The Next Crysis (Forspoken)

[KING19]

 

I thought it'll be fun to post this since the internet is still going wild about Forspoken insane system requirements

 

RIP Laptop gaming

 

[Sandy Bridge]

I was expecting higher requirements with the title "The Next Crysis".  This game can run on an Ivy Bridge Quad-Core processor that was released over a decade ago, soon to be 11 years, and video cards that are equivalent to my RX 480 that I bought in 2016, MSRP $240 for the base 8 GB version.  Positively pedestrian requirements!

 

Now granted that's 720p 30 FPS, but when I tried to run the OG Crysis on my 8600M GT laptop, which was the 4th-most powerful laptop GPU available when I bought it mere months before Crysis's release (behind the 8700M GT, 7950 GTX, and just barely behind the 7900 GS; the 8800M series had not yet launched), I got 22 FPS at, IIRC, 800x600.  That was stretching the bounds of playable!  Now I have a laptop that, for half the price of my 2007 Crysis-playing laptop, with no adjustments for inflation, is just about at the "Recommended specs", and should easily hit 1080p 30 FPS given the differences.

 

Point being that a lot more systems, as a percentage of all gaming rigs, are going to be able to play this game without upgrades than were able to play Crysis without upgrades when it came out.

 

Really the minimum requirements aren't much more than Crysis Remastered's, either, especially considering that game came out over two years ago:

 

Crysis Remastered

OS: Windows 10 64-bit
Processor: Intel Core i5-3450 / AMD Ryzen 3
Memory: 8GB
Storage: 20GB
Direct X: DX11
GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 Ti / AMD Radeon 470
GPU memory: 4GB in 1080p

 

More VRAM and RAM and storage, but the processor is still a quad-core Ivy, and the GPU is only half a tier up, seems like a modest jump overall for two years aside from the GTA-like storage space requirements.

 

My take is their marketing department did a good job of predicting what would go viral by releasing super-high-end "Ultra" specs when most games only have "Minimum" and "Recommended", and the Internet isn't realizing that while not low-end, aside perhaps from storage this game's requirements really aren't that outrageous.

[ryan]

thanks for that 

 

interesting video discussing specs below

 

[Hertzian56]

And remember a lot of these game makers get money from the hardware manufs especially Nvidia who wants to sell more regardless of need, so these mins and "recommended" are probably like everything else, LOTS of small print. It's the people who race to buy the latest, the apple line types, this is all for. Probably ultra everything settings etc included in the req's, total waste of resources but profitable.

 

If I'm buying a game with 2hrs of gameplay to refund it and it doesn't perform decently or look decent it's going back and that's on the makers to produce. And if it's juiced with 2hrs of filler(cinematics etc) to circumvent that it's going back. And anyone who buys games out of the gate now, or even worse pre-orders or is a "supporter", deserves the hassle for being a dumbster. Of course on my side I would reasonably need a setup that's within the last 5 years of tech or so.

[KING19]

On 1/22/2023 at 2:26 AM, Sandy Bridge said:

I was expecting higher requirements with the title "The Next Crysis".  This game can run on an Ivy Bridge Quad-Core processor that was released over a decade ago, soon to be 11 years, and video cards that are equivalent to my RX 480 that I bought in 2016, MSRP $240 for the base 8 GB version.  Positively pedestrian requirements!

 

Now granted that's 720p 30 FPS, but when I tried to run the OG Crysis on my 8600M GT laptop, which was the 4th-most powerful laptop GPU available when I bought it mere months before Crysis's release (behind the 8700M GT, 7950 GTX, and just barely behind the 7900 GS; the 8800M series had not yet launched), I got 22 FPS at, IIRC, 800x600.  That was stretching the bounds of playable!  Now I have a laptop that, for half the price of my 2007 Crysis-playing laptop, with no adjustments for inflation, is just about at the "Recommended specs", and should easily hit 1080p 30 FPS given the differences.

 

Point being that a lot more systems, as a percentage of all gaming rigs, are going to be able to play this game without upgrades than were able to play Crysis without upgrades when it came out.

 

Really the minimum requirements aren't much more than Crysis Remastered's, either, especially considering that game came out over two years ago:

 

Crysis Remastered

OS: Windows 10 64-bit
Processor: Intel Core i5-3450 / AMD Ryzen 3
Memory: 8GB
Storage: 20GB
Direct X: DX11
GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 Ti / AMD Radeon 470
GPU memory: 4GB in 1080p

 

More VRAM and RAM and storage, but the processor is still a quad-core Ivy, and the GPU is only half a tier up, seems like a modest jump overall for two years aside from the GTA-like storage space requirements.

 

My take is their marketing department did a good job of predicting what would go viral by releasing super-high-end "Ultra" specs when most games only have "Minimum" and "Recommended", and the Internet isn't realizing that while not low-end, aside perhaps from storage this game's requirements really aren't that outrageous.

 

At least Crysis have some excuses like being a PC exclusive and it was ahead of its time graphics wise so much so that consoles like the PS3 and XBOX360 wasnt able to handle the game until years later where they had to downgrade the game's graphics somewhat and it still stutters. Even a desktop GTX 8800 couldnt run it on High and barely getting above 30FPS+, Ultra is worse below 30FPS most of the time. With the remastered verison with the minimum requirements you can run it at 1080p and get 60FPS+ with low settings.

 

 

Forspoken doesnt have any excuses. Graphics wise it doesnt look any better than other AAA games especially on the PS5. The recommended specs is just as bad the minimum specs, You need a desktop RTX 3070 to be able to run it on 1440p (QHD) 30FPS.... Mind you the desktop RTX 3070 is more powerful than the current strongest laptop GPU 3080ti. The game will be released on the 24th so we'll find out the truth!!, Im leaning towards the game being badly optimized.

[cylix]

Just tried the demo. This is not even comparable to Red dead 2..and that is an old game. The graphics sucks for what they demand. Also gameplay wise is bad, generic game..

 

I put everything on , no fsr and no dlss, RT on i get around 70 to 85 FPS on my 4090 at 5120x1440, and i repeat it looks bad bad.

 

https://ibb.co/LNt56PR

https://ibb.co/nRYWssc
https://ibb.co/6s9DTDy
https://ibb.co/LNt56PR
https://ibb.co/nLCXLmG

https://ibb.co/F4HVCSB

[Hertzian56]

1 hour ago, cylix said:

Just tried the demo. This is not even comparable to Red dead 2..and that is an old game. The graphics sucks for what they demand. Also gameplay wise is bad, generic game..

 

I put everything on , no fsr and no dlss, RT on i get around 70 to 85 FPS on my 4090 at 5120x1440, and i repeat it looks bad bad.

 

https://ibb.co/LNt56PR

https://ibb.co/nRYWssc
https://ibb.co/6s9DTDy
https://ibb.co/LNt56PR
https://ibb.co/nLCXLmG

https://ibb.co/F4HVCSB

Wow does look bad, thx for the real feedback. Only thing I'm wondering about is the gameplay which may or may not be good, don't plan on buying it at all anytime soon though.

[Sandy Bridge]

3 hours ago, cylix said:

Just tried the demo. This is not even comparable to Red dead 2..and that is an old game. The graphics sucks for what they demand. Also gameplay wise is bad, generic game..

 

I put everything on , no fsr and no dlss, RT on i get around 70 to 85 FPS on my 4090 at 5120x1440, and i repeat it looks bad bad.

 

https://ibb.co/LNt56PR

https://ibb.co/nRYWssc
https://ibb.co/6s9DTDy
https://ibb.co/LNt56PR
https://ibb.co/nLCXLmG

https://ibb.co/F4HVCSB

Thanks for the screenies!  I agree, I was not wowed.  Where'd the spend the graphics budget, too detailed of grass or all the clouds in the sky?  If the latter, it isn't as pretty as the real sky when I was up at the lake the other day!

 

Just for fun I'm downloading the demo to my Sandy Bridge + RX480 rig, and for added fun (and so it doesn't eat nearly half my free SSD space), to a 7200 RPM hard drive.  Will report back in a day or two how it plays.  I actually expect it to be at least as playable as Crysis was when it was new, and hey, I've got 32 GB of RAM so I meet the Ultra specs there!

[cylix]

Yes the graphics are bad for a AAA 80 dollars game..

It reminds me of Vanilla Skyrim... A modded Skyrim looks way way better.

 

Regarding the Game play, it's very generic.. Mobd don't have any Ai, it's like your are playing a MmoRpg from 10 years ago... Wave after wave on mobs attacking and you are smashing the buttons..

What a failure

[saturnotaku]

1 hour ago, cylix said:

Regarding the Game play, it's very generic.. Mobd don't have any Ai, it's like your are playing a MmoRpg from 10 years ago... Wave after wave on mobs attacking and you are smashing the buttons..

What a failure

 

So in other words, it's a standard Sony-exclusive open-world game. At least with ones like Horizon Zero Yawn you can get them to run decently on low- to mid-range hardware.

[ryan]

Thank god I didn't buy the game. Requirements don't always equate to better graphics the more demanding. what made crysis special was cranking up the settings allowed for visuals never seen before.

 

I think videogames are in a rut graphics wise, I'm just not impressed anymore. even cyberBUg2077 doesn't impress me. it looks like a game from 10 years ago. I'll patiently wait for someone to come up with another crysis level advancement

[Hertzian56]

https://www.dsogaming.com/news/forspoken-has-frame-pacing-audio-shader-compilation-stutters-issues/

 

Lol

 

 

[ryan]

lol.. doesnt seem worth a penny

[Hertzian56]

Yeah and reading through the steam reviews one mentions the filler for the 2hr refund limit and refunded it because of that in part at least, slow walking, cutscenes etc no free gameplay to judge. It's like one of those tv shows, maybe the wire or something to paraphrase, " step on that ship man, add some baking soda, aspirin and whatever so we can get more out of it", "ain't they gonna notice and stop buying?" "Nah man you know they so zombied they gonna just buy more and they'll need more to feed the monkey" lolz

[saturnotaku]

This requires an RTX 3070 to play smoothly on PC.

 

[Hertzian56]

https://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/forspoken-pc-performance-analysis/

 

Just from the below playthrough this is way too modern cringe garbage, dumbster movies stuff yukkers.

 

 

[cylix]

When a game from 2014 looks way better then one in 2023 you know it failed

 

PS: Amazing how good AC Unity looks even now

[Kitje]

31 minutes ago, cylix said:

When a game from 2014 looks way better then one in 2023 you know it failed

 

PS: Amazing how good AC Unity looks even now

I really had to look up the game engine Forspoken was using and I don't think they're properly utilising it, let alone making it efficient. At first glance before looking up I thought it was a mishmash of asset flips on Unreal Engine 5 or something.

 

There's also an article about how Polaris graphics cards won't run the game at all.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-polaris-forsaken-dx12

And this Reddit post: https://old.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/10lxsw7/polaris_gpus_are_unable_to_run_forspoken_due_to/

 

Disappointing for Polaris and the devs. No wonder my WX4150 lags behind with Feature 12_0. But that shouldn't matter.

 

Graphics wise I wouldn't see any difference, no matter the feature set the graphics card has or uses.  I'm no game developer but they can do better than this.

[Aaron44126]

2 hours ago, Vaardu said:

I really had to look up the game engine Forspoken was using

 

It is Luminous Engine right?  AFAIK, other than some tech demos, the only other full game using that engine is Final Fantasy XV...  Which I did play through last summer.  It has a lot of wonky behaviors and odd performance problems on the PC, I am not surprised if Forspoken is similar.

 

I was a bit interested in Forspoken when I first heard about it a couple of years ago.  But, it seems like they've gone and thrown a lot of time/money at this game, and they sure are giving it a big marketing blitz, it seems like they only managed to come up with something mediocre at best.  Pass.

[Hertzian56]

yeah I don't get how they think that's good looking, granted I'm sure at max 4k it looks good but the art style is blandAF imo, and that makes a difference too. I get a super-woke spiderman-skyrim vibe there with valheim touches lol

[Aaron44126]

Yeah.  Not just graphics though.  With "meh" combat and a "meh" story, or at least that's what I'm hearing, it just doesn't sound interesting at all.

[Hertzian56]

well the above 3hrs of gameplay shows definitely a generic looking game, Dark Souls 3 was and is cooler looking than that and had funner weapons and armor etc.  How they need the horsepower for the results shown must be bad optimization/bad engine, granted I'm only watching it at 1080p but I'm also thinking of Dark Souls 3 or TW3 etc etc etc in 1080p as well. I think Kingdom Come Deliverance, from 2018, looks better and it's HUGE I don't think I ever completely finished it it's so huge, and wonky admittedly. Crazy times.

Edit: and I don't like the language either, seems like gutter mouth is the new normal.

[hfm]

Definitely.. the dialog just seems like low quality YA throwaway TV series stuff, and when the gameplay (from what I can tell) doesn't blow anyone away to overlook it you have a bad combo. If they wanted to have a good female lead character they have plenty of examples.. Kassandra, Alyx, Eivor, Aloy, Femshep, Lara... I mean that's just off the top of my head I'm sure I'm forgetting some.. oh the Dishonored series...

 

That part where she learns she can (with the cuff) do special things.. it would have hit harder if they approached that a different way.. like stunned and realizing she has a weapon to help but is still scared sh**less to go forward.. but instead it's like RAH RAH I'M A BADASS LET ME SAY SOME REALLY UNREALISTIC CHEESY THINGS OVER AND OVER...  could have been so much better... I mean if that was me I'd be sh***ing myself wondering how I was going to gtfo of there...

[Sandy Bridge]

Can confirm that it does not run on Polaris GPUs.  At least they have a demo so you can try it out and see if it works without having to go through a refund if it doesn't.

 

Probably won't bother trying it on my computer that actually meets the minimum (and most of the recommended) requirements.  Too many other games I want to play more in my Steam backlog.

[KING19]

On 1/27/2023 at 3:26 PM, cylix said:

When a game from 2014 looks way better then one in 2023 you know it failed

 

PS: Amazing how good AC Unity looks even now

 

Haha 😆

 

I was right. The game is just badly optimized......  The graphics doesnt look any better than a typical AAA game, even games like RDR2, Cyberpunk 2077, Assassin's Creed Unity and, etc has better graphics than Forbroken. The Next Crysis? more like the next GTA IV or even Saints Row 2 because those games are still the kings of bad optimization... Even with modern hardware you'll struggle playing them.

 

I'll try out the demo to see how it runs on my 1660ti laptop, Wanna bet it wont be pretty even with FSR lol 😅