Is the remaster really THAT bad?

[Chrille 🎃]

Or is it an over reaction

[realMatcher]

If I understand it right, only the graphics gets an upgrade, so I have no problems with the graphic of the original game, so why I should buy that "REMASTERED" game if I Have played the original one.
That is my criticism. If you dont have played the original game this is in my opinion a not a bad game but warning, I dont play that remastered here!
Nevertheless I would buy it in a sale if you want it the orignal OR the remastered!

[V I D A L]

Originally posted by realMatcher:

If I understand it right, only the graphics gets an upgrade,

Except they don't. They get downgraded. The original 2007 still looks better.

[MTL5]

It's complicated. The biggest issue is unresolved bugs. These translate into performance issues, AI misbehaving, and general jank. But that's just part of it.

1. Some people are upset that Crytek/Saber released the Steam version without fixing some of the technical issues. This is by far the most significant criticism because there are no excuses for not hot fixing a few of these issues.
2. Some people are upset that it's a remaster instead of a remake. Some take the view that Crysis 1 wasn't actually very good, and is "dated", and were hoping for a remake.
3. Some people are upset that the remaster makes numerous design changes to be more like Crysis 2, from removing quicksave to rebalancing all the guns, reducing recoil, and defaulting to a streamlined version of the nanosuit. It's a different creature to OG Crysis, and that's intentional.
4. Some people are upset that the game is intentionally more colourful and vibrant, resembling Far Cry 1.
5. Some people are upset the multiplayer was removed.
6. Some people are upset the standalone expansion pack Crysis: Warhead was not included.
7. Some people are upset the game was an EGS exclusive and Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 will be EGS exclusives for a year.
8. Some people are upset about things that aren't true, claiming it doesn't have mod support, leaning, the classic nanosuit, hold/toggle aiming, and so on.
9. Some people are upset because at its highest graphics settings the performance bottlenecks. Crytek regret adding those settings and won't be including them in Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 Remastered. This is distinct from legit performance issues some people are having where the game goes a bit berserk framerate-wise.

There are... issues with the Crysis fanbase, particularly on PC. The purpose of this remaster was to be a new multiplatform version of Crysis. The word "multiplatform" gives some people in the Crysis fanbase apoplexy. What some people wanted was a remaster to be some kind of symbol of PC superiority. But that ship sailed a decade ago.

This remaster favors PC feature-wise and it has gotten way more patches than consoles, but it is firmly aimed to introduce Crysis to a new audience. An audience with no nostalgia. That's why some people are so bitter about this. Because they wanted Crytek to reinforce the superiority of PC. But Crytek are not interested.

Point #2 and Point #3 are a good example of the "identity Crysis", if you will. Some people want Crysis to be remade. Other people get very upset at literally any change. And a remaster that intentionally changes the game design to be more like Crysis 2 and 3 triggers people who have spent the last decade angry about how Crytek is "dead to them now" for making the "consolized garbage" that is Crysis 2.

Point #3 and Point #4 are similarly contradictory. On one side you have people claiming "it doesn't look any different to me, how dare they charge money for this", on the other have you have people upset that the game's visuals are lush and vibrant instead of being grey.

It raises a troubling question of how many Crysis 1 fans actually loved it as a videogame worth playing from start to finish, and how many just viewed it as a way of flexing with their PCs. Which the remaster doesn't allow them to do because while the visual upgrade is pretty significant, it is conservative budget-wise. (No models were touched.) It's not supposed to be the best looking game on the market. It's a remaster of a 2007 game, and Crysis 2 Remastered is the real showcase graphical upgrade-wise.

Everyone excited for Crysis 2 Remastered is excited to go back to New York. Prophet, Gould, awesome combat encounters in the crowded city streets. Kicking cars around. That theme song by Hans Zimmer. The satisfying click of the SCARAB reload. But with Crysis 1, there's this neurosis around the game as a symbol more than an actual game.

[MTL5]

Originally posted by V I D A L:

Originally posted by realMatcher:

If I understand it right, only the graphics gets an upgrade,

Except they don't. They get downgraded. The original 2007 still looks better.

This is untrue. In no universe does the original look better, and anyone claiming this is completely, utterly in denial.

This is nothing new for Crysis, though. You've had people pretending Crysis 2 wasn't graphically superior to Crysis 1 since 2011. They just couldn't handle the art design shift and the evil consoles (which Crytek had to work black magic to get the game to run on at a blistering 15fps).

This remaster, while it has flaws such as worse skin shaders has:
*Superior lighting. (Vastly, vastly superior lighting.)
*Textures. (Including many HQ textures identical to the OG's.)
*Shadows.
*Post-processing.
Their job was to visually update the game, and they did that. With a level of fidelity and technical features no mod could match.

[Chrille 🎃]

Originally posted by MTL5:

It's complicated. The biggest issue is unresolved bugs. These translate into performance issues, AI misbehaving, and general jank. But that's just part of it.

1. Some people are upset that Crytek/Saber released the Steam version without fixing some of the technical issues. This is by far the most significant criticism because there are no excuses for not hot fixing a few of these issues.
2. Some people are upset that it's a remaster instead of a remake. Some take the view that Crysis 1 wasn't actually very good, and is "dated", and were hoping for a remake.
3. Some people are upset that the remaster makes numerous design changes to be more like Crysis 2, from removing quicksave to rebalancing all the guns, reducing recoil, and defaulting to a streamlined version of the nanosuit. It's a different creature to OG Crysis, and that's intentional.
4. Some people are upset that the game is intentionally more colourful and vibrant, resembling Far Cry 1.
5. Some people are upset the multiplayer was removed.
6. Some people are upset the standalone expansion pack Crysis: Warhead was not included.
7. Some people are upset the game was an EGS exclusive and Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 will be EGS exclusives for a year.
8. Some people are upset about things that aren't true, claiming it doesn't have mod support, leaning, the classic nanosuit, hold/toggle aiming, and so on.
9. Some people are upset because at its highest graphics settings the performance bottlenecks. Crytek regret adding those settings and won't be including them in Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 Remastered. This is distinct from legit performance issues some people are having where the game goes a bit berserk framerate-wise.

There are... issues with the Crysis fanbase, particularly on PC. The purpose of this remaster was to be a new multiplatform version of Crysis. The word "multiplatform" gives some people in the Crysis fanbase apoplexy. What some people wanted was a remaster to be some kind of symbol of PC superiority. But that ship sailed a decade ago.

This remaster favors PC feature-wise and it has gotten way more patches than consoles, but it is firmly aimed to introduce Crysis to a new audience. An audience with no nostalgia. That's why some people are so bitter about this. Because they wanted Crytek to reinforce the superiority of PC. But Crytek are not interested.

Point #2 and Point #3 are a good example of the "identity Crysis", if you will. Some people want Crysis to be remade. Other people get very upset at literally any change. And a remaster that intentionally changes the game design to be more like Crysis 2 and 3 triggers people who have spent the last decade angry about how Crytek is "dead to them now" for making the "consolized garbage" that is Crysis 2.

Point #3 and Point #4 are similarly contradictory. On one side you have people claiming "it doesn't look any different to me, how dare they charge money for this", on the other have you have people upset that the game's visuals are lush and vibrant instead of being grey.

It raises a troubling question of how many Crysis 1 fans actually loved it as a videogame worth playing from start to finish, and how many just viewed it as a way of flexing with their PCs. Which the remaster doesn't allow them to do because while the visual upgrade is pretty significant, it is conservative budget-wise. (No models were touched.) It's not supposed to be the best looking game on the market. It's a remaster of a 2007 game, and Crysis 2 Remastered is the real showcase graphical upgrade-wise.

Everyone excited for Crysis 2 Remastered is excited to go back to New York. Prophet, Gould, awesome combat encounters in the crowded city streets. Kicking cars around. That theme song by Hans Zimmer. The satisfying click of the SCARAB reload. But with Crysis 1, there's this neurosis around the game as a symbol more than an actual game.

Thank you for taking your time and delivering an interesting and well-thought comment. I read you whole comment. I am not used to People actually taking there time. :)

[DreamyAbaddon]

Originally posted by MTL5:

It's complicated. The biggest issue is unresolved bugs. These translate into performance issues, AI misbehaving, and general jank. But that's just part of it.

1. Some people are upset that Crytek/Saber released the Steam version without fixing some of the technical issues. This is by far the most significant criticism because there are no excuses for not hot fixing a few of these issues.
2. Some people are upset that it's a remaster instead of a remake. Some take the view that Crysis 1 wasn't actually very good, and is "dated", and were hoping for a remake.
3. Some people are upset that the remaster makes numerous design changes to be more like Crysis 2, from removing quicksave to rebalancing all the guns, reducing recoil, and defaulting to a streamlined version of the nanosuit. It's a different creature to OG Crysis, and that's intentional.
4. Some people are upset that the game is intentionally more colourful and vibrant, resembling Far Cry 1.
5. Some people are upset the multiplayer was removed.
6. Some people are upset the standalone expansion pack Crysis: Warhead was not included.
7. Some people are upset the game was an EGS exclusive and Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 will be EGS exclusives for a year.
8. Some people are upset about things that aren't true, claiming it doesn't have mod support, leaning, the classic nanosuit, hold/toggle aiming, and so on.
9. Some people are upset because at its highest graphics settings the performance bottlenecks. Crytek regret adding those settings and won't be including them in Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 Remastered. This is distinct from legit performance issues some people are having where the game goes a bit berserk framerate-wise.

There are... issues with the Crysis fanbase, particularly on PC. The purpose of this remaster was to be a new multiplatform version of Crysis. The word "multiplatform" gives some people in the Crysis fanbase apoplexy. What some people wanted was a remaster to be some kind of symbol of PC superiority. But that ship sailed a decade ago.

This remaster favors PC feature-wise and it has gotten way more patches than consoles, but it is firmly aimed to introduce Crysis to a new audience. An audience with no nostalgia. That's why some people are so bitter about this. Because they wanted Crytek to reinforce the superiority of PC. But Crytek are not interested.

Point #2 and Point #3 are a good example of the "identity Crysis", if you will. Some people want Crysis to be remade. Other people get very upset at literally any change. And a remaster that intentionally changes the game design to be more like Crysis 2 and 3 triggers people who have spent the last decade angry about how Crytek is "dead to them now" for making the "consolized garbage" that is Crysis 2.

Point #3 and Point #4 are similarly contradictory. On one side you have people claiming "it doesn't look any different to me, how dare they charge money for this", on the other have you have people upset that the game's visuals are lush and vibrant instead of being grey.

It raises a troubling question of how many Crysis 1 fans actually loved it as a videogame worth playing from start to finish, and how many just viewed it as a way of flexing with their PCs. Which the remaster doesn't allow them to do because while the visual upgrade is pretty significant, it is conservative budget-wise. (No models were touched.) It's not supposed to be the best looking game on the market. It's a remaster of a 2007 game, and Crysis 2 Remastered is the real showcase graphical upgrade-wise.

Everyone excited for Crysis 2 Remastered is excited to go back to New York. Prophet, Gould, awesome combat encounters in the crowded city streets. Kicking cars around. That theme song by Hans Zimmer. The satisfying click of the SCARAB reload. But with Crysis 1, there's this neurosis around the game as a symbol more than an actual game.

I would also like to say thank you for your explanation as I also read your entire reply. I was one of those who loved the original trilogy and I have no intention for buying a game which I already own even if it is remaster. There is something about originals even with mods which has it's charms. Either way, I don't intend to play this game again anytime soon because I have too many games I need to play on my game list... lol.

Thanks again for your comment.

[LtGenJackONeill]

Originally posted by MTL5:

It's complicated. The biggest issue is unresolved bugs. These translate into performance issues, AI misbehaving, and general jank. But that's just part of it.

1. Some people are upset that Crytek/Saber released the Steam version without fixing some of the technical issues. This is by far the most significant criticism because there are no excuses for not hot fixing a few of these issues.
2. Some people are upset that it's a remaster instead of a remake. Some take the view that Crysis 1 wasn't actually very good, and is "dated", and were hoping for a remake.
3. Some people are upset that the remaster makes numerous design changes to be more like Crysis 2, from removing quicksave to rebalancing all the guns, reducing recoil, and defaulting to a streamlined version of the nanosuit. It's a different creature to OG Crysis, and that's intentional.
4. Some people are upset that the game is intentionally more colourful and vibrant, resembling Far Cry 1.
5. Some people are upset the multiplayer was removed.
6. Some people are upset the standalone expansion pack Crysis: Warhead was not included.
7. Some people are upset the game was an EGS exclusive and Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 will be EGS exclusives for a year.
8. Some people are upset about things that aren't true, claiming it doesn't have mod support, leaning, the classic nanosuit, hold/toggle aiming, and so on.
9. Some people are upset because at its highest graphics settings the performance bottlenecks. Crytek regret adding those settings and won't be including them in Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 Remastered. This is distinct from legit performance issues some people are having where the game goes a bit berserk framerate-wise.

There are... issues with the Crysis fanbase, particularly on PC. The purpose of this remaster was to be a new multiplatform version of Crysis. The word "multiplatform" gives some people in the Crysis fanbase apoplexy. What some people wanted was a remaster to be some kind of symbol of PC superiority. But that ship sailed a decade ago.

This remaster favors PC feature-wise and it has gotten way more patches than consoles, but it is firmly aimed to introduce Crysis to a new audience. An audience with no nostalgia. That's why some people are so bitter about this. Because they wanted Crytek to reinforce the superiority of PC. But Crytek are not interested.

Point #2 and Point #3 are a good example of the "identity Crysis", if you will. Some people want Crysis to be remade. Other people get very upset at literally any change. And a remaster that intentionally changes the game design to be more like Crysis 2 and 3 triggers people who have spent the last decade angry about how Crytek is "dead to them now" for making the "consolized garbage" that is Crysis 2.

Point #3 and Point #4 are similarly contradictory. On one side you have people claiming "it doesn't look any different to me, how dare they charge money for this", on the other have you have people upset that the game's visuals are lush and vibrant instead of being grey.

It raises a troubling question of how many Crysis 1 fans actually loved it as a videogame worth playing from start to finish, and how many just viewed it as a way of flexing with their PCs. Which the remaster doesn't allow them to do because while the visual upgrade is pretty significant, it is conservative budget-wise. (No models were touched.) It's not supposed to be the best looking game on the market. It's a remaster of a 2007 game, and Crysis 2 Remastered is the real showcase graphical upgrade-wise.

Everyone excited for Crysis 2 Remastered is excited to go back to New York. Prophet, Gould, awesome combat encounters in the crowded city streets. Kicking cars around. That theme song by Hans Zimmer. The satisfying click of the SCARAB reload. But with Crysis 1, there's this neurosis around the game as a symbol more than an actual game.

How dare you bring rational discussion to Steam! This is a 100% rage only zone! /s


For real though, thank you for breaking it down. I've never played C1 so I'll probably be picking this up.

What gets me is people being mad that a remaster is just touching up the graphics and not updating the gameplay too much. As far as I'm aware a remaster is just for top level polish like graphics and maybe some minor balance issues, meanwhile a remake is suppose to be for total conversion games; ground up total overhaul type games.

[MTL5]

If there is a positive to come out of people leaving negative reviews, it would be that hopefully Crytek hurries up and hotfixes a few issues.

There are two main issues that stand out to me.

1. The game performs oddly for some people. This isn't related to settings. The game sometimes chugs. Gets stuck at a certain framerate. Sometimes loading the last checkpoint or ALT+TABBING makes the game gain 30+ FPS out of nowhere. This is odd behavior and should be top priority for investigation. Especially since CryEngine has a history of this kind of thing. The vsync doesn't feel smooth, either. And it adds latency. So... either fix it or communicate this to players.

2. The graphics settings should be overhauled. Remove most of the overkill stuff from Very High and CIRC. Redistribute the settings so that Low and Medium have lower draw distance than they do, which helps lower end GPUs, and then High and Very High are correspondingly adjusted to be reasonable.

They're also working on CPU optimizations, but until those are added, they should have downgraded the settings. Because people aren't happy that the game is running badly. Literally nobody is going to nitpick shadow resolution or the distance trees turn into mapmaps if they can run on Very High and stay above 60fps.

Some people were never gonna be happy. But if the game is running terribly or the mouse aim feels terrible and people don't see how to fix it -- Crytek/Saber bought that backlash on themselves. Even if people disable vsync, the game seems to sometimes lock at 60fps when playing in fullscreen mode. That shouldn't be happening. But it is. And Crytek/Saber have had a year to fix it.

I personally think releasing on Steam like this was a mistake. The time spent implementing achievements would have been better spent making sure the framerate behaved correctly.

I would like to remind people this also happened to Saints Row 3 Remastered.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/978300/Saints_Row_The_Third_Remastered/
55% approval. You know why? Because the framerate is broken for a lot of people. Came out a year ago on EGS. They released it on Steam without fixing the issue. Scenes in SR3R inexplicably run at like 25fps sometimes. Fixing it requires workarounds a lot of people aren't interested in pursuing. People will forgive bugs. People will not, as a rule, forgive performance issues.

[Riker]

Originally posted by V I D A L:

Originally posted by realMatcher:

If I understand it right, only the graphics gets an upgrade,

Except they don't. They get downgraded. The original 2007 still looks better.

Also factor in that it's a paid remaster even if you own the original. Games like Skyrim/Bioshock trilogy/Darksiders and possibly some others were provided as free upgrades if you owned the originals.

My advice to anyone that owns the original (hell, even if you don't) is don't buy this one and stick with the original

[Chrille 🎃]

Originally posted by RikerV2:

Originally posted by V I D A L:

Except they don't. They get downgraded. The original 2007 still looks better.

Also factor in that it's a paid remaster even if you own the original. Games like Skyrim/Bioshock trilogy/Darksiders and possibly some others were provided as free upgrades if you owned the originals.

My advice to anyone that owns the original (hell, even if you don't) is don't buy this one and stick with the original

To be honest,

Bioshock remaster and Darksiders remaster were broken at release.

[Riker]

Originally posted by Chrille:

Originally posted by RikerV2:

Also factor in that it's a paid remaster even if you own the original. Games like Skyrim/Bioshock trilogy/Darksiders and possibly some others were provided as free upgrades if you owned the originals.

My advice to anyone that owns the original (hell, even if you don't) is don't buy this one and stick with the original

To be honest,

Bioshock remaster and Darksiders remaster were broken at release.

At least you got the upgrade for free though with DLCs included. From what I've been reading, aside from graphical options this remaster adds nothing noteworthy

[Chrille 🎃]

Originally posted by RikerV2:

Originally posted by Chrille:

To be honest,

Bioshock remaster and Darksiders remaster were broken at release.

At least you got the upgrade for free though with DLCs included. From what I've been reading, aside from graphical options this remaster adds nothing noteworthy

I mean 15 buckaroos is not that much.

[temps]

Originally posted by Chrille:

Originally posted by RikerV2:

At least you got the upgrade for free though with DLCs included. From what I've been reading, aside from graphical options this remaster adds nothing noteworthy

I mean 15 buckaroos is not that much.

$15 for a game that looks like it was made in 2010 is kindof a lot, actually...

[KenpoJuJitsu3]

Originally posted by MTL5:

With a level of fidelity and technical features no mod could match.

This, objectively, did not happen.

[Muggz Munny]

Overreaction