In what world is this "better" looking than the original?

[DeadSlash]

Am I insane? I feel light I'm being gaslighted here, every side by side video available, the original looks better than the remaster.

The remaster looks like they dulled the colors and smudged a little Vaseline on the lens, but people are raving about how improved it is?

Genuinely confused.

Playing it on Origin pass right now and it's a straight up downgrade from the original!

[Steve (Dawn's Hubby)]

i think a lot of it has to do with the PC hardware you are using and how your gear is set up. If you play the game on a 43" monitor, in 4K on max settings and while sitting the appropriate distance away from the screen you should be able to see the difference.

[doomedSniper]

Then this was to supply money for the the fourth entry. Remaster is just a fluke. I realized after I bought it. Nothing too much special except ray traced reflections and a shader upgrade.

If you look closely several companies are pulling off these stunts, including Ubisoft. I'd want you to be more careful from these and not waste a single penny.
Prince of Persia, Splinter Cell many of these are on the list. I'll more careful next time I buy such piece of downgrades.

[DeadSlash]

Originally posted by Steve (Dawn's Hubby):

i think a lot of it has to do with the PC hardware you are using and how your gear is set up. If you play the game on a 43" monitor, in 4K on max settings and while sitting the appropriate distance away from the screen you should be able to see the difference.

I don't think it's my hardware. I'm looking at side by sides and the original just looks a lot better when compared head to head.
Not sure if people even remember, but for the original, you could download multi GB visual improvements, and with those installed, it it absolutely annihilates the remaster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srB1TezY_sk

Originally posted by doomedSniper:

Then this was to supply money for the the fourth entry. Remaster is just a fluke. I realized after I bought it. Nothing too much special except ray traced reflections and a shader upgrade.

If you look closely several companies are pulling off these stunts, including Ubisoft. I'd want you to be more careful from these and not waste a single penny.
Prince of Persia, Splinter Cell many of these are on the list. I'll more careful next time I buy such piece of downgrades.

I just read about this. I had not been following the development at all, but having looked at it afterward, I see the consensus is that 1 isn't worthwhile, 3 is almost identical and 2 was supposed to be "the good one" but I'm not seeing it at all.

[Steve (Dawn's Hubby)]

It's not always easy to judge on youtube with those comparison vids. Not only that, but the games and GPUs get updates and the vids don't always reflect this.

If you have a monitor that is lower in resolution than the source vid and the game itself, will you really be able see the differences on a comparison vid? In other words, if you have a 1080p monitor can you actually judge a 4K vid of a 4K game? I honestly don't know.

Initially I wasn't impressed either until I customized and maxed out the settings, but the difference is there. In Crysis 1 the draw distance and explosions are very impressive. I can agree that Crysis 2 shows less of an improvement. I haven't tried Crysis 3 yet.

This year I upgraded from a 1080p monitor using a 1660 GPU to a 43" 4K monitor using a 4080 GPU. For my comparison, I have both monitors connected to the 4080 using the "duplicate" setting for the displays on the Windows 11 OS. They are both set to their max resolutions in the settings.

I can't speak to the mods, because in general I don't use them.

My point here is that one may need an upgraded PC and monitor to really see the difference.

I paid about 10 dollars for each game (I got the trilogy on sale for 30 dollars), so for that price I am happy with it.

In the end, I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[DeadSlash]

Originally posted by Steve (Dawn's Hubby):

It's not always easy to judge on youtube with those comparison vids. Not only that, but the games and GPUs get updates and the vids don't always reflect this.

If you have a monitor that is lower in resolution than the source vid and the game itself, will you really be able see the differences on a comparison vid? In other words, if you have a 1080p monitor can you actually judge a 4K vid of a 4K game? I honestly don't know.

Initially I wasn't impressed either until I customized and maxed out the settings, but the difference is there. In Crysis 1 the draw distance and explosions are very impressive. I can agree that Crysis 2 shows less of an improvement. I haven't tried Crysis 3 yet.

This year I upgraded from a 1080p monitor using a 1660 GPU to a 43" 4K monitor using a 4080 GPU. For my comparison, I have both monitors connected to the 4080 using the "duplicate" setting for the displays on the Windows 11 OS. They are both set to their max resolutions in the settings.

I can't speak to the mods, because in general I don't use them.

My point here is that one may need an upgraded PC and monitor to really see the difference.

I paid about 10 dollars for each game (I got the trilogy on sale for 30 dollars), so for that price I am happy with it.

In the end, I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I've loaded up both the original and the "remaster" and I would say that the video is an accurate depiction of how they look different.

I think the side by side of the cab is the perfect summary of the changes. The remastered one is a brown smudgy mess compared to the original.

You keep hinting it might be a dated hardware issue, these are my specs. the only thing I could even upgrade would be to 4090. It's not a hardware issue.

i9-12900K
MOBO: MSI MPG Z690 CARBON
RAM: 32GB
GPU MSI RTX 3080 Ti
32' Monitor

[Steve (Dawn's Hubby)]

Originally posted by DeadSlash:

Am I insane? I feel light I'm being gaslighted here, every side by side video available, the original looks better than the remaster.

The remaster looks like they dulled the colors and smudged a little Vaseline on the lens, but people are raving about how improved it is?

Genuinely confused.

Playing it on Origin pass right now and it's a straight up downgrade from the original!

I am trying to say that in order to get the benefits of the remaster it may require seeing it in high resolution (as in 4K) at a high FPS (144) and have hardware that can push it with max (or at least high) settings along with a large monitor size and to be sitting the right distance from the screen. Monitor settings matter too, as you know, you can change the presets on a good monitor and make things instantly look better or worse.

I fired the game up again after your last post and from where I am sitting it doesn't look like it does on the vid you posted or how you describe it looks on your monitor:

>>>"The remaster looks like they dulled the colors and smudged a little Vaseline on the lens, but people are raving about how improved it is?"<<<

and

>>>"The remastered one is a brown smudgy mess compared to the original."<<<

On my monitor the HDR 1000 pops the colors and there isn't any blurring at all. It's not brown either, it's very bright. It's a definite improvement from when I look at it side by side with my 1080p monitor without HDR. I will say the cut scenes are are a bit iffy though.

I am not really one of those "raving" about it, but I think it looks fine for ten dollars.

My posts were designed to answer your question and suggest how to get the most from the game (really any game if you like making games look their best) and to also explain why it might not look good on youtube, which depending on how one watches it, might not even be in 1080p.

This is more in line with what I am seeing and it's from nearly two years ago, so it's not really a fair comparison:

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/crysis-remastered-trilogy-new-and-old-versions-compared

I was never ripping on your pc and I have no investment either way. If it looks bad to you, then certainly pass on it. Like I said in an earlier post, it's all about how it looks to you personally.

I hope this answers the question asked in your post and addresses why some people like it and why some people don't.

Most of all, good luck out there and have fun!

[MrEWhite]

Originally posted by Steve (Dawn's Hubby):

On my monitor the HDR 1000 pops the colors and there isn't any blurring at all. It's not brown either, it's very bright. It's a definite improvement from when I look at it side by side with my 1080p monitor without HDR. I will say the cut scenes are are a bit iffy though.

This game doesn't have HDR on PC. If you're using Auto HDR, it's not real HDR.

[Steve (Dawn's Hubby)]

Originally posted by MrEWhite:

Originally posted by Steve (Dawn's Hubby):

On my monitor the HDR 1000 pops the colors and there isn't any blurring at all. It's not brown either, it's very bright. It's a definite improvement from when I look at it side by side with my 1080p monitor without HDR. I will say the cut scenes are are a bit iffy though.

This game doesn't have HDR on PC. If you're using Auto HDR, it's not real HDR.

You are correct. I went back and checked and it doesn't have HDR or the auto HDR as far as I can tell. This Asus monitor is so bright I thought it did.

Are you seeing a brown blurry screen when you play?

It looks like to me in the comparison vids they are using cooler and warmer colors that are adjustable with the monitor itself.

[Ceceli Δ]

Originally posted by DeadSlash:

Originally posted by Steve (Dawn's Hubby):

It's not always easy to judge on youtube with those comparison vids. Not only that, but the games and GPUs get updates and the vids don't always reflect this.

If you have a monitor that is lower in resolution than the source vid and the game itself, will you really be able see the differences on a comparison vid? In other words, if you have a 1080p monitor can you actually judge a 4K vid of a 4K game? I honestly don't know.

Initially I wasn't impressed either until I customized and maxed out the settings, but the difference is there. In Crysis 1 the draw distance and explosions are very impressive. I can agree that Crysis 2 shows less of an improvement. I haven't tried Crysis 3 yet.

This year I upgraded from a 1080p monitor using a 1660 GPU to a 43" 4K monitor using a 4080 GPU. For my comparison, I have both monitors connected to the 4080 using the "duplicate" setting for the displays on the Windows 11 OS. They are both set to their max resolutions in the settings.

I can't speak to the mods, because in general I don't use them.

My point here is that one may need an upgraded PC and monitor to really see the difference.

I paid about 10 dollars for each game (I got the trilogy on sale for 30 dollars), so for that price I am happy with it.

In the end, I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I've loaded up both the original and the "remaster" and I would say that the video is an accurate depiction of how they look different.

I think the side by side of the cab is the perfect summary of the changes. The remastered one is a brown smudgy mess compared to the original.

You keep hinting it might be a dated hardware issue, these are my specs. the only thing I could even upgrade would be to 4090. It's not a hardware issue.

i9-12900K
MOBO: MSI MPG Z690 CARBON
RAM: 32GB
GPU MSI RTX 3080 Ti
32' Monitor

Oh, man. There goes my silly attempt to relive this game. The original runs just fine, but the reloading animations stuck at 30 or less FPS while the whole game is at 144 is abhorent. But if the remaster is looking worse than the original, being a so called "remaster", than I'm just gonna keep skipping Crytek's games. They just can't code! oof

[MrEWhite]

Originally posted by Steve (Dawn's Hubby):

Originally posted by MrEWhite:

This game doesn't have HDR on PC. If you're using Auto HDR, it's not real HDR.

You are correct. I went back and checked and it doesn't have HDR or the auto HDR as far as I can tell. This Asus monitor is so bright I thought it did.

Are you seeing a brown blurry screen when you play?

It looks like to me in the comparison vids they are using cooler and warmer colors that are adjustable with the monitor itself.

Oh no, it works fine for me. Looks miles better than the original in every way. Just wanted to correct you on the HDR.

[Vassago Rain]

Originally posted by Ceceli ♠:

Originally posted by DeadSlash:

I've loaded up both the original and the "remaster" and I would say that the video is an accurate depiction of how they look different.

I think the side by side of the cab is the perfect summary of the changes. The remastered one is a brown smudgy mess compared to the original.

You keep hinting it might be a dated hardware issue, these are my specs. the only thing I could even upgrade would be to 4090. It's not a hardware issue.

i9-12900K
MOBO: MSI MPG Z690 CARBON
RAM: 32GB
GPU MSI RTX 3080 Ti
32' Monitor

Oh, man. There goes my silly attempt to relive this game. The original runs just fine, but the reloading animations stuck at 30 or less FPS while the whole game is at 144 is abhorent. But if the remaster is looking worse than the original, being a so called "remaster", than I'm just gonna keep skipping Crytek's games. They just can't code! oof

Only idiots who didn't play the game pretend the remaster looks worse. These are the same people who pretend that crysis 1 has superior graphics to C2 and C3, and you shouldn't listen to them.

[Ceceli Δ]

Originally posted by Vassago Rain:

Originally posted by Ceceli ♠:

Oh, man. There goes my silly attempt to relive this game. The original runs just fine, but the reloading animations stuck at 30 or less FPS while the whole game is at 144 is abhorent. But if the remaster is looking worse than the original, being a so called "remaster", than I'm just gonna keep skipping Crytek's games. They just can't code! oof

Only idiots who didn't play the game pretend the remaster looks worse. These are the same people who pretend that crysis 1 has superior graphics to C2 and C3, and you shouldn't listen to them.

I'll trust my own eyes. Thank you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srB1TezY_sk

[DeadSlash]

Originally posted by Ceceli ♠:

Originally posted by Vassago Rain:

Only idiots who didn't play the game pretend the remaster looks worse. These are the same people who pretend that crysis 1 has superior graphics to C2 and C3, and you shouldn't listen to them.

I'll trust my own eyes. Thank you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srB1TezY_sk

I don't see any way the remaster is "better" side by side it looks terrible. If the screens were flipped, It'd be impressive.

[MrEWhite]

Originally posted by Ceceli ♠:

Originally posted by Vassago Rain:

Only idiots who didn't play the game pretend the remaster looks worse. These are the same people who pretend that crysis 1 has superior graphics to C2 and C3, and you shouldn't listen to them.

I'll trust my own eyes. Thank you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srB1TezY_sk

And the remaster looks better in every way. Your point?

[DeadSlash]

Originally posted by MrEWhite:

Originally posted by Ceceli ♠:

I'll trust my own eyes. Thank you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srB1TezY_sk

And the remaster looks better in every way. Your point?

It's a matter of taste, as was mentioned earlier. The darker, less detailed brownish look is more gritty and preferable to you, and that's fine. I like the more detailed colorful version. I'm a little less vested in this argument then when I opened the topic. I've seen that many people think this "remaster" looks very meh. I had been under the impression when I posted the topic that it was pretty much universal praise, and that is what confused me.

I've seen plenty of criticism since.