowledge in regards to programming etc, so can't really understand the problem, but those games from them that I have played on my console, have all been very impressive....

As for the argument with bigtabs, online interactions always seem more fraught when dealing with conflict. So don't worry about them. Looking at it for what it is saves a lot of angst.

I think he has a point. Optimized or not, I looked at Crysis through envious eyes for a reason.

 

[Richard]

I think any argument about this is a bit misguided ever since CryTek themselves admitted CryEngine 2 was unoptimised.

I'd like to see this Crysis remastering on the PC (minus the insidious detail cuts indoors, etc.).

 

[tabs]

"CryTek themselves admitted CryEngine 2 was unoptimised"

Core to my argument is that they're only stating that in hindsight after a few years work with the confines of lesser and blessedly fixed hardware which has served to improve their previous assumptions/algorithms. I have no doubt that they are right in their statement from their current perspective, but I highly doubt they would have been saying (or thinking) that at the time Crysis was released.

Anyway, this horse is long dead and I'm sick of kicking it. How many sleeps til BF3?

 

[upnorthsox]

I think any argument about this is a bit misguided ever since CryTek themselves admitted CryEngine 2 was unoptimised.

I'd like to see this Crysis remastering on the PC (minus the insidious detail cuts indoors, etc.).

And how much of that is cya propoganda? If it's criticized, hey it unoptimized. And if hailed, zomg and this is unoptimized!!! Just think what it'd be like optimized!!!

My question as a potential engine licensee though would be, why is it so hard to optimize? I mean it's been this way thru 2 versions now and even the original devs can't optimize it? What chance do I have?

 

[Jedi2016]

Why are we arguing about optimization again? I think it's safe to say that the engine is not fully optimized, since I still can't play it perfectly even on my current system, which is far beyond their recommended specs.

My problem with the console version of Crysis is, because of the change of engine, the game doesn't really look the same as it did before. I wouldn't want this Crysis on my PC. The original is still one of the best-looking games out there, even four years later. What's on the consoles is not that game due to the drastic difference in style.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Again, I'm not trying to confuse optimization with features. I'm simply asking why if these features were so un-optimized was nobody else doing it better?

You're not trying to confuse them, but you are! A new technology is rarely launched in its most effective form. Typically it takes a few iterations to better understand what's trying to be done and engineer better solutions. As such, perhaps it'd be unfair to expect CryTek to achieve better than they did. Perhaps their level of features made for such a complex system that, with a view to actually getting a product out the door, they didn't have the time to learn better ways of doing things. That doesn't change the fact that what they released was unoptimised though!

At the end of the day, there's no need to 'defend' anything here. Claiming a lack of optimisation on CryTek's behalf doesn't detract from what they did do regards including gorgeous features in a very rich engine and game. Likewise, the array of features they implemented into the one game doesn't change the fact that they didn't implement them very well and there was lots of room for improvement.

Putting it another way, look at all the first-gen games on consoles. They are rubbish by comparison to the latter-year games. The console have always been capable of better than launch-software results, but releasing 1st gen tech is a necessary part of the development process as developers learn how to design their software best on real-world experience. Same with developing new techniques on PC. The various post-FX AA techniques have gone through several iterations to improve them. The hardware was capable of the better algorithms, but it took the developers time to learn how to optimise the techniques to make better use of the hardware.

 

[tabs]

Shifty, while we might appear to have alternate viewpoints, I actually agree with everything you just said and my position has not even changed. I guess its either down to semantics or I'm just not explaining myself clearly enough.

Cheers.

 

[homerdog]

I'm really hoping that if Crytek doesn't port Crysis to CE3 on PC, some modders will take on the task. I feel like Crysis is still the best looking game ever made, and if they could make it perform/look even better it would be a travesty for that to never happen. The art assets are already there, and they are of high enough quality that they would still look brilliant in 2011.

As for CE2 not being optimized, in light of CE3 I think that is readily apparent. I also think that Crytek did a great job considering they did Crysis on DX9 back in 2007. Like I said it is still the best looking game ever IMO, and it runs fine on modern hardware. If you add a few tweaks like the POM+AF shader and force TSAA you are in for a visual experience that not even Crytek has topped in the last 4 years.

I want Crysis on CE3 and I want it now!

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I'm trying to say that while the code is indeed unoptimal by todays standards, at the time it wasn't so bad. As evidenced by the fact that for a few years nobody else made games with similar features that performed any better.

You seem to be making a real effort to not understand what I've been explaining, so I'm out of this debate.

 

[tabs]

Ah well, fuck it, it was fun while it lasted eh? No hard feelings. I'll still be here should you want to try again.

For the record, I was talking with several people simultaneously. Personally I find it hard at times to react accordingly to each persons viewpoints all at the same time. It probably feels like your points are being ignored and in a way they are to some extent, but it's not my intention.

It's all too easy to mix up responses because when arguing a point and having several people go at it from different directions as it can leave one feeling like everybody is in one of two camps when really everybody is in their own unique camp.

I'm not trying to ignore you or misunderstand you. I am genuinely trying to understand you. My failings to do so are not borne of any intent on my part.

Regardless, I am not the only other person than you in this debate, so while I may remain perhaps idiotically unable to get what you are trying to say others may benefit from your viewpoint.

 

[function]

Optimisation normally comes after you've added the features you want to add and reached an acceptable level of stability.

Or, in the case of a PC game, when you port it to a console.

 

[upnorthsox]

Optimisation normally comes after you've added the features you want to add and reached an acceptable level of stability.

Or, in the case of a PC game, when you port it to a console.

That's still before you release the game isn't it?

 

[function]

That's still before you release the game isn't it?

Not in this case.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's still before you release the game isn't it?

Not when you have deadlines. Sometimes (often wtih software) you release with what you've got knowing it's suboptimal, and reengineer it for the sequel/version update.

 

[upnorthsox]

Not in this case.

True.

 

[upnorthsox]

Not when you have deadlines. Sometimes (often wtih software) you release with what you've got knowing it's suboptimal, and reengineer it for the sequel/version update.

There's suboptimal and then there's so unoptimised that you require people to buy new gpu's just to run your unoptimised code.

Only one of those is understandable.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There's suboptimal and then there's so unoptimised that you require people to buy new gpu's just to run your unoptimised code.

Only one of those is understandable.

You don't see any business scenario wherein the first attempt at implementing all the features of Crysis had to be accepted as the release code because Crytek needed a product to sell? It's too easy for armchair analysts to make claims that they "should have done better", but without actually being privvy to the design and management decisions, that'd be grossly unfair IMO. I was one of those complaining about their hardware requirements and thinking they were being a bit ridiculous, but as bigtabs points out, they did get all that into one game ahead of anyone else. Their priorities may ahve been different from my own, but they are understandable nonetheless.

 

[AlNom]

I'm really hoping that if Crytek doesn't port Crysis to CE3 on PC, some modders will take on the task.

You'd think it would be a trivial matter at this point. CE3 was touted for its multiplatform development i.e. the three simultaneous previewing mode. Maybe they're waiting to gauge sales on console, but I mean, it's download-only, and they probably stand a better chance of sales on Origin/Steam.

They certainly can't pull the piracy card for a non-physical product.

 

[upnorthsox]

You don't see any business scenario wherein the first attempt at implementing all the features of Crysis had to be accepted as the release code because Crytek needed a product to sell? It's too easy for armchair analysts to make claims that they "should have done better", but without actually being privvy to the design and management decisions, that'd be grossly unfair IMO. I was one of those complaining about their hardware requirements and thinking they were being a bit ridiculous, but as bigtabs points out, they did get all that into one game ahead of anyone else. Their priorities may ahve been different from my own, but they are understandable nonetheless.

Ok, that was CE1. Then they say CE2 is also unoptimized. What will they say about CE3? It too is unoptimzed? At some point, that dog don't hunt.

 

[AlNom]

What will they say about CE3? It too is unoptimzed? At some point, that dog don't hunt.

The engine is sort of built around DX9 instead of completely with DX11 in mind. I'm sure they'll have done quite a bit of optimizing for their GI implementation without DX9 holding them back. So blame DX9, but they made their choice to support an inferior API that has non-optimal workarounds for all sorts of rendering compared to DX11 or even DX10, which they completely ignored for Crysis 2 launch.

But even despite DX9, CE3's implementations are ahead of CE2, and that's not just limited to graphics.