Why can I run Crysis 2 better than the first?

[WaitingForNehalem]

I love how people that have never written a single piece of code in their lives make assumptions about game engines. CryEngine 2 was one of the most advanced game engines ever created and still amazes me 7 years later. I couldn't imagine being a game developer at Crytek and reading things like, "CryEngine is an unoptimized piece of garbage" from some moron gamer online.

 

[toyota]

I love how people that have never written a single piece of code in their lives make assumptions about game engines. CryEngine 2 was one of the most advanced game engines ever created and still amazes me 7 years later. I couldn't imagine being a game developer at Crytek and reading things like, "CryEngine is an unoptimized piece of garbage" from some moron gamer online.

so in your head it makes sense that even 6 years the fastest cpus out there cant even maintain 50 fps in spots? yeah that sounds really well optimized. whether you like the eigine or not the game itself was NOT well optimized at all. that is why modders could easily take the game and make it look better while also running better at the same time.

 

[alcoholbob]

Because Crysis 1 was a terribly optimized POS that PC elitists like to appologize for for some reason that I still don't understand. Back during release people were saying it ran terribly because "it's so advanced the hardware required to do it justice doesn't exist yet". Well, here we are 7 years later and it still runs like garbage.

Run like garbage? 1080p maxed it runs at nearly 100 fps on a Titan Black. Same settings for Crysis 3 it runs at 35 fps. And Crysis 3 is a much more cramped "corridor style" shooter than Crysis 1 which has miles of view distance and much more massive levels.

 

[HeXen]

Terrible games anyway imo which makes it irrelevant how well or crappy any of the 3 runs. Story isn't even worth a SyFy B movie.

 

[JeffMD]

I love how people that have never written a single piece of code in their lives make assumptions about game engines. CryEngine 2 was one of the most advanced game engines ever created and still amazes me 7 years later. I couldn't imagine being a game developer at Crytek and reading things like, "CryEngine is an unoptimized piece of garbage" from some moron gamer online.

It was probably a lot more advanced then the first, and it was fast, but it was missing a lot of truly advanced effects like realtime reflections. The throwback to reflection mapping blew my mind. I should probably note this is an issue with the game, not the engine. They choose to cut corners like this.

 

[toyota]

Run like garbage? 1080p maxed it runs at nearly 100 fps on a Titan Black. Same settings for Crysis 3 it runs at 35 fps. And Crysis 3 is a much more cramped "corridor style" shooter than Crysis 1 which has miles of view distance and much more massive levels.

perhaps you missed the many times where I have said the game is VERY cpu limited in spots. you will be in the 40s at times with your cpu and that's a fact. so yes a 6 year old game dipping below 50 fps on a modern $1000 gpu and oced i7 would be considered running like garbage.

 

[Fire&Blood]

Terrible games anyway imo which makes it irrelevant how well or crappy any of the 3 runs. Story isn't even worth a SyFy B movie.

I'd reserve "terrible" for games such as Aliens: CM and the latest Rambo game.
For a FPS it had an ok story, should have been more grounded but the game was well received and earned it's metacritic score.


IMO, the difference in performance between the original and the sequel is justified to an extent. The sequel setting was urban, not nearly as open and Yerli said that the sequel was built with more attention to hardware limitations whereas the original was not hence the "can it run crysis" meme was spawned.

2013 BF4's Frostbite 3 gives me a higher FPS average than a 2007 Crysis, even on a action laden full server but at least visually, Crysis is holding up extremely well. The SS is straight from the game, I didn't use downsampling but I'm using 3 hi res texture packs and modified config file.

 

[Topweasel]

I'd reserve "terrible" for games such as Aliens: CM and the latest Rambo game.
For a FPS it had an ok story, should have been more grounded but the game was well received and earned it's metacritic score.


IMO, the difference in performance between the original and the sequel is justified to an extent. The sequel setting was urban, not nearly as open and Yerli said that the sequel was built with more attention to hardware limitations whereas the original was not hence the "can it run crysis" meme was spawned.

2013 BF4's Frostbite 3 gives me a higher FPS average than a 2007 Crysis, even on a action laden full server but at least visually, Crysis is holding up extremely well. The SS is straight from the game, I didn't use downsampling but I'm using 3 hi res texture packs and modified config file.

I get what you are saying and agree with you. Sadly though I think Crytek learned their lesson's. Nobody is going push boundaries and create an engine that complex again. Steady evolution combined with healthy doses of 8 year hardware refreshes to establish a baseline.

But as for your comparison to BF4 along with other posters. BF4 is a new combat game with a new engine and is more open than COD. That's where the comparisons end. It's an MP game made for supporting 128 player controlled characters doing random stuff. Crysis is made for a SP player doing stuff that they have allowed in a very big luscious sandbox. Sadly it's also probably the only PC driven FB3 we will see. But I would wait till we see other SP driven FB3 games before making any visual comparisons.

 

[Blitzvogel]

Crysis has poor multithreading, using two cores max IIRC. Apparently CryEngine 2 had support for 4 cores though. Anyone with a 3.0+ GHz i3-2100 or faster should have no problem with it.

That said, Crysis still takes the cake for best jungle and vegetation in a game (that I've played) by virtue of the breakable foliage, great art direction and the excellent animation. Crytek really nailed the animation part with quivering leaves and branches, whereas games like Far Cry 2/3 just have large swaths of leaf/branch brushes that move in large pieces. The lack of proper AA techniques and heavy LOD management are the only two things I can knock about Crysis' foliage.

 

[Stringjam]

That said, Crysis still takes the cake for best jungle and vegetation in a game (that I've played) by virtue of the breakable foliage...

Still looks great.

 

[futurefields]

I'd reserve "terrible" for games such as Aliens: CM and the latest Rambo game.
For a FPS it had an ok story, should have been more grounded but the game was well received and earned it's metacritic score.


IMO, the difference in performance between the original and the sequel is justified to an extent. The sequel setting was urban, not nearly as open and Yerli said that the sequel was built with more attention to hardware limitations whereas the original was not hence the "can it run crysis" meme was spawned.

2013 BF4's Frostbite 3 gives me a higher FPS average than a 2007 Crysis, even on a action laden full server but at least visually, Crysis is holding up extremely well. The SS is straight from the game, I didn't use downsampling but I'm using 3 hi res texture packs and modified config file.

Is that second picture Battlefield 4? It looks so damn unimpressive there.

 

[Blitzvogel]

Crytek is obviously good at realistic environments and if they ended up becoming a purely engine development company, I certainly wouldn't cry about it. Far Cry 1 was an amazing game. Crysis, three and a half years later, is a crazy achievement and jump in graphics while [mostly] preserving Far Cry's open level style of gameplay. Regardless of what people may think of Crysis - the game -, it's safe to say it set the graphical standard as to what to expect out of games after it. Are there even any other games that use POM? Maybe STALKER Clear Sky?

 

[Fire&Blood]

Is that second picture Battlefield 4? It looks so damn unimpressive there.

Yes, from the latest DLC. I was looking for a similar setting to Crysis but kept getting shot at and killed a lot so I couldn't keep looking for scenery that shows it off better. It's 1440p all ultra with 2x msaa. To be fair, BF4 often looks better than that. In indoors comparison BF4 fares a lot better, mostly because texture budgets are bigger than 7 years ago.

 

[Red Hawk]

Crysis 1 is really dependent on CPU speed IIRC.

This is probably the fundamental reason why Crysis 2 runs better on the OP's rig specifically. The OP is using an older AMD quad core processor, and Crysis 2 is probably better able to use all those cores than Crysis 1 is. Plus Crysis 2 was designed to accomodate the CPUs of the PS3 and the Xbox 360, so it's just less strenuous of the CPU to begin with than Crysis 1. If the OP was running something like a modern Core i5 at 4 GHz, I doubt there would be a noticeable performance difference.

Another reason could be antialiasing. Crysis 1 supports full MSAA, while Crysis 2 only supports FXAA.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

They basically gimped Crysis 2 so it would run on the consoles, the DX11 pack that was released after launch for the PC adds so high res textures which doesn't really do much, it brings the textures from console quality up to mid range PC quality, and adds some DX11 tessellation effects.

The core game is simply much less demanding, the large scale physics are gone, the maps were made into much more linear closed off spaces.

It's just what happens to PC games when they're made for multi-platforms, it's been happening for a decade now, you just don't notice it that much these days because modern equivalent of games like the original Crysis don't exist for comparison.

 

[Fire&Blood]

They basically gimped Crysis 2 so it would run on the consoles, the DX11 pack that was released after launch for the PC adds so high res textures which doesn't really do much, it brings the textures from console quality up to mid range PC quality, and adds some DX11 tessellation effects.

The core game is simply much less demanding, the large scale physics are gone, the maps were made into much more linear closed off spaces.

It's just what happens to PC games when they're made for multi-platforms, it's been happening for a decade now, you just don't notice it that much these days because modern equivalent of games like the original Crysis don't exist for comparison.

Yeah, reading between the lines in interviews Crytek's CEO says that. 360 had the equivalent of a 7800GTX at launch which was a high end GPU at the time. 2 years later, when Crysis finally came out, I still had a 7800 GT and a 4400+ X2. 1280x720, I got 15 fps maxed out. Obviously, IQ to be nerfed to run 720/30 on consoles. It's a shame the engine went unused now that hardware that can run it is common.

It's funny, lately I spend a lot of time tweaking yesterday's games with ENB, SweetFX and difficulty/AI mods. I spend more time in Stalker, Crysis and Chaos Theory than all other games combined.

Crytek is obviously good at realistic environments and if they ended up becoming a purely engine development company, I certainly wouldn't cry about it

I think I might because I don't think it's enough to sustain them and I don't see devs using their engine, other than 2-3 games we heard about. I would be happy if it turns out I'm just uninformed or too pessimistic. I'm not trolling to start an engine war but to me Crytek has been the innovator, other were quietly copying their stuff and now advertise as if their stuff is superior. I would be ecstatic if Cryengine gets even half the utilization that UE3 got.