advertisement

Crysis Warhead Revealed

by Chris Faylor, Jun 04, 2008 9:41am PDT

On Monday, developer Crytek announced it would no longer be developing Crysis (PC) patches for "a good reason" that it hoped to say more about "in the very, very near future."

Apparently, the "very, very near future" meant two days.

The official Crysis website has now been updated with a teaser image for Crysis Warhead (pictured above), presumed to be the next entry in the sci-fi shooting series. No other details, such as platforms or a release date, have been unveiled.

The original Crysis was said to be the first in a trilogy, with Crytek having since trademarked multiple related names, including Crysis Wars, Crysis Annihilation, World in Crysis and Crysis Warhead.

The developer recently commented that it would be moving away from PC-exclusive development due to piracy concerns. "Similar games [to Crysis] on consoles sell factors of 4-5 more," Crytek president Cevat Yerli explained. "I believe we won't have PC exclusives as we did with Crysis in future."

At present, Crytek is known to have at least one console title and a non-FPS game in the works, along with its nearly-completed efforts to bring the Crysis-powering CryENGINE 2 technology to consoles. Thanks TheIneffableBob for the heads up.





Comments

35 Threads | 148 Comments











  • 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.






  • 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.




  • 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.