Wednesday, June 4th 2008

Crysis Warhead Game Revealed

Two days ago, Crytek published information that it will no longer patch Crysis for "a good reason". Apparantly the good reason is now believed to be called Crysis Warhead, the second game in the Crysis trilogy. If you try to visit Crytek's home page, a teaser image of Crysis Warhead will appear before the actual page, dropping a hint at what's imminent. No other details, such as platforms or a release date, have been unveiled. It's only an image at the moment, but more information will follow sooner or later.

Source: Shacknews
Add your own comment

176 Comments on Crysis Warhead Game Revealed

#1
DarkMatter
CrAsHnBuRnXp said:
Under 20 FPS. No AA/AF. CPU and video card overclocked.
Since you didn't played the game past the first chapters and looking at your specs, obviously you tried to play the game at very high. Otherwise the game runs well above 40fps with an overclocked GT. EVERYBODY knew this game couldn't be played at very high. If you were using lower settings the problem was elsewhere and not in the game. Everybody has run the game a lot better than what you say, you should have tried to fix the problem. Or not, you were in your rights to directly forget about the game, but to complain about it afterwards no, sorry. The game runs a lot better, specially in the first chapters. Either your PC had a problem or you are not sincere about something. Like you didn't actually played the game...
Posted on Reply
#2
MilkyWay
This game will be based on the Cryrek 2 engine basicaly Crysis but improved, they might tweak the system but by that time pcs will be able to cope better.
Posted on Reply
#3
GJSNeptune
I bet he spent as much time trying to get it to run well as he did playing it in the first place.

He probably even pirated it. Anyone who paid for the game would probably try a little harder to like it and/or get it to run well.
Posted on Reply
#4
CrAsHnBuRnXp
For your information Neptune, I did not pirate the game. Granted I tried but the seeder/peer ratio was just to horrible and I dont have the patience to wait 20 years for it to download.

For those wondering (even Neptune cause im sure hell say something about it) I legally own all my games.

If I cant get any game to run decently in the first hour or so I have the game in my possession, it isnt worth me playing. I shouldnt haev to do a shit load of optimization on my end when it should have been before it hit the shelf. I dont care what game it is.

Why must you be such a hard ass in the first place Neptune?
Posted on Reply
#5
Easy Rhino
Linux Advocate
more than likely it will perform slightly better than the first. it will probably run on the same platform and be less buggy. moving on.
Posted on Reply
#6
Weer
DrPepper said:
I thought it ran rather well at 1680 x 1050 all high 30 fps on a 8800 GT no AA. I think that because no one has the specs to run it all very high you say it is buggy and unoptimised but to the contrary nVidia would have done their usual and co-developed the engine with crytek.
Crysis is unplayable at anything lower than 30 FPS.

That means that only people who have 8800 GTS SLi builds can run Crysis on High, and that is only at 1680x1050. I'm still in the process of finding out how to make it run at 1920x1200 by lowering which graphical features, but anything above 1920x1200 with 2xAA is too much for 512MB of RAM.
Posted on Reply
#7
Easy Rhino
Linux Advocate
unfortunately this thread is resurrecting old debates.
Posted on Reply
#8
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Weer said:
Crysis is unplayable at anything lower than 30 FPS.

That means that only people who have 8800 GTS SLi builds can run Crysis on High, and that is only at 1680x1050. I'm still in the process of finding out how to make it run at 1920x1200 by lowering which graphical features, but anything above 1920x1200 with 2xAA is too much for 512MB of RAM.
BS i ran it on my 7800GS @1024x768 all med/high framerate sat in the 20s it ran just fine no lag not buggy at all?
Posted on Reply
#9
CrAsHnBuRnXp
Its amazing how Crysis gets such mixed reviews about it being buggy and whatnot.
Posted on Reply
#10
DarkMatter
GJSNeptune said:
I bet he spent as much time trying to get it to run well as he did playing it in the first place.

He probably even pirated it. Anyone who paid for the game would probably try a little harder to like it and/or get it to run well.
Well the first chapters run 50+ fps on my 8800gt (+/- same clocks as him) with 16xAF, 1280x960 out of the box with r_UseEdgeAA = 2. With further tweaking I either managed 70+ FPS with same settings or almost very high (winXP, battle dust disabled) 30+ FPS.

I mean that you don't need any tweaking to get a lot more than those 20 FPS.

Crashnburnxp, as I said you are on your right to not play the game, and of course to not spend any time tweaking it, but 20 FPS at those settings/specs is not true at all. Again, either there was a problem or maybe you exagerated because of your sentiments a to the game? It's common to do so, and you are on your right to do it too. LOL
Posted on Reply
#11
GJSNeptune
CrAsHnBuRnXp said:
If I cant get any game to run decently in the first hour or so I have the game in my possession, it isnt worth me playing. I shouldnt haev to do a shit load of optimization on my end when it should have been before it hit the shelf. I dont care what game it is.

Why must you be such a hard ass in the first place Neptune?
I'm not being a hard-ass. Your first post was useless, although you could've somewhat salvaged it by saying that you tried it and it didn't run smoothly. That would've explained why you hope the sequel runs better. If you had played the game and beaten it, you would've known a sequel was coming.

Your settings were clearly too high or your resolution was too large. Did you auto-detect? A game not running well for the first hour of possession sucks, but you paid a lot of money for it. I ran it on all Medium settings with my current rig, only with an x1950 Pro. It ran smoothly at 1024x768.
Posted on Reply
#12
CrAsHnBuRnXp
I wouldn't exaggerate something like this just to have a discussion such as this take place.
Posted on Reply
#13
DarkMatter
cdawall said:
BS i ran it on my 7800GS @1024x768 all med/high framerate sat in the 20s it ran just fine no lag not buggy at all?
Yeah I tried it in my 7900GTX in almost high (shadows, posteffects med) 1024x and run pretty well just above 30 fps. Indeed if there's one game that plays smooth at low fps, that is Crysis.

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:
I wouldn't exaggerate something like this just to have a discussion such as this take place.
Have you tried it again? Could be a bad installation or something. Maybe you were using bad drivers? Some that by coincidence were bad just for this game? In any case those fps were not normal.
Posted on Reply
#14
CrAsHnBuRnXp
GJSNeptune said:
I'm not being a hard-ass. Your first post was useless, although you could've somewhat salvaged it by saying that you tried it and it didn't run smoothly. That would've explained why you hope the sequel runs better. If you had played the game and beaten it, you would've known a sequel was coming.

Your settings were clearly too high or your resolution was too large. Did you auto-detect? A game not running well for the first hour of possession sucks, but you paid a lot of money for it. I ran it on all Medium settings with my current rig, only with an x1950 Pro. It ran smoothly at 1024x768.
The way you come across does make you seem like a hard ass. Maybe its just because its in black and white?

Nevertheless. When I first tried the game, I tried it on very high/DX10 16x10 dont recall what AA or AF and that just = FAIL. So I tried the same settings minus AA/AF and that still didnt go over so well. Tried Same settings minus AA/AF on High and I still got frames in the 20ish range and shit was just laggy has hell. Tried medium and I got slightly better results but not by a whole lot.
Posted on Reply
#15
DarkMatter
CrAsHnBuRnXp said:
The way you come across does make you seem like a hard ass. Maybe its just because its in black and white?

Nevertheless. When I first tried the game, I tried it on very high/DX10 16x10 dont recall what AA or AF and that just = FAIL. So I tried the same settings minus AA/AF and that still didnt go over so well. Tried Same settings minus AA/AF on High and I still got frames in the 20ish range and shit was just laggy has hell. Tried medium and I got slightly better results but not by a whole lot.
Clearly you had something wrong.
Posted on Reply
#16
douglatins
I want to play this...

no matter the requirements, don't care if it takes a tri-sli of gtx280.. crysis for ever!!!!!!
Posted on Reply
#17
GJSNeptune
Then I'm a hard-ass. Oh well.

I'm sorry you gave up on it. It's fun. Especially on the highest difficulty. I played it first on Normal, but I still would've liked to have the Koreans not speaking English. I hope the sequel has a language setting irregardless of the difficulty setting.
Posted on Reply
#18
DarkMatter
GJSNeptune said:
Then I'm a hard-ass. Oh well.

I'm sorry you gave up on it. It's fun. Especially on the highest difficulty. I played it first on Normal, but I still would've liked to have the Koreans not speaking English. I hope the sequel has a language setting irregardless of the difficulty setting.
I think there was a tweak you could do to the Cvars for that, not sure though.
Posted on Reply
#19
GJSNeptune
Too late. :( I'm getting my money's worth out of TF2 now. :D
Posted on Reply
#20
FelipeV
Easy Rhino said:
unfortunately this thread is resurrecting old debates.
Lets try to bring to a new debate ;)

This week was anouced that Crytek wont release a patch 1.3 because something was coming very soon.

I believe Warhead was the reason, and for our convinience just when ATI e Nvidia are just about to release a new line of graphic cards. :rolleyes:

I wont be surprised if the expansion hit the stores just after GT280.
Posted on Reply
#21
farlex85
I run Crysis on a single 8800 gts 512 on a 1680x1050 on very high for much of the game, high on many parts, without aa, and enjoy it (graphically at least) thouroughly. I don't even know or care what frames it runs. It looks great, doesn't stutter, and is an all-around enveloping graphical experience.
Posted on Reply
#22
ShadowFold
Looks like im switching to Vista when this and Clear Sky comes out! Hell yea! Crysis2!!!
Posted on Reply
#23
Easy Rhino
Linux Advocate
personally, i felt empty inside while playing crysis.
Posted on Reply
#24
DarkMatter
GJSNeptune said:
Too late. :( I'm getting my money's worth out of TF2 now. :D
Me too. :D

At least until Warhead comes to save us from the brain sucker that TF2 is. I wonder if it sucks our life as much as our time. :D

I hope Warhead improves multiplayer in any way that is needed to make people like it. I love Crysis MP as it is, it rocks, IMO it's one of the best MP out there now gameplay wise, but there's so few people playing near me that I have to play with gigantic lag. :(

I don't know what's to be done to make MP more friendly to the masses, but I hope thay can manage to do it. I want to play Crysis MP. :rockout:
Posted on Reply
#25
GJSNeptune
I dunno. I've been itching to buy Oblivion, and Mass Effect just came out. It's ridiculous. I just beat Tomb Raider: Anniversary 'cause I got it with my video card, and now I'm itching for RPGs.

Crysis MP is fun but slow. Every time you respawn, you have to hitch a ride like half a mile away to find anything to do or anyone to kill.

If Crytek is abandoning Crysis, it better mean that their efforts are solely devoted to making sure the sequel is fantastic.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment