![]() In the open expanses and outside areas where the gameplay occurs, the game fares much, much better and the new lighting system can gleam, with some ray-tracing effects even evident that weren’t in the originals. This happens in all 3 titles, but is most noticeable in 1 and 2, where character model details are now completely washed out in cutscenes when there isn’t enough lighting. It makes the whole sequence now incredibly dark (no light sources, ya see), so all of the little details that were illuminated before are completely hidden away now. In Crysis 2 for example, the starting level’s environment was designed with increased lighting, which is taken away by the new system. Surfaces and character models reflect realistic lighting in the game world, rather than light artificially happening from places of no light source. ![]() One of the biggest “improvements” has been to the lighting, which is now more natural and organic. So the question then becomes, do the remasters actually improve the already phenomenal graphical performances which still hold up today? Well, the answer is a bit mixed. So much so I couldn’t quite believe how they actually managed to make them work on PS3, Xbox 360 and early PC hardware. The games looked great is what I’m saying. Crysis 3, with its beautiful post-apocalyptic feel, complete with brilliant texture work, enemy design and attention to detail as you rampage through the remains of civilisation. Similarly, the sequels still look fantastic in their own right, Crysis 2 with its decimated city feel and heart-pounding spectacles as buildings collapse and you traverse a slowly crumbling New York. Water and lighting effects are excellent, the jungle foliage is intense and colourful, the island of Lingshan you explore visually is presented as somewhere you’d love to holiday, minus the explosive barrels and bloodthirsty soldiers. The environments still, even in 2021, look lush, vibrant and at times downright gorgeous. Jumping into Crysis 1, I could still see why there was such a furore around how it looked. Despite making the move to console, both games were absolutely stunning back in the day and wowed many a player with how they pushed the hardware of the era. Crysis 2 and 3 were certainly no slouches either. As mentioned before, the first Crysis became renowned for its incredible graphics, lighting and texture work for the time, dazzling the 0.1% who actually had the rig to run the thing. It seems fitting to first discuss what made the series so well-known and popular – the graphics. ![]() ![]() There was excitement too, about being able to finally play the original and see what all the fuss was about back in 2007. ![]() I played a metric nano-ton of Crysis 2 back in the day upon its release and completed Crysis 3, so it’s fair to say I had some soothing nostalgia about being able to re-experience those old games. So, here we are now – 14 years later, with the trilogy of FPS titles being neatly bundled together with some graphical upgrades and… well, not too much else, in fairness. As a series, Crysis 2 elevated it during the peak era of shooters, becoming a household and popular name, before Crysis 3 proved to be the last in line before Crytek lost their way. I remember hearing all about it online and from friends at school, the mythical Crysis game that would bring ruin upon virtually every PC foolish enough to attempt to start it. Combining 3 historically brilliant FPS titles, does the remastered package upgrade the nanosuit to modern standards? The Finger Guns review:Ĭombining 3 historically brilliant FPS titles, does the Crysis Remastered Trilogy package upgrade the nanosuit to modern standards? The Finger Guns review.īack in 2007, the release of a not-so-insignificant shooter named Crysis was the talk of the gaming world, namely because of the memes that spawned from the “but can it run Crysis?!” question. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |