Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Crysis Warhead, did it deliver?

Last response: in Video Games
September 15, 2008 5:30:56 PM

ive been reading some info on this game that says it'll run more smoother than the original. anybody got proof this? the 30$ pricetag looks delicious and i'll be getting this game no matter what (considering i paid 80$ for the original).

any form of yard stick will do (fps count)..


More about : crysis warhead deliver

September 15, 2008 5:40:23 PM

All the reviews I have read thus far are praising the game. Also, supposedly, you can run the game at high resolutions, with all the candy on with modest hardware (GTS 512 etc). When the game hits shelves (tomorrow I think, I will play it and report)
September 15, 2008 5:59:58 PM

I'm getting mine on wesnesday, I don't expect a big leap forward, even with maximum strength.
Related resources
September 15, 2008 6:01:07 PM

if it runs 10fps higher on average than the original, that should leave a smile on my face just like this >> :D  . .
September 15, 2008 6:05:55 PM

im just excited on how different it will feel playing this one. the resemblance between jason statham and psycho should probably give me a different feeling and answer my most eternal crysis question: "what was psycho doing on the dockyard when he was just on top of the ledge and i was getting raped by north koreans?"
September 15, 2008 7:04:17 PM

Another review:

From reading all those reviews it does seem to deliver. It's reported to run and look better than the original... makes you wonder why they didn't bother doing that with the original in the first place.

As for the story, the worst thing about Crysis, IMO, was that it ended once the story actually got interesting. I'm, personally, much more interested in knowing what Prophet went through rather than Psycho.

September 16, 2008 7:58:38 AM

Yeh looks great, they said a GTS should run it on very high i beleive, which would be amazing. They have also IMPROVED the graphics. Great reviews so far.
September 16, 2008 1:16:06 PM

if you actually paid $80 for crysis.... you definately got ripped off.

i still feel kind of ripped off having bought it for 40 then sold it for $20, just because crysis sucks that bad.
September 16, 2008 3:17:42 PM

yeah i paid 80$ for it. im from manila, it cost around 3500 pesos (P45 - 1$).

actually every game that i purchase, i always feel i got ripped off.
game publishers/developers are whining about piracy but its also their fault there not effectively marketing and distributing their products. people from southeast asia are being charged more so a lot of them go guerrilla and pirate them. especially EA.. it sort of suck because warhead and spore are both from EA. and from what ive read about spore, the DRM crap here and there, i might skip it. but my girlfriend and I had a lot fun playing the creature creator though..

but if anyone out there were able to test how warhead performs, please post here!
September 18, 2008 2:04:05 PM

Got warhead last night off of steam. Definitely improvements in the engine but still needs a powerhouse rig to get the most out of the game. I set evertyhing to "Gamer" (High) and things ran smoothly but as soon as I enabled 2xAA there was a very noticeable performance hit. I hadn't enabled crossfire though so will post again after I play some more tonight with crossfire enabled...
September 18, 2008 3:04:43 PM

It seems smoother through like 5 minutes of the game so far. I set everything to game at 1680x1050, but I don't think I'd be able to do enthusiast. Through that short play through, the game already seems funner than crysis.

I should mention I got mine through steam also, I think that's the way to go if already have steam. You might just want to let it download over night though.
September 23, 2008 7:40:19 AM

Liking the game so far. i believe i'm close to then end. but i must say that the improvements in alien AI are non exsistant. in some of the heavier firefights they'll just sit there waiting for you to off them. Human AI isn't much better then the orginal either. I would even say that some of the "harder" enemies are actually easier this time around.

As others have said the graphics performance in quite noticable. I play at 1680x1050 on the gamer settings and get amazing performance on my 8800gt. Pop ups are far less noticable then in the previous title.

All and all I would say that the game definately is worth your 6 hours or so. The game paces much better then the orginal. You'll move form action sequence to action sequence with little delay in between. Also each encounter "encourage" certain type of combat, like stealth, run and gun or hit and run. You could certainly take each action sequence any way you want. but it's nice that they try and shake it up for player who are a little less creative.
September 23, 2008 9:42:01 AM

I like the multiplayer... but then that’s only because I never got in to it on the original Crysis. The single player missions though just seem identical to me, maybe they don’t notice you as much when you in the bushes but other than that they still run around the place and hide from time to time… Nothing really ground breaking there.
September 24, 2008 12:04:40 AM

I completed Warhead a few days ago, which was a bit on the short side for me. I must admit however that the engine has been better optimised to run with lower spec systems. I ran it with the settings mostly turned up to gamer (high) with one a couple of my favourites (post processing, textures, etc.) turned up to enthusiast (very high). Running @ 1680x1050 with no AA/AF i was getting rougly 27-35FPS according to FRAPS, however this was with my graphics card overclocked a bit (721Mhz Core Clock/933Mhz Memory BUS). With AA on however, my system still gets pwned.

If I used the same settings in the first Crysis i would have usually gotten on average about 20-25FPS. This performance gain i think is mainly due to the reduced draw distance when objects/textures are being rendered, but its well worth the extra frames.
September 24, 2008 2:07:08 PM

actually the performance isn't that great especially if u hav a high-end system since it seems that most of the optimization has been for mid-range systems. I can only play on part enthusiast and part gamer on 1680x1050 no aa with xp 32 bit e8400 4gb ram and 9800gx2(might be problems with sli for the game. With these settings i start lagging badly in a few hours. There are also quite a few glitches such as texture glitches, crashes and i once fell through a elevator.

The single player story is much better and more fun and intense now but it got ruined by the fact i crashed seven times to finish the game. Also the multiplayer is not that good with most servers above 200 ping and i went back to CoD4 multiplayer after a few hours.
September 28, 2008 6:48:59 PM

It's short, but I think it has good replay value and the price is good. It seems to be more action packed than the original and I actually thought it was better than the original.
I found the performance somewhat improved, but it still suffers from the same problems the original did and that being the FPS are not consistent. I found that part on the train very demanding on my system.
September 29, 2008 2:05:11 AM

This new crysis definetely runs smoother than the old one. I have a 4870x2 and even with that kind of power the old crysis did not run smoothly on max settings (even when I had areas with 40fps which didn't make sense). Warhead is more fun, looks better, and runs better than the original. On top of that it comes with Crysis Wars for online play. I love it, absolutely worth the 30 bucks
September 29, 2008 1:32:35 PM

I've only had a quick test so far to sort out the settings, and while it does seem to run better than the original at the same settings, the visuals don't look as good. I'm getting alot of random low res textures on landscapes and vehicles (I have everything set to enthusiast) and I seem to notice jaggies alot more than in the original when I don't have AA on.
September 29, 2008 3:33:49 PM

Played the game beginning to end again this weekend, this time I enabled crossfire. While it does seem to help the differences still werent enough to let me play with all settings on gamer and AA enabled.
September 29, 2008 5:40:31 PM

I payed $20 for the original crysis brand new...Circuit City weekend special.

Warhead definitely improved the performance on my Single Core P4 3Ghz, 3850HD AGP... I could barely run crysis on low but warhead runs smooth at all mainstream settings with shaders set to gamer. I saw no graphics corruption like I did in crysis and I never dipped below 25fps. After completing warhead I wanted to play through the original again so when I loaded it up it ran just as smooth as warhead, I can't explain that. They both looked equally amazing IMO and can tell no difference....of course that isnt saying much for my system but I'm happy with the frame rates and visuals. I'm building a quad-core, SLI, Direct x10 machine next week so maybe I'll have a different review following that.
September 29, 2008 6:18:34 PM

Crysis Warhead runs very smooth on my rig with all options set to 'enthusiast'. No AA obviously. lows of 20 fps highs of 35. Thats at 1900x1200... Same settings on original would cripple my system to lows of 9 highs of 15ish.

As for the game itself i find it being fairly cinematic, as to be guessed with playing Psycho a load more explosions compared to the original one. Thankfully the suit options allow you to 'try' the stealthy route should you so wish :) . Only done the first two missions so far, but the references to the original in the cinematics are fairly well melded. I'd say it's a good FPS, but by no means the greatest. If i played Warhead before the Crysis original though, i would have found the original considerably more quiet.