What happened to Crysis being the ultimate PC test

[Masychefx2]

Back in 2007 this game was all people talked about

[UserNotFound]

Well, okay, let's talk about Crysis Remastered then...or, Crysis 2 Remastered.

[Illusion of Progress]

Well, you sort of answered it. Late 2007 passed by and was 15 and a half years ago now.

[Supafly]

Hardware got better

[emoticorpse]

It doesn't run right and so I will never buy anything from EA again.

[Castyles]

2007. You already answered your own question.

Heard Microsoft Flight Simulator is demanding on all it's "pro" settings so perhaps, nowadays, that game is the "ultimate test". Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

The one melting machines like Crysis, though, seems to be The Last of Us.

[Crawl]

Cyberpunk 2077 came out.

[ZeekAncient]

Admit it, your PC still can't run Crysis.

Tragic.

[Viking2121]

Well old game thats poorly optimized even on modern hardware, just dosn't push modern hardware much, its like GTA4, can throw a 4090 at it and 13900k at 6ghz, it still going to have some sub 60fps in areas, bad optimized game and why its Crysis isn't really the benchmark game these days.

[Illusion of Progress]

I'm kind of irritated when people say a game is "badly optimized" just because it can drop below a given frame rate threshold on modern hardware and is often limited by per core performance and doesn't utilize many of the high number of cores/threads CPUs often have today.

Games aren't something that parallelize well linearly or by default. People have been saying this for ages and now that we have CPUs with the core and thread counts we do today, whenever a game is limited by a single thread (almost always when not GPU limited...) and only uses a single digit or barely double digit percent of a CPU, people think it justifies labeling it as "poor optimization"? What?

Cores aren't something that just help by default, but people think if they don't, the coders don't know what they're doing? When cores get only twice as fast over a decade, yes, something that was performance heavy back then, might still be today (especially with higher refresh rate gaming being more common).

Hardware being new or "high end" are BOTH arbitrary labels and nothing more. A game does NOT care for either aspect. So just because something is new or high end, does not mean it SHOULD perform to whatever imagined level of desired performance in a given scenario.

[Viking2121]

Originally posted by Illusion of Progress:

I'm kind of irritated when people say a game is "badly optimized" just because it can drop below a given frame rate threshold on modern hardware and is often limited by per core performance and doesn't utilize many of the high number of cores/threads CPUs often have today.

Games aren't something that parallelize well linearly or by default. People have been saying this for ages and now that we have CPUs with the core and thread counts we do today, whenever a game is limited by a single thread (almost always when not GPU limited...) and only uses a single digit or barely double digit percent of a CPU, people think it justifies labeling it as "poor optimization"? What?

Cores aren't something that just help by default, but people think if they don't, the coders don't know what they're doing? When cores get only twice as fast over a decade, yes, something that was performance heavy back then, might still be today (especially with higher refresh rate gaming being more common).

Hardware being new or "high end" are BOTH arbitrary labels and nothing more. A game does NOT care for either aspect. So just because something is new or high end, does not mean it SHOULD perform to whatever imagined level of desired performance in a given scenario.

Apparently you have no idea of the games history with hardware and performance do you? It not optimize then when it was a hit, its not optimized now, the engine was garbage when it was new and still is, nothings changed....

[H4xX]

Honestly, I don't see much difference in graphics between new games since after Crysis anymore :)
Can't really have more resolution on a flatscreen than flatscreens can display.

[Illusion of Progress]

Originally posted by Viking2121:

Apparently you have no idea of the games history with hardware and performance do you? It not optimize then when it was a hit, its not optimized now, the engine was garbage when it was new and still is, nothings changed....

Huh? I wasn't talking about any particular game.

I was just saying that in general, it's annoying when people go straight for the "it's unoptimized" excuse either when something runs poorly and continues to years later, or when it only uses a small portion of a CPU's total resources on today's multi core CPUs, and I explained why either can happen, and that neither necessarily mean something isn't optimized. If you weren't doing that, sorry, but a LOT of people go to that excuse for either of the reasons I mentioned. "I have a high end this or that, so why isn't it using much of this part, or why is performance only this high" is a really common complaint from people who don't understand.

I can't speak for Grand Theft Auto IV as I'm not too familiar with it, no.

I CAN speak for Crysis as I ran it back then more than fine on a Core 2 Duo E8400, so if people are having issues with it on anything faster, then I don't know what to tell you. It was just graphics cards that struggled with that game, and because it was visually heavy (and coincided with the time frame where widescreen and higher resolutions were being adopted), but by time Fermi came around, it was far from unplayable.

[The Commendatore]

It changed to "Can I run through Hogwarts Legacy without going Arresto Momentum?"

[RunningBot]

The inevitable and unstoppable entropy of the universe slumbered on in its nightmarish state of non caring, digested as life and disguised as expressions of sorrow and love colloquially known as the simple yet treacherous and torturous passage of time.