Your Computer Probably Can't Make Crysis 3 Look This Good

Your Computer Probably Can't Make Crysis 3 Look This Good

Sure, games are slowly moving toward 4k resolutions, but what if you skipped that and went straight to almost eight times larger than highest resolutions consoles can run right now? The result is incredible.

Your Computer Probably Can't Make Crysis 3 Look This Good

Redditor K-putt decided to push his PC to the limit and get these shots of Crysis 3 at up to 8K resolution, with custom settings to make it look even better than the default ultra high graphics settings. He played through the game and switched resolutions when coming across a particularly pretty scene. Why switch resolutions? Because the game runs at around 2fps when the resolution is set so high.

K-putt explained how to do it in case you'd like to try it for yourself:

I used Maldo's On The Fly tool to get access to some blocked cvar's [engine commands like draw distance] of the game. I also used his ultra preset for those screenshots.

Then i added some custom exec's [command-line settings] for those high resolutions. Which i could then change via keybindings.

So i line-up a shot, change to 8K for example, take a screenshot and go back to 1080p. SweetFX was used as well to adjust some colours/blacklevel etc. And i used a cheat-engine hack to get some sort of a free camera (changing the x,y,z player coordinates)

Click "expand" in the upper-left to see them bigger, or visit the Flickr page here for more of the full-resolution screenshots.

Your Computer Probably Can't Make Crysis 3 Look This Good
Your Computer Probably Can't Make Crysis 3 Look This Good
Your Computer Probably Can't Make Crysis 3 Look This Good
Your Computer Probably Can't Make Crysis 3 Look This Good
Your Computer Probably Can't Make Crysis 3 Look This Good

Crysis 3 [Flickr]


Comments

    yes lets post 8k screenshots and ask users without an 8k TV or Monitor to take a look. Makes sense :/

    Too bad the game was such a disappointment. The first is still the best.

      I actually really enjoyed Crysis 3. The main issue was that it was quite short. You know it was rushed a little, although Crytek at least polish their games unlike studios like DICE who just dump games in a mess.

      Sure I loved the first, the more open world nature. The direction the game went was disappointing to begin with, but it grew on me.

      You think of Crysis games in cities and immediate thing of it being much more open world. However I do feel that in many parts they still gave you choice to play around. It still frequently had, 'here's an environment, go forth and do it how you wish.' Which to me often seemed something which people that complained didn't do.

      I think too many people are conditioned to COD's walk in a straight line shooting, that they never really appreciated it. To me Crysis was all about being stealth. Even in the first game, I'd just have fun running around environments, blowing things up, destroying things, killing people. It's never better than playing on a hard skill level.

      I have played Crysis 2 a few times through. I like the fact it's not as short as most FPS games these days. It has a nice length to it. I have played around and if you play on a lower skill setting you can just boringly shoot your way through. But on a higher level, going stealth, it's so much fun.

      I hope the Crytek people figure out a way to make a new Crysis that gets back to larger scale. Maybe with out old gen consoles they can move to bigger environments.

      I also wish they'd do an official remastering of the first Crysis in the never versions of the engine. So people can once again say, 'but can it run crysis?' The only thing holding Crysis 1 from looking amazing these days is the lack of advanced shaders and effects. Now a game can superficially look better in screenshots, like Far Cry 3, but it lacks anywhere near the detail and world building.

      Last edited 03/05/14 4:19 pm

        I played sooooo much of the first Crysis. I still think it holds up well today, the only thing I don't like is the suit controls, 2 & 3 feel much tighter.

        I didn't mind Crysis 2 but when they announced 3, they made it sound like a return to the sandbox ideals of the first. So I was very disappointed to finally get to the outdoor environments (grass, finally! Yes!), to find that it made up about 30mins of game time that was purely linear.

        And in the end everything was brown, everything was massive, cover based combat. Just a massive anti-climax. The game started crashing when I reached the final boss so I uninstalled, and I haven't played since.

        I think Crysis still holds up pretty well these days. I'd be up for a remaster as well. Do you remember getting to the VTOL section? The first time I saw that I was just blown away. I thought 'Man this is the game that just keeps on giving!'.

        Crysis is up there with HL 1 and 2 for me in the FPS stakes. Just a superior experience. But it's like Crytek turned their back on everything I liked about Crysis and went for a pure derivative shooter feel afterwards. Pretty graphics are nice but it's what you do with them that counts.

          I read a lot about what the Crytek people were saying when it came to Crysis 2. Basically they said they needed to make it for console as well for monetary reasons. There were also a lot of comments that console players need and demand that fast linear action or else they, unlike pc players, just turn off and stop playing.

          I do also remember them saying that they misjudged a lot of the approach to Crysis 2.

          One thing to be fair to Crysis 3, there were some pretty large levels, where you did have a big environment to play in. It wasn't jungles, but I seem to remember some sections, sneaking into things where it was large and you had many options. Maybe my opinion will wait when I replay. I am going to wait until either I get a second graphics card or wait and see if Nvidia has anything new and powerful that isn't stupidly expensive coming out later this year.

          The strangest thing to me about Crysis 3 was, why didn't they want until next gen consoles? Coming out earlier in the year on old gen. When they could have come out on launch and been the must get title for graphics, plus have had a bit more time to add more content.

          It only makes sense if EA wanted it out for that quarter. Which explains the shorter nature of the game. Seems like such a no brainier to have waited. What filled that slot this year? Titanfall which has terrible graphics. Crysis 3 had better graphics than BF4 and Crytek actually polishes their games and makes them work properly. You just know EA is a game that puts scheduling above the quality of the products.

          On the VTOL level, I remember my computer running so badly on that the first time around. I think it wasn't until my next computer I truly got to appreciate that. Crysis 1 does stand up quite well. I however have the issue where every year I go to replay it, and a lot of the time get distracted and never do. So I have done the first part of the game so many times to death.

          Warhead was also good. Maybe I'll give that a replay soon. I do also agree the new power suit controls do feel better in the later games.

          Did you ever waste time in Crysis by just throwing barrels through buildings? haha

          I just hope Crytek moving forward with new gen consoles actually get back to the roots. They have Homefront 2 coming out later this year which will be interesting. Now that first game was damn linear and short. I hope Crytech through that all out the window and do something different and awesome with it.

            Hahaha. No, I tend to go back to the earlier levels and just predator it up to a ridiculous extent, freaking out the enemies. Appearing, punching one above the trees and then disappearing and running away, watching them freak out for a while and then repeating. I like the earlier levels better than the later ones, but I still like everything about the game better than the urban environments of 2, or the brown of 3. Like seriously wtf? Such a great engine and you use it to render brown corridor and industrial environments. Like we've never seen either of those in a FPS before.

            For a VERY long time, every time I upgraded my PC Crysis was the first game I'd play to see the difference in performance.

            Warhead was ok, but the story was a bit, here and there. Actually that was something I never understood about Crysis. Nomad was THE MAN and they killed him off with no explanation at all!

            Does titanfall really have terrible gfx though? I'm planning on picking it up when I see it for under $30.

            EA are just the worst when it comes to releasing broken games. I'm done with EA for a while. They do have some great titles, but after Sim City (broken for ages), Dead Space 3 (everything I loved gone), ME3 (look, it just was a let down ok?) and BF4 (broken for ages) I'm going to give them a break.

            Uplay are also really bad for releasing games that aren't ready. I bought splinter cell blacklist collectors edition yesterday at JB for $24 (came with a sweet watch WOOOT!) and I swear I had to DL about 5gb of patches before I could play it.

            Edit - lol, uplay, meant to say ubisoft. Steam is so much better to use.

            Last edited 03/05/14 4:52 pm

              I barely played Titanfall, but it's graphics are definitely of the old gen. I should give it more of a chance. It's graphics are somewhere around Black Ops 1 in my opinion. Obviously some newer stuff going on, but COD Ghosts and Blops 2 have better graphics in my opinion. So that's saying something.

              With EA, I so can't believe how bad BF4 still is. There's all the little bugs and glitches they have never fixed. However the main thing is the lag. The other day me and some mates wanted to play close quarters on BF3. We went into an american server with pings in the 200s. It played and felt better than BF4 does on a local server with a 20 ping. Something is seriously wrong on the backend of BF4 and at this stage they clearly are never going to fix it. So yeah, I can't buy another BF game until I hear what it's like.

    "2fps" "your computer probably can't make it look this good" is this some kinda joke? My 5 year old pc could run this game at 8k resolution with 2fps easily. If the guy was running at 60fps or even 30fps I'd agree but anyone with a half decent gaming pc could run any game at 8k resolution and 2fps.

    Kotaku seriously needs to put size warnings on their articles. I'm sick of realising I've just downloaded 60MB (in this instance) or even hundreds of MB *after* the fact... I could be downloading software or even a digital MP3 album instead...

    Edit: It looks like this is an AU site issue only. They scale the thumbnails on the US site but we get the original image resized on the page.

    Last edited 03/05/14 12:11 pm

      Yah, I made the mistake of looking at the destiny article on my phone. That blew a few hundred meg off my plan. :(

      Edit - guys fix the comments already. I had to try and post this about 10 times before it would let me. It's getting to the point where people just won't be able to comment anymore.

      Last edited 03/05/14 2:24 pm

        Damn, I was doing the same thing on my mobile too bit tried to reload the destiny page a number of times. Had to scratch my head when I had already blown 65% of my 2gig data quota in 5 days.

        Thanks Kotaku! (Please find a more knowledgeable webmaster)

    False post. Thanks Kotaku! Site works great guys keep it up! - Said noone using the site in the last few weeks ever.

    Last edited 03/05/14 2:25 pm

    In twenty years will we look back and this and think how crappy the graphics were back then? interestingly, even at 8k, it still LOOKS like computer generated environment.

      Yes.

      The problem is order-of-priority. It's pretty easy to load high-res textures these days with minimal performance cost. DX11 tesselation is pretty decent, so things like trees and environment can get some spectacular models at an average cost.

      The more demanding stuff - like shadows and light - are pretty damn expensive and don't give as much of a visual-boost as the other stuff (especially if it's in place of the other stuff), so they are ranked quite low.

      Once we get super-powerful components, we can start to render the 'deluxe' features of graphics on top of the standard that we're used to. Then we'll start getting close to realism.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now