crysis still tortures modern pcs

[KnightBrolaire]

I thought this was a very interesting (though a bit too technical and verbose) look at why the original crysis still gives modern PCs a lot of trouble. the TLDR version is basically the way it utilizes processing power and the fact that Intel assumed at the time that we'd all be using super high clockspeed quad core processors (instead of our current multi-threaded processors). There's other variables like the way it renders lighting and effects real time, and the physics/general interactivity with objects in the world.
I think the game holds up incredibly well to this day, and the fact that you could interact with your environment/items in the environment so freely is something that many games are lacking. Hell, that concept of extreme interactivity and systems driven gameplay is part of why I loved Prey and am currently loving Underworld: Ascendant.

 

[thedonal]

I think too it's just not been re-optimized for more recent systems. I've got an i5 quad 6600k at 3.5Ggz and a GTX 1060SC and it still struggles with ultra settings.

I played through the series again recently. I love the setting in Crysis and the way the alien story unfolded (they love their tropical islands, don't they?!). I wish there was a more open plan to the game though- you really just had a couple of possible routes and it made little different in many places as to which you chose. Even using the environment, while a fantastic idea, didn't really add to the experience in my plays of the game. Shooting a tree down to flatten troops or buildings would alert them to your position so it was almost self defeating- as if Crytek really wanted you to use stealth the most (my favourite way of playing these types of games).

The flying bit is a touch on the lame side too and that final battle is frustrating as f**k! I loved the carrier though- really had a sense of place in the game.

The sequels looked and ran better but I really was disappointed with the Ceph becoming humanoid and with the options getting even more limited. If more could have been made of the alien-ness of the aliens and a more open structure to achieving goals they could have surpassed the original. The character story in Crysis 3 is fantastic though- the acting for Psycho is amazing. And the texturing etc on the faces are about the best I've seen in a game.

 

[TedEH]

I think too it's just not been re-optimized for more recent systems

I think the assumption at the time was that you could just throw more of the same at the computer, and eventually it would handle it, but that's not really the case. Modern games don't just rely on the fact that hardware has changed, but also people and software got more and more clever as time goes on. I'm not an expert on optimization by any means, but games run better now because people have come up with more clever ways to just not draw as much, for lack of a better way to put it. Hardware has gotten better, sure, but software has gotten a lot better as well (from a certain point of view- it's arguably gotten worse from other angles, hah).

 

[thedonal]

It's interesting isn't it. Game creation has changed so much alongside the hardware that provides it to us.

We have amazing capability with PCs and consoles that by far surpass what I grew up with (I started with a Sinclair Spectrum at 11!!). I't been really interesting to see how games have moved on from those days.

With the old 8-bit computers and all of the consoles, you had a limited system. As the life of that machine played out, programmers got better and better at pulling more impressive graphics, levels and games out of them. Finding the tricks and squeezing every last drop of performance from the machine.

With PCs, it really varies. It's in the interests of the developers to make the games playable on as many machines (within reason of a generation or two back) as possible, as more people will be able to therefore play the game and will purchase it. But also, the hardware manufacturers are developing tools hand in hand with the software developers to make that experience better and better. I think PC games could probably use the machines much more efficiently than they do, but to really fine tune the game would be prohibitive on the resources required to do so. There's a reason so many APIs are in place to put together the graphics, sound and so on these days.

With Crysis, Crytek went against that grain and instead seriously pushed the envelope of what was required to run it well- and it took a few generations to really get to grips with higher settings on it. I daresay it pushed the industry in terms of developing the tech to do it too. But you're right- it was built on principles from that time and things have changed. I guess unless you're on the verge of a big new breakthrough (such as the new graphics boards with some raytracing features), you will always be building a game with the current systems in mind.

I still think there is a big focus now on what a game engine can do and still so much room for what a game could be. We can get amazing looking games now with surround sound and all sorts of frills and thrills. But many games are rehashes, sequels and copies and don't bring the genre forward. You still get so many things that have happened since the dawn of 3d gaming- clipping, poor collision boxes, poor texture fade in and so on. They're just rendered with more resolution and more tricks.

If Star Citizen does eventually turn up with the scope that RSI (!) are aiming for (providing they cap the feature creep!), it might truly be a groundbreaking experience. And it also might push the envelope of the technology required to bring it to that state- not just PCs, but servers and online handling too.

 

[TedEH]

I think PC games could probably use the machines much more efficiently than they do

I tried to refrain from any sort of snark with my last comment, but I always sort of roll my eyes a bit whenever I hear people talk about optimization. On a deeper engine level, you're not wrong, but when people say "this game just isn't optimized!", it misses a huge part of the picture. Or potentially misses the whole picture altogether. Admitting that making a game perform well often just means cutting back or compromising on something (or stupid tricks like "only update this thing when you're looking directly at it"), and often has nothing to do with the machine it's on, doesn't really fit the romantic view of game dev being super brilliant teams working on close-to-the-machine software- but the average "game dev" doesn't really happen on that level, in my admittedly limited experience.

There's a reason so many APIs are in place to put together the graphics, sound and so on these days.

There's honestly not that much to choose from, and so many games are made at a higher level than that decision anyway. You get what, a choice between OpenGL/Vulkan and DirectX? And if you're using any sort of framework, or Unity/Unreal or any licensed engine, etc., you're neither making that choice, nor writing code directly against those interfaces anyway.

That's not to say optimization isn't a thing, because it is. But soooooo many people use that word without having any real idea what it means in that context.

 

[thedonal]

I Get what you're saying. I guess I was just trying to say an old game is designed to run on a range of hardware in a specific way. But it may not therefore take advantage of improvements in the technology later. So the intrinsic way a game works can hinder it even on newer machines.

I still think of Diablo II and the fact that I can run it on a system which is an order of magnitude more powerful than the Mac I first played it on. But the landscape scrolling is still jittery and stuttery because that's how the code was designed- no amount of horsepower you throw at it will improve that without a fundamental change to the game engine. That's not optimisation, but just limitations of that particular game engine. It's still a f**k site better than Diablo 3 though as a game!!

 

[TedEH]

That's fair, I'm not picking at you in particular, you seem to know what you're talking about.

I get annoyed at "it's just not optimized" as a fallback when a game doesn't do what people think it should do, but have no idea how technology works. It's a little irrational to get annoyed by it, on my part, buuuuut whatever, hah.

I think I made a similar comment before in another thread, but it blows my mind a little bit just how little people really know about the things they use day-to-day. The average PC user doesn't know how a computer works, how software works, what Windows actually is or does, how the internet works, etc., let alone the processes that lead to how those things are made. And then that same sentiment applies to the cell phones everyone carries around. And things like cars or appliances.

 

[thedonal]

That's fair, I'm not picking at you in particular, you seem to know what you're talking about.

You say that....

But yes- optimised to what? Optimized to a Pentium 4 Dual? Optimised to NVidia or ATI? Or to a 3dFX Voodoo?

I used to work in a call centre and end up telling old ladies how to plug in and set their VHS recorders up. Now THAT'S a skill! People often look at things as intractible boxes that they'll never get the hang of- so they never do. In fairness, I bought Native Instruments Maschine Mk 3 in April and I'm in the same boat- barely used it! lol. I'll get there when work isn't bending my mind and soul out of shape..

But while I'm not a programmer, I do pay attention to a bit of game dev stuff and I've played about with a lot of apps in my life- 3D graphics, an old Quake level creator (glitch AF on the Mac back then!!) and of course several DAWs. I used to be quite involved with mods on our ERP system with an old company too- so I was translating our needs to the rep for the developer. I've got a vague 'outside' feel for it without the nuts and bolts!!

 

[Mwoit]

I'll have to watch this later but sounds cool. Anything that leans heavily on volumetric modeling of water / hair / fogs is an absolute killer for rendering time, and I imagine back in their days, it wasn't done as much as nowadays. I do 3D rendering for medical data for a living and the struggle for realism against performance is an everyday battle.