Following on from the recent announcement that the Crysis Remastered Trilogy is making its way to Switch this Autumn, Digital Foundry has gone hands-on with the third entry in the series to take a look at just how the upcoming port holds up on Nintendo's hybrid console.
We've certainly got high hopes for both sequels after the top-notch job Saber Interactive did in porting the excellent Crysis Remastered last year and, judging by what Digital Foundry has to say about its experiences so far, things are indeed looking good for the trilogy's full release later this year.
According to Richard Leadbetter over at Eurogamer, things are shaping up very nicely for the Switch port of Crysis 3, revealing that a lot of the magic that Saber Interactive are able to achieve with these ports comes down to the adaptability of the original game's engine:
There are a couple of good reasons why Crysis 3 Remastered runs well on Switch and that starts with the scalability of the original game. Yes, Crytek's 2013 game is monstrously demanding at its highest settings, but knock back the quality presets and it turns out to be far more manageable on a wider range of kit - and let's not forget that there was a rendition of the game that ran on Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.
Yes, it didn't run particularly well, but a foundation was there - and in actual fact, the Switch version is scaled up from those last, last-gen versions of the game.
Saber Interactive also get a shout out here, with Leadbetter pointing out that a lot of the success with this version of the game is, of course, down to the very skilled maestros behind last year's top-notch Crysis port and the stellar Switch version of The Witcher 3.
Leadbetter goes on to say that, as far as Digital Foundry can see, this version of the game beats out the PS3 and 360 versions in terms of anti-aliasing, detail levels and the addition of real-time global illumination.
Saber takes the PS360 version, strips out the lacklustre post-process anti-aliasing of the period and replaces it with TAA [temporal anti-aliasing] - all but eliminating the pixel popping, jaggies and shimmering. This is just a first look, so we've not gone deep in terms of comparisons, but it's also clear that detail levels - particularly on grass - have improved tremendously. Quality upgrades are thinner on the ground compared to Crysis and Crysis 2 Remastered, but once again, SVOGI real-time global illumination is added - even on Switch.
With the docked version of Crysis 3 reported to be currently running at 900p and targeting a solid 30fps, and a day zero patch already confirmed to enhance the experience further — it's fair to say we are more than ready to jump back into the boots of Prophet to tear around the game's jungles, as well as its spectacular rendition of 2047 NYC.
Are you gearing up to jump back into your Nanosuit when the Crysis Remastered Trilogy lands on Switch later this year? Let us know in the comments!
[source eurogamer.net]
Comments (83)
Sounds good. Another cracking job…
With effort it is clear the Switch smokes the 360 and PS3 in terms of processing power and yet there are still a dearth of games that skipped the Wii that would be right at home on the console.
I’m looking mainly at SSX which deserves another shot at greatness, minus the terrible krschk big jump incoming krschk pilot on the radio.
@RadioHedgeFund I wouldn’t say it smokes those systems, but at least manages to match them. I have mixed feelings on downgraded games. On the one hand, wee it’s portable. On the other hand, it’s just not the best way to play. A game like Crysis 3 was meant to be eye candy, and while it certainly runs well enough on the Switch and the older systems, it’s a far better experience on a PC.
It certainly sounds like it's shaping up to be another solid port from Saber Interactive....
@RadioHedgeFund Not the one you maybe referring to but I loved SSX tricky. That would be my ultimate wish for the Switch.
For some reason i could never get in to the first game on ps3 so skipped it on switch. Completed the 2nd and liked what i played of the 3rd one tho. Man that bow and arrow 🏹
Is there going to be a physical release of the trilogy?
I have forgotten that the remastered trilogy existed. But now i remember.
It seems like another top notch port from Saber Interactive
I had a great time with the original on Switch. I'll definitely pick up one of the sequels but I'm not sure I need both. If I'm just to play one of the sequels, which is the better of the 2? Or is it worth playing through both?
@BloodNinja it actually does smoke the PS3/360 versions. Frame timing issues aside, Switch is hitting 30 frames a second solid in sections where the PS3 dropped to 20-23 frames, and at a higher native resolution. DF is clear that on every level the Switch version is beating the previous console versions.
I don't actually have a PC for games. If a game is heavily compromised for the port, that's one thing, but not only does this look good, but Crysis is a game that is more than it's eye candy.
Wait a day zero patch, does that mean the game will come with the patch already install out of the box?
@BloodNinja Not much of an expert but as someone who still plays a bit of the 360, I would say that the Switch has a bit of an edge somewhat in graphics and performance. RER2 and Metro is so much better on the Switch IMO as I have both on the 2 consoles. Lego games seem to run smoother on the Switch too.
I love it when they actually show Switch footage before release. So many publishers seem to want to hide their work, not really inspiring a lot of faith in it. When I see this, I want to play it myself, instead of assuming "yeah this will run like a constipated crab on Switch, when I see PS4 or 5 footage. Right now I'm waiting for Tormented Souls, and I know that if it were made around the Switch, it could probably look almost the same. But when it's a downgraded version, and they're not showing it...
@BloodNinja I don't really see how it matches with PS3 and 360 versions when the framerate on Switch is literally consistent 30 fps and on 7th gen platforms it dips to like 22 fps
It sounds a amazing job, but I not a fan of FPS on console (only Metroid Prime franchise). In this case I'll go on PC
@anoyonmus If you believe those numbers, then you won’t see it 🤷♂️
@path4smash We would only know if there is an edge of the games were optimized identically, then we studied the performance on them. The PS3 was a very difficult machine to develop for, whereas the Switch seems easier. However, because of the mobile nature of the Tegra processor, it’s possible that games have to be downgraded further than they were on older consoles.
@erikharrison I doubt it. These are first impressions. If there are areas later in the game that suffer from frame rates, well, we don’t know yet because DF only offered first impressions.
Even if you look at things like Dark Souls, you see a marked difference. Look at load times, for example. On my PS3 that I added an internal SSD to, Demons and Dark Souls load areas in 3-5 seconds. Meanwhile, the Switch, with a natively digital storage medium, takes 30-40 seconds to load an area in Dark Souls. Load times in Skyrim are abhorrent when compared to the PS3 version. Performance-wise, they are basically creating the same outcome as each other, but the other advantages I mentioned.
The job is sterling to be fair. It's great playing it in handheld mode.
@path4smash Yeah I get what you mean. Also not an apples to apples comparison as mobile chipsets behave differently. Metro is also a remaster so there are optimizations same with Crysis. RER2 and the Lego games though are good references since they are likely the same versions elsewhere.
@BloodNinja The "best way" to experience a game is ultimately whatever way you most enjoy playing it. If that's at 4K/60 on your beefed-up PC with an RTX 3090, then so be it. If that's on a handheld console, that's fine too.
Frankly, unless you were playing your AAA games on a powerful PC last gen, you were playing "downgraded" versions of them. And, unlike Switch, those home console versions had no unique benefits to offer the player.
Yes I will buy the physics version
@BloodNinja presumably you’ve played part 3 on the Switch then?
2nd was fun and for me more refined in terms of controls and you can tell it was made with controllers in mind.
It's amazing that such a compact little system like the switch out guns ps3 and 360. Testament to the developers as well.
@Ralizah I think if there are measurable qualities that add or detract from a games experience, that should be taken into account though. Why should I pay retail price for the Switch version of Crysis, which is severely downgraded to support the portable console, when I can pay for a substantially better experience? If I’m playing a game like Dark Souls, I don’t mind as much because that’s not an “eye candy” game, it’s a “gameplay” game. But with a beautiful game like Crysis? I wanna see the sweat beads on these peoples faces, see the gorgeous scenery in full fidelity, and I want to be able to play with keyboard and mouse, instead of clumsy, drifting analogue sticks. Just saying, some people are happy with less, and for most things, I am that way. But there are a couple exceptions I make, and having a downgraded Switch port of a game I have already been enjoying the way it’s meant to be played just isn’t for me!
@mantarobuster300 If it’s proven, then it wouldn’t struggle with software that was on the older systems, and it would be able to exceed what the older systems were capable of. Instead, it’s simply matching them. Otherwise, a more advanced game as the same quality like Bloodborne or something similar would appear on Switch. Something that looks and feels current gen, as opposed to being downgraded last-gen games ...Where is it?
Glad to hear that, the switch has been my go to to play the classic shooters and finishing the Crysis trilogy will be great, just hoping I'll be done with Quake before it comes out
@BloodNinja If a person is opting for the Switch version of Crysis 3, it's either because they only own that console or value playing it on Switch more than on other platforms. For that second person, the hybrid advantage might be worth sacrificing a bit of performance/visual fidelity for. And, for that person, the Switch version is the "best" version of the game.
Like, I could play Monster Hunter Stories 2 on PC where the framerate is better, but it's a game I enjoy playing both on and off the TV, so, for me, the Switch release is the "best" version.
It's worth remembering not everyone is massively hung up on performance numbers. Which should also apply to people who mained PS4/Xbox One last gen, since they also got downgraded versions of big games for an entire generation.
It's really just down to what you value and where you feel most comfortable playing your games. Options are good.
@BloodNinja hmm, Skyrim is barely playable on PS3. On Switch you get smooth 30fps. With somewhat better graphics. Load times is down to storage medium. If you use SSD sure it might load faster. If you could put a a high speed m.2 ssd in the Switch then it would probably load faster.
But I don’t measure performance by load speed, unless both machines are having the same kind of storage technology installed.
The PS3 probably has way more power than the Switch (for those who know how to unlock it, Naughty Dog for example).
But in general, pretty much all PS3 era games could probably run just fine on the Switch. Because very few actually bothered learning how to optimize for the Cell properly.
I would say that the Switch beat the PS360 era’s performance (with some exceptions)
@mantarobuster300 yes I know, just amazing how a system with such a small form factor can be that much better:)
@DaniPooo Lies. I’ve played both versions of Skyrim. Many hours on PS3 and it while it was flawed compared to PC, it ran great and had low loading times on my SSD. The Switch version is good, but performs about the same as PS3, and has much longer loading times. It’s ok to love on the Switch, but don’t ignore plain facts lol
@Ralizah Thats great, why do you feel like you have to justify your preferences because I stated mine?
@mantarobuster300 I did. It looks about the same. Thanks though!
@BloodNinja I don't. Just illustrating my logic with an example.
You stated it's not the best way to play the game (Crysis 3). I was pointing out that depends purely on the expectations and needs of the player. The Switch is different enough from other platforms that it offers advantages that aren't provided by rival platforms. So, in this example, it's not even "happy with less." It's "happy with something different." Less of a straight downgrade and more of a sidegrade, depending on how much you value the system's portability and small form factor (particularly with Switch Lite).
@BloodNinja The switch is far more powerful, but feel free to contest to usage of the term smokes. Manages to match ps3? That’s just flat out incorrect. Of course the switch is weaker than ps4, but far more powerful than a ps3.
Enjoy spamming the comments!
@anzzjam I've debated a handful of times responding to his comments which are demonstrably wrong. Just decided it wasn't worth it.
@Indielink I don’t like how he hounds everyone here so I felt it worthy to point that out every now and then. It gets tiring seeing that half a comments section is this ninja guy that doesn’t seem to like anything anyone has to say around here.
In terms of Skyrim, a little bit of research will go a long way.
Skyrim on Switch, visually, is at a halfway point between the PS3/360 versions and the PS4/bone version, and without the memory management issues that crippled long playthroughs on the PS3 by causing it to constantly stutter.
looks even better than I expected
I play my games on the Switch. It's the only modern console I own. I have some mini consoles, but for new gaming, Switch is it.
If the games play well and are fun, I don't really care how they compare to PC or other consoles. I've had a blast with DOOM and Witcher 3 on the Switch, and now I'm playing Bioshock, which is just an absolute gem. Is the Switch the "ideal" way to play these games? To purists, probably not, but most people are more concerned about if the game is fun or not, not does it have ray tracing, 4K visuals and other bells and whistles.
@anzzjam LOL!!!!
@BloodNinja SSDs are up to 5 times faster (depending on the SSD) than the bottlenecked ~110MB read speed of U1 microSD cards or the Switch's internal flash memory. Even if you give the Switch a faster card like a U3, it can't read it any faster. SSDs use a different interface, an actual computer SATA inteface, with bigger bandwidth, so load times are not a fair comparison. To even it out, load up Dark Souls from an external USB 2 HDD on PS3. The PS3 will be faster, but only slightly.
But yeah I'm with you if you really want to play the AAA games they were meant to be played, PC all the way. And that's why I haven't bought any of these ports/remasters on Switch since I have XBox (but Skyrim does tempt me). However, for people who don't have access to that hardware or other consoles, you can do worse than the Switch. The video shows the PS3 dipping to the low 20's FPS vs the Switch's solid 30FPS. The Switch can draw more foliage/grass in the environment, has great temporal anti-aliasing that gets rid of all the jagged edges while moving, higher resolution textures (none of that low-res blurry texture mess so common with these remasters/ports), more natural lighting, etc., etc. This isn't a usual downgraded port, this is optimizing for the hardware and sticking in everything they can without tanking the system. I mean, color me impressed by what the weaker hardware is doing here.
@BloodNinja The Switch is more powerful than the PS3 and the XBox360, but less powerful than the base PS4 and Xbox One.
@Ralizah When the PC version exists, sorry, it's a downgrade and not a sidegrade. From two gens ago to Switch, sure, but taking PC out of the equation seems like cherry picking, at this point. Anything that's on PC and Switch (and that's a lot of games!) is a downgrade, there's no avoiding that. I don't like super long load times for bigger games on Switch. Some of the less taxing games are fun, but if I want to play Dark Souls, I haven't touched the Switch version in months. It's just not as good as on a PC. You have a right to your opinion, but when we are talking specs and such, it's best to keep that at the wayside, since the numbers do all the talking.
@kingbk Yet, it struggles to exceed the quality of any game that was on the PS3. It seems to match it just fine, which doesn't lead me to believe that it's better. When I boot up Dark Souls on my PS3, it's 3-5 seconds between bonfires and 30-40 seconds between bonfires on my Switch. Just how is that better? They are both loading off of digital hard drives, so if the Switch was better, wouldn't it load faster?
@masterLEON I'm aware of the limitations of the Switch compared to other things, I've been arguing that all day LOL. Thank you.
@Ralizah not only that but the PS4 and Xbox One versions are worse than the Switch version
@BloodNinja I can see I'll see myself out, LOL.
@BloodNinja Performance-wise? Of course.
But the Switch version is flexible, which means there are scenarios where it's the more comfortable and convenient version to play.
I could see myself playing this on PC or on Switch, depending on what my needs at the time were. The pure home console versions are the only strict downgrades, as they offer no advantage over the PC version.
The Switch versions of shooters are also often preferable to home console releases control-wise, since gyro support has practically been standardized on the console, whereas few games on PS4/PS5 and none on Xbox support gyroscopic aiming, which is second only to mouse aiming when it comes to accuracy, when done well.
@anoyonmus Of Skyrim? How so?
Texture quality/lighting/resolution/etc. are all on better on PS4. Which is... expected. It's a more potent system.
@Ralizah not Skyrim. Crysis remastered. Sorry if you were talking about something else
@anoyonmus Ah, OK.
...still, how so? Do they have performance issues on the next-gen devices or something?
@Ralizah yea there were performance issues on PS4 and Xbox one versions of crysis. Also the textures as well. Just read the pushsquare review.
Idk about ps5 and series x and s though. Maybe it got resolved but I am not sure
@Ralizah I see what you mean, though I disagree with the gyro controls. I find those to be insufficient during faster gameplay scenarios. Keyboard and mouse will always reign supreme, for me, but that's because that's what I've used the most.
@masterLEON Always good to hear from you!
@BloodNinja I think you misunderstand me - I'm only saying the Crysis 3 looks measurably better on Switch than on PS3, not that load times are the same, or that Switch is "better" for all games.
DF's is running the final version of the game, their "preview" is not restricted to some areas or portions of the game. It runs at a higher framerate, with more objects on screen, at a higher resolution, and with a superior AA solution. This is pretty objectively stellar work by SI.
@Ralizah
Lots of truth in this one.
@BloodNinja
Umm, yay? 🤷♂️ Cool story bro, but most probably don't (or should) care what you think. How about you do you and let them do them? I mean for all of your ranting, are you going to buy everybody the proper equipment to enjoy THEIR gaming the way that YOU feel is the right and only way? If not, why xan't people like you ever ever respectfully mind their business and let people live without trying to poop on their parade or telling them how they are doing their life wrong?
There was multiplayer on at least the second game. Wonder if that will come back.
@BloodNinja Oh, you forgot how this game looked and ran on those systems, it was dreadful.
Im with the belief that the Crysis games are meant to be played on PC because the visuals are a large part of their appeal, otherwise they are just very flawed generic shooters. Crysis 3 in particular with its rough jumps in quality. That being said, a good port is a good port. If people want to play Crysis on a handheld this is a good time, because I'd call you insane if you were to tell me these games could run on a handheld system a few years ago. The Switch is certainly miles above that generation of consoles. There's absolutely no way a PS3 could run Monster Hunter Rise as well as the Switch does.
What would make this port excel is if the Switch version had an option between Performance and Quality, obviously taking inspiration from Rocket League.
@Varkster I totally get you!
@Gameboy1975 You could apply your own advice to your own life, instead of bothering me.
@erikharrison You're right, I was misunderstanding, and thank you for clarifying! Oh, the plight of text-only communication...
@BloodNinja It does smoke those systems. Just compare the specs. It’s about halfway between the 360 and the Xbox 1
Ports of software programmed for very different hardware are not always the best way to judge.
Games just weren't all that great outside of looking nice. Wouldn't be worth playing them again just because I could play them on the toilet.
@roboshort That's pretty much all we have to compare, though. The only equivalent first party titles on the Switch aren't really jaw droppers, either, as they are staying well within the limits of what the machine can do. I'm sure that those games can run on the PS3/Xbox360, seeing as Witcher 3 runs on both and that was pretty much the most demanding game of it's time.
@BloodNinja Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but TW3 was never released on PS3/360, as CDPR determined they were too weak to host the game without significant compromises. Frankly, it took a long while for them to get it running at a consistent 30fps on the PS4/One
@Ralizah I think I went old man and remembered wrong LOL Too many hits to the head!
Big massive props to Saber Interactive. Took the lead as the best Switch (porters)? right now.
@BloodNinja If you want to compare software, yeah,that’s all there is to compare. But comparing software is prone to a lot of error because the engineering has a huge effect on performance.
That’s why it’s better to compare hardware specs..
Also, it appears this title performs considerably better on the Switch. I haven’t really looked into comparisons of other Switch software and XBox360/PS3 so I don’t know too much about it
@BloodNinja then show me facts. I also used to have Skyrim on PS3. And I remember the frame-rate being very unstable and the load times crazy long. But of course that was the out of the box experience. Even after all the updates I remember thinking “this is not ideal”… the Switch version just run smoother and more stable. It looks better too
Since you don’t backup you claims then I will.
https://youtu.be/snPuYohBukk
And
https://youtu.be/RbuKRH0aHRM
It’s OK to be a PS3 fan, but don’t go and spread false information and call people liars.
The fact is that the Switch performs better overall than the PS3 in all but perhaps one area, load times..
And that’s only if you put an SSD in the PS3. I haven’t compared this myself.
But I know that the Switch loads faster that the PS3 out of the box setup.
I’m starting to wonder if you are mistaking the PS3 with the PS4 or something
@mantarobuster300 here’s the thing. I don’t think the Switch could run something like The Last of Us as well as it ran on the PS3. Or even Uncharted 2 and 3. Not many developers did take full advantage of the Cell processor. And many games was first made for PC or 360 and then ported to PS3. And these usually wasn’t optimized well for the cell architecture.
The Cell processor had a lot more power than most games showed. Developers stated over and over again how difficult it was to develop for.
I believe theoretically the PS3 is more powerful than the Switch, but due to the complexity of the hardware that didn’t shine through very often.
@mantarobuster300 I highly doubt that.. but I understand why you believe that
@Duncanballs Tricky was definitely the best of the SSX games, agreed
@mantarobuster300
Read this article
https://gamingbolt.com/the-untapped-potential-of-the-ps3s-cell-processor-and-how-naughty-dog-tamed-the-beast
The PS3 had loads of untapped potential. It explain why for instance Skyrim ran so poorly.
Short explanation: most game engines was made for dualcore and the cell was multi core and not only that is had a strange architecture that was very difficult to develop for. Most developers just didn’t know how or even bother.
@RadioHedgeFund Actually in terms of raw processing power the Switch most certainly doesn't - both the PS360 feature more powerful CPUs. I'd say the major factor in performance is having a larger pool 3GB RAM v 448MB combined with a more modern GPU and new techniques being implemented make the difference.
@DaniPooo While it is true in the first few years Cell wasn't utilised correctly due to the GDK, Sony had it sorted out by fully by 2008. The PS3 was pushed to the max by the end including Cell as Guerrilla and Naughty Dog both said they milked every ounce of it. The problem with PS3 really lay in its split pool of RAM, 256MB GDDR3 for the 7800 inside it simply wasn't enough.
@liveswired
Read the article I posted also didn’t the PS3 use 256Mb GDDR3 + 256Mb XDR?
Yes the Switch has more and speedier memory and Will handle some scenarios much better than the Xbox360 and PS3 because of this. But the PS3 has a more powerful CPU than the Switch, that is something I’m quite certain of.
I still believe that games that utilized the PS3 to 100% efficiently, will have a hard time running better or even just as good on the Switch… not because of the memory, but because of processing power required.
@Varkster That's a bit of a jump, Switch is not more powerful in processing power than the PS360. The much larger pool of RAM in Switch makes all the difference along with more modern GPU architecture. IThe Wii U and Switch are similar in terms of power but the 3GB again really makes the difference.
@BloodNinja
Apparently sentiment around here Tubi that you are the bother moreso than I am slick.
@anoyonmus I own C3 on the PS3 and clearly remember how choppy it felt, and at times refused to load huge chunks of background scenery. Crysis 1&2 did a better job at rendering the open, expansive environments in that regard.. I remember the first steps in Crysis 2 when entering the streets of New York, it was jaw-dropping and felt truly next gen for a PS3 at the time. Funny how a mobile system wipes the floor with it now..
Real-time global illumination? Now we're talking. Show me more of this game in handheld
Let's check out about Crysis 2-too.
@DaniPooo Yes, that's why I mentioned split pool of RAM, however it was still a pain in the ass I believe as it caused lag. I agree with the rest, had the 360 and PS3 had 4GB of RAM for the likes of Crysis, they would probably be running just as well as the Switch is now with far less optimisation required.
Totally the only reason 3rd party games are looking better on Switch simply due to optimisation, more modern Nvidia hardware design and more RAM available. Certainly not in raw power. In many ways the Wii U is more powerful than Switch, but again the limited 1GB Ram available for games limited it along with the fact that Nintendo's GDK was never optimised.
@Trousersnake 4GB of RAM/ more memory makes all the difference. I remember having an 8800 GTX, when I used to go overbudget of the 768MB available games framerate would tank.
Tap here to load 83 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...