Crysis: Remastered leaked, coming to PC

[ronsis 0]

17 minutes ago, Luigi master89 said:

That's the problem; hobbyists can make stunning visuals using the technology, but triple AAA developers are contractually obligated to keep some parity with the console versions, so it comes as to no surprise that the average AAA game only looks marginally better (shadows.  SHADOWS.) with RTX enabled.  If Crytek had the same mindset they had in 2007, Crysis remastered would be a PC exclusive and as such the game would have the most breathtaking visual fidelity allowed, but because it's the current year and consoles are targetted, raytracing would merely cripple the performance for uh, some darker spaces?  It can't look too much better than the console versions, otherwise the console gamers would feel bad about having an inferior version despite constantly bragging about their exclusives.

Raytracing isn't just shadows, its much more. It can replace ENTIRE lighting systems, not just shadows. Look at Minecraft RTX, the games lighting behaves completely different from the normal version, it simulates bounce lighting, colored lighting, water caustics, and reflections across varying surface materials. That's coming from a "big" studio too. Seems to me you're too focused on the rather small aspects of raytracing to actually understand what it means for graphics. A game being hard to run ≠ graphically impressive, if anything, a game that looks graphically impressive while being good with resources is more of a game-changer than just having it looking pretty with no regard to performance, and targeting consoles means they'll have to go that direction. "Oh but how dare they make a good looking game on all platforms with decent performance!" This isn't like Obsidian having to cut a FONV's scale down magnitudes due to consoles, this is a developer taking on a challenge with regards to performance and visual fidelity. Work smart, not hard.

[Suicide machine 43]

31 minutes ago, ronsis said:

Raytracing isn't just shadows, its much more. It can replace ENTIRE lighting systems, not just shadows. Look at Minecraft RTX, the games lighting behaves completely different from the normal version, it simulates bounce lighting, colored lighting, water caustics, and reflections across varying surface materials. That's coming from a "big" studio too. Seems to me you're too focused on the rather small aspects of raytracing to actually understand what it means for graphics. A game being hard to run ≠ graphically impressive, if anything, a game that looks graphically impressive while being good with resources is more of a game-changer than just having it looking pretty with no regard to performance, and targeting consoles means they'll have to go that direction. "Oh but how dare they make a good looking game on all platforms with decent performance!" This isn't like Obsidian having to cut a FONV's scale down magnitudes due to consoles, this is a developer taking on a challenge with regards to performance and visual fidelity. Work smart, not hard.

It can also bring every existing card to its knees if used on bigger scale as Minecraft RTX proves, where even with insane optimisations and upscaling to 1080p from lower resolution using DLSS 2.0, RTX 2080 barely manages to keep itself above 60fps (rendering natively it gets crushed with average FPS being 50 and min 99th precintile being 38). So yeah, we're most likely looking at another limited use of raytracing - my guess is reflections and maybe some sort of additional enhancements to Crytek's global illumination. Anything above it seems already heavy for RTX accelerated raytraying with something at complexity of Crysis and already pretty much near impossible to achieve with Crytek's hardware agnostic RT.

[Luigi master89 11]

In theory, targeting consoles means they would need to optimize their methods so that they can provide a reasonable speed on a limited system, but in practice just winds up being dumbing down the system so that it just works.  Let's take for example Broforce, a rather simple looking game with a robust destruction model.  Since it was made for PC first, and then ported to consoles later, PCs had no time handling the destruction while it struggled quite dearly on consoles.  Had it been designed with consoles in mind and then ported to PC, the destruction model would be dumbed down or maybe removed outright just so that it works at an acceptable speed on consoles.

Game engines such as Unreal3/4 or even Unity are capable of so much more than what your typical console-to-PC port allows, this is what the whole master race crowd refers to when they say consoles are holding back PC.  Ironically, PC's best looking games would not exist had it not been for consoles, I reckon Crysis remastered would not even exist had it not been for consoles.

[ronsis 0]

19 minutes ago, Luigi master89 said:

In theory, targeting consoles means they would need to optimize their methods so that they can provide a reasonable speed on a limited system, but in practice just winds up being dumbing down the system so that it just works.  Let's take for example Broforce, a rather simple looking game with a robust destruction model.  Since it was made for PC first, and then ported to consoles later, PCs had no time handling the destruction while it struggled quite dearly on consoles.  Had it been designed with consoles in mind and then ported to PC, the destruction model would be dumbed down or maybe removed outright just so that it works at an acceptable speed on consoles.

Game engines such as Unreal3/4 or even Unity are capable of so much more than what your typical console-to-PC port allows, this is what the whole master race crowd refers to when they say consoles are holding back PC.  Ironically, PC's best looking games would not exist had it not been for consoles, I reckon Crysis remastered would not even exist had it not been for consoles.

While I agree with the second paragraph, the first paragraph undermines any thought that they might actually do so because we've seen games get dumbed down for consoles and in turn also dumbing down the pc version. Now I understand its the easy way to simply do that and that there's a trend to do so, but i think its rather naive to say that's how it'll always play out regardless of dev team, publisher, hardware, etc, etc. Crytek has always tried to push graphics in a smart way since Crysis 2, and that's when EA was putting a flame under their pants. Even their new releases like HUNT shows they still can make great looking games, but do it efficiently. Assumptions and cynicism won't advance anything, only hold you back.

[Mastan 7]

On 4/18/2020 at 8:58 AM, ronsis said:

Then blame the implementation. I get games like Quake 2 RTX and Minecraft mainly use it for reflections but other games use much better implementations, like Metro Exodus using it for GI (Global Illumination),  Tomb Raider for shadows, and Control uses it for multiple features besides reflections. Don't write off raytracing just because some completely different dev decides to do a half baked implementation if it.

Quake 2 RTX doesn't look wet. In fact it's quite opposite to earlier implementations, eg q2pt:

In Q2RTX stone surfaces are completely non-glossy, metal is shiny, I don't see exaggeration there.

Q2RTX also features global illumination, you can check it on the first map in the secret area with silencer - no light directly shines there, but it's not completely dark in daylight.