Crysis Warhead Revealed

I played the Graphics are great if your machine can handle it.

EAs tech support wouldn't fix any of my issues with the game.
Instead they stopped updating the game. I even emailed the Director of Games with no reply.
Even a year after the release.

The community had to fix the game playablility themselves by customizing servers and adding confusing and different rules on each of their servers as to what you could and couldn't do. As crytek was to incompetent to fix the game play themselves.

The game was terribly laggy and you can find people lagging with pings of over 250 regularly.

If you want a single player game go ahead and buy it but you might as well forget the multiplayer. It doesn't appear as though they know how to balance a game. I doubt they have learned since they gave up on Crysis and are shoving it under the rug to prepare for the new release.

For more info see this site. It explains things pretty well.
http://www.crysiswarhead.net/

I'm curious, how many people here play with the quick suit functions enabled? I mean double tapping space for strength or shift for speed or ctrl for invisible. Before doing that the game was much less fun to use my mouse to shift to the different powers, it made the game much easier when I could switch powers on the fly in miliseconds to what I needed that instant.

Also I have to say this game is amazing. The replay value of at least 2/3 of it is fantastic, there are so many different approaches and so many things to explore until it turns into Descent mode and goes linear. I've played now three times and each time it was a different way of not only going by boat, truck, and on foot but up through the hills sniping from above, stealth, pure brute force, and more. Few camps I missed along the way the first time too. And when you have a system that can push the physics it is impressive/hilarious to fuck around with.

So I guess we play as the Aussie guy this time around?

The game as a whole was fairly crap and other than looking great it was just another basic nothing new fps.

The only good part was the single player till you enter the crashed spaceship thing then it just became crap.

Online was fairly well balanced till you looked at Air unit's been so overpowerd and that the only real counter the AA tank was so underpowerd it was worthless.

Hell if they bother to make another PC version i won't bother to buy it given how poor the game was online.

what's with all the Crysis hate? I can understand FarCry bashing to some extent, but Crysis?

is it gameplay criticism? I'm just playing through it now, past first half of the game I think and it has been incredible, so much more fun fights than against those psychic enemies in FarCry who could track and accurately shoot me through thickest foliage...

or technical problems? I had zero troubles running the game in 1280x1024 with a decent detail level on a pretty old computer and I'm only running the 1st patch, but I guess people who want to play this have higher expectations and/or are bigger graphics whore than I am?

For me personally this is cool news. I just got a 360 and if they are implying what I think they are then I'll be able to play Warhead on it. Works for me. I'm tired of crossing my fingers in the hope that a new PC game will run on my hardware.

Yeah I called this. "You guys didn't buy enough of our first game so instead of supporting it and making it available to more people, we'll just stick it to anyone who did buy the first game and assume that more people will give us money if we make a sequel, with the same technology." Does anyone care if it is PC exclusive? That was a dumb idea to start with. But if Crytek goes the route of Epic and dumbs down the game for the PC audience, expect to see similar sales results.

I was not a fan of farcry so hence, I was not a fan of this. Didn't like the demo, so I didn't buy the game. Apparently a lot of other people didn't like the demo either. Sure the demo looked pretty on my 8800gtx, but the game just wasn't my cup of tea. I'm actually more interested in what ubisoft are doing with farcry 2 although it will probably have the same gameplay (move very very slowly to location a-b-c-d-e-f-g and clear the area) which just doesn't interest me.

is that Psycho on the cover?

I have a brand new gaming rig...Its over clocked to high heaven and run dual over clocked video cards...one gig of video memory alone and Crysis still runs like shiat! The problem here is that the new Cry engine just makes people "cry" because it is not optimized and its bloated. It will not run great on anything that most people have available to them even if it is pretty decent...there is only a small percentage of dudes out there with a "god computer" that can run this damn thing.

My point is not to talk badly about the game; although, I only thought the game was just average, my point is that the developer needs to take some responsibility here and admit that. They need to work this engine out to where the game will look good and play good even on and average system. I think that then the game would magically sell many more copies. I can think of at least a couple of games that where the developers have done just that and the games are great.

Meta Critic really says it all for Crysis. The publication reviews average in at 91. User ratings at 7.7

Most PLAYERS found Crysis to be an average gaming experience. Well I'm sorry Crytek, but player ratings of 7.7 won't sell 10 million copies of your game. While a solid shooter, Crysis brought little else to the table. Quit blaming piracy and just resign yourselves to the fact that your game was not exceptional, regardless of all the bells and whistles of the CryEngine.

I wish we could just file this one under "AAA titles that didn't live up to their potential" and be done with it.

Crysis Warhead will not run on the same DX10 engine, though it could be done on consoles, non of them have nearly enough power to run it. I imagine the CRYENGINE 2 is nothing more than the DX9 version of crysis, though IMO it looked and ran far better anyway.

I don't care about PC exclusives, but the piracy thing is an excuse rather than the real reasons. The real reason is EA, they want games to make tons of cash and to due so they need to be multi-platform. I don't think this hurts the quality of PC games at all, if anything it helps fund a better game. BioShock/COD4/GOW/GRID/Mass Effect/Assassins Creed have all IMO been great games to play on the PC. However on PC I had better controls, higher resolution, improved AA and added content. The game ran like crap on every PC in the world so what did they exspect for sales?

Infact I have no idea why EA did not delay the game untill this Month with a DX10 exclusive (this would have played out far better for PC game sales with the GTX280 coming in 12 days, of which will run Crysis just fine in all it's DX10 glory) for PC and the vanilla flavor for consoles.

Piracy for PC is going to get harder and harder to do and will reach a point that most will opt to buy the game instead of trying to get a pirated version to actually run.

I for one played through Crysis on a rig with a Intel core 2@3.5ghz/8800GTX@650/1650/2100/2 gigs ram on Vista and enjoyed the game. I found it one of the best FPS in 07 that I played. However had I ran the game on the upcoming GTX280 I would have enjoyed it even more than COD4 and the like. I will play through again on Very High settings when I grab Nvidias new powerhouse. With that said I often wonder if I'm wasting money on hardware for my pc that will only play games made with a ATI GPU that has 1/10th the power of the GTX280 in mind and or a console.... Thats why no PC exclusives worry me, meaning who is going to code a game that will take advantage of those of us with cutting edge hardware. A dying breed we are, lol.

Though I can't help but wonder, Crysis was that very thing. A cutting edge game that will take my hard earned harware to the limit, yet the game ran like poop. Futhermore what is it with console games running on 5 year old hardware as good or better than my cutting edge PC? Bad coding, maybe, maybe not;) Though not always the case, Take GRID for example. The game runs in High rez with all options maxed including 16xAA at 60fps on my rig. The console version runs at lower rez, med options at 30fps. Now this is what I like to see.

So I end with this thought... Will Crytek and EA opt to release 'Warhead' using the killer DX10 version of the Crysis engine for PC as by then we will have the hardware to run it without issue. Wile a console version using Cryengine 2 release alongside as a combo including Crysis and the new Crysis Warhead. Who the hell knows. I'm going back for more GRID and then some of the Witcher later. Oh, now theres a PC exclusive of late that kicks some ass.

Maybe they'll include a game this time with the technology demo.

What they need to do is scrap the Crysis theme and go with Vietnam, it's the perfect engine for it.

i hope theres no more of that zero-g nonsense, that was frustrating...and those little vehicle minigame levels blew too....the rest was cool...the snow levels were pretty.

"I believe we won't have PC exclusives as we did with Crysis in future."

Fine by me. Just make your game compatible with the mouse/keyboard on ps3 of xbox360 and I'm happy. Just don't ask me to play a 3D shooter with a handheld controller.

i feel all the random negativity is more than likely coming from those people who can't actually run the game at all. Im curious as to how they are going to develop these games for both the PC and consoles, i would hope they focus on the PC version and then cut down on the visuals for the console version.... as long as its not the other way round it should all be good.

A lot of people on here seem to jump to defend Crysis, claiming most people ragging on it don't have a good setup and can't experience the game to its fullest. This is true, to get the full value out of the game you need to be able to run it and have it look nice. I have an 8800GTS, a dual core Athlon and 4 gigs of RAM, and yes the game looks very pretty.

But honestly I don't think the gameplay was really anything that great and the game felt more like a tech demo than an actual game. The whole suit thing felt like a huge gimmick, yes it was fun at first, but some of the stuff you used it for seemed like it was just "hey look at this thing we do with the suit and the physics once and then you'll never use it again".

Not to mention the story, which was cool at first and then climbed in the proverbial lead-lined fridge as soon as it was like "OOOOH ALIENS!!!!"

Lastly I'd like to say that Crytek shouldn't whine so much, the market they targeted with such a high-end game is fairly small on the PC and they should be glad they sold as much as they did. They can blame piracy all they want, but the fact is that the number of PC gamers with expensive high-end hardware is much smaller than the number that owns 360's or PS3's.

Crysis suffers from the Doom3 syndrome. People focus on the graphics, and assume that if the graphics are uber and revolutionnary then so should be the gameplay. It's not and, more important, it was NOT meant to be. Crysis is a solid shooter, nothing more; and it was not advertised as revolutionnary or anything like that.
People somehow expect the moon and then bash the game when their own irrealistic expectations are let down..
Moreover if said people can't run the game properly at max setting then they often quickly loose all objectivity and user reviews turns into an irrelevant bashing game.

Bottom line: that game might not be revolutionnary but it's very cool nonetheless. Stop bitching already.

"Similar games [to Crysis] on consoles sell factors of 4-5 more"

How is Haze doing anyway?

Hey Cevat, why not get with the program and go with digital distribution?

Here's my reposted take on the Crysis thing and why people were actually mad that a game was future-proofed. (http://www.shacknews.com/laryn.x?id=16015035)

I think the real issue is the "experience", which a lot of people discount, but hear me out. You go out and you buy the best system money can buy. You spend $3K (let's say) on it and man it is sharp. It plays every game you own, full blown. Runs them at the huge native resolution you have on your LCD, you can max out every single setting, and get a smooth as silk framerate. New games come out and they're a piece of cake to run as well. Life is good.

A few years go by and your system's not so hot anymore. You start having to turn down settings. You miss entire features because they're not supported by your card. You find yourself downloading demos of games you already want to buy just so you can know if they'll run worth a damn on your computer. You start having to make decisions like do you want a lower framerate but better graphics, or a higher framerate and poor graphics? You used to be able to have it all.

But hey, you can just upgrade again and everything will be 100% again.

The problem Crysis has is that it screws this up. I think it's possible to build a system today that can max it out but it's not financially feasible for most people. And by most people, I'm including 99% of gamers.

Not to say it looks bad at all on less-than-balls-out settings, but it annoys people, on principle, that you could spend that $2-3K on an upgrade and still not have enough. The point of upgrading is to avoid that hassle.

Game developers have tried to alleviate this over the years by having "settings" (i.e. low, medium and high) or to have autodetection algorithms. The problem with the settings is that you frequently fall somewhere between medium and high and you don't want the hassle of having to experiment (nor do you want to run the game and then later find out it could have looked better had you only tried a different setting).

The problem with the autodetection algorithms is that they favor higher framerates. They're notorious for telling people with awesome systems that they need to run at "Medium". Yes, I know "Medium" will give me 60fps, but "High" will give me a perfectly acceptable 45fps and will look a hell of a lot better. The autodetection algorithms are too conservative usually.

So, I think the Crysis problem could have been averted if the autodetection algorithms were better (I've played the demo once, so I don't remember this being the case but I could be wrong). If they could just ask you "do you prefer better framerates or higher quality graphics?" it would help. Maybe give them a target framerate range and let them test your system (I swear some old games would do this - Descent maybe?).

Crysis runs on a LOT of PC's. The problem they have is that their target audience doesn't want to fiddle and is annoyed, on principle, at not being able to max it out with the best system they have. I think if the autodetection algorithm was better and saved them the hassle, this situation could have been better.

I just don't care. Maybe this will be Crysis but good this time?

Just hope they don't tone down the graphics quality on the PC version.

Why would you announce you're dropping support for your game? That's just an odd PR move. Why wouldn't they just stop supporting it and not broadcast that?

That'll do.

I loved this game. I finished areas silently through stealth and muffled weapons; or impersonating Donkey Kong, throwing barrels from roofs I promptly smashed in punching. I destroyed everything that could stand to be destroyed, shark-attacked boats, sent koreans flying off cliffs, marveled at how you could dynamically destroy palm trees and stalagmites and wielded a shotgun that doesn't fucking spread in a 180º angle for once.

All the time amazed how good a game can look when it doesn't have to worry about console level tech. I was watching my brother play yesterday and I am still amazed at the shit it throws to the GPU.

Fuck the haters. I hated Far Cry with a passion. When I had to quit playing this game due to a hardware failure, I was having so much fun I simply started again instead of continuing my savegame.

I love all the people who fawn over CoD4's campaign, and yet hate on Crysis... CryTek at least tried something different, even if it was rough around the edges.

Haters can gtfo.

<3 crytek

I don't get the haters. This was most fun FPS I had in ages.

Bring it on!

Might as well just drop the CryEngine and have big daddy EA license UE3 for Crytek. That way, we can be sure that the next round of shooters all look identical, console or PC.

I have played through the game 3 times. i admit that the final act was a bit on rails and average, but the beginning is probably one of the best fps experiences out there and the graphics are second to none and probably will be for some time. it runs fine on my rig( i stole it from NASA). hopefully they have listened to the community and will make changes to the follow up.

Good reason? hah!

pathetic