Crysis Warhead

Published 28 July, 2008

Vehicles, explosions, cranes.

Comments (31) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Gazza_UK #1 4 years ago

    daaaaanngg...

  • ChthonicEcho #2 4 years ago

    Yawn.
    Edited by ChthonicEcho at 16/07/08 @ 09:01

  • Widge #3 4 years ago

    are those screenshots a representation of the actual fps for most of our systems?

  • T4RG4 #4 4 years ago

    Sorry, but that looks so bland.

  • mcbi4kh2 #5 4 years ago

    are those screenshots a representation of the actual fps for most of our systems?

    How can a screenshot represent FPS?

  • stoopidgreg #6 4 years ago

    looks like crysis.

    sorry.

  • johnnybrn #7 4 years ago

    Do developers only have two colours to choose from these days, grey or brown?

    Just like the good days of the speccy.

  • penhalion #8 4 years ago

    This is nonsense. The game looks no different from Crysis. If it has the same spec, then it's going to be unplayable no matter what system you have. Note I'm still not counting liquid nitrogen cooled 4+ghz overclocked idiot systems.

  • dadrester #9 4 years ago

    3200px × 1800px?!

  • filreed #10 4 years ago

    Wow, that looks stunning. How can anyone moan.....................?

  • Katsumoto #11 4 years ago

    They've already said it will have significantly lower specs than Crysis, they've spent the last year tweaking the engine to death. To LIFE!

  • onezeonx #12 4 years ago

    looks quite good.....nought shocking these day tho

  • PearOfAnguish #13 4 years ago

    Looking forward to this as long as they keep the alien bullshit to a minimum. Who gives a fuck what it looks like, when you're stalking Korean squads through forests or attacking bases Crysis has some of the best FPS action ever.
    Edited by PearOfAnguish at 28/07/08 @ 17:14

  • Macross #14 4 years ago

    Loved Crysis, apart from the annoying bits, mega looking forward to this :)

  • Turambar #15 4 years ago

    "They've already said it will have significantly lower specs than Crysis, they've spent the last year tweaking the engine to death. To LIFE!"

    I believe one of the largest "tweaks" they've made is decreasing the graphical quality of the high setting to around what the medium setting was on crysis.

  • PearOfAnguish #16 4 years ago

    "I believe one of the largest "tweaks" they've made is decreasing the graphical quality of the high setting to around what the medium setting was on crysis."

    Didn't they just rename the settings so 'medium' was 'high', 'high' was 'Ultra' and so on?

  • UncleLou #17 4 years ago

    This is nonsense. The game looks no different from Crysis. If it has the same spec, then it's going to be unplayable no matter what system you have. Note I'm still not counting liquid nitrogen cooled 4+ghz overclocked idiot systems.

    Wat kind of nonsense is this, or are you referring to the resolution of these pics?

    Yeah, you can't play it at "very high", get over it, it still looks better than anything else out there at playable settings.

  • makeamazing #18 4 years ago

    Just started playing Crysis at the moment, and it doesnt look much different, hope its not all Island stuff again, need something alittle different.

  • stoopidgreg #19 4 years ago

    "Didn't they just rename the settings so 'medium' was 'high', 'high' was 'Ultra' and so on? "

    that's exactly what they did.

  • L0cky #20 4 years ago

    Where's the grey a brown comments? I can't see them ;)

    If it has the same spec, then it's going to be unplayable no matter what system you have

    Simply not true.

    An AMD64x2 4600+ (£49.48) and an 8800GT (£84.95) runs it well on high detail with 4xAA @ 1280x1024. I'm sure worse things run it well on medium and low.

    Considering these are now medium to low end products 'no matter what system you have' is a bit innacurate.

  • bdc #21 4 years ago

    Locky that's absolute bollocks, no it wouldn't do 4xAA at 1280x1024.

  • darkphoenix #22 4 years ago

    Locky, you sir are a liar.

    QuadCore 2.4Ghz, 3Gb DDR3, 8600 256DDR3, totally unplayable once you turn AA on.

  • Stuz359 #23 4 years ago

    I can run Crysis on High at 1280*1024, no antialiasing averaging around 30-40fps. I have a Intel 8200 and a Geforce 9600GT with two 2gb RAM.
    I made this upgrade a few months ago for around £400. I would love to run it at very high but there is no PC on the planet capable of that at the moment, but my system at least allows it to be played with a decent amount of graphical fidelity and for not that much money either.
    Anyway, the point is that crysis is a fantastic game. Just being in a jungle feels fresh in an FPS, not too much grey and brown and lots of green= kme happy.
    BUt whatever, crysis is the benchmark for graphics performance in games today. It was meant to be futureproofed to a certain extent. So not everyone can play it properly and no one can play it as it was meant to be played yet. BUt as a sign of things to come, wow.

  • Hugh.G.Rection #24 4 years ago

    I've got a Quad Core overclocked to 3.2ghz, 9800GTX 512DDR3 with 8GB of RAM and can run Crysis with 2x AA with all settings on Very High, averaging around 40fps at 1900 x 1200 resolution. Technology is quickly catching up to the demands made by Crysis so if in fact they are dumbing this down then that makes me a sad panda.

    Also, they are quite possibly the worst screenshots to show off a game I've seen since Haze.

  • Scimarad #25 4 years ago

    Yes but that machine is probably a little beyond what most of us have or realistically need...

  • PearOfAnguish #26 4 years ago

    Apart from the silly amount of RAM (wasted unless he's running a 64-bit OS, and probably pointless even then), the rest of Mr Rection's specs are pretty normal. Crysis really doesn't need a super-special PC to run, it still looks good on medium settings. More importantly of course it plays nicely whatever graphics options you use.

  • penhalion #27 4 years ago

    @PearOfAnguish

    Apart from the silly amount of RAM (wasted unless he's running a 64-bit OS, and probably pointless even then), the rest of Mr Rection's specs are pretty normal.

    No they aren't. The moment you have the words overclocked or have a 9800gtx, those specs become far from normal. I don't know an average Joe who buys a system and then immediately goes out and buys a new heatsink so that they can overclock their CPU or spends 200 odd quid on a graphics card to play a game.

    The far more worrying point is that it's obvious the developers didn't play the game with all the settings enabled EVER! Even with reference cards, there was nothing on the market that could handle it when it was written. A lot of people are rightly pissed off by this knowledge. It's simply idiotic to write a game that you know no-body can run as intended. It's borderline criminal to mislead everyone into thinking otherwise and the poor sales and general backlash because of it were well deserved by crytek. It's also the reason they are saying that Warhead will have specs only half as demanding as crysis.

    Crysis was the point at which the masses said F**k you I'm not buying something I can't play properly without spending half a grand!

  • BadBoyBonner #28 4 years ago

    Here is a GFX card - ATi 4850 - that costs less than £120 munching through Crysis at 3840 x 1024

    [link url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvUDvyorW8g&feature=related
    ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvUDvyorW...[/link]


  • ChthonicEcho #29 4 years ago

    @chocadoodlepoo

    The predominant colour in all screenshots is brown. If you look at any of the screenshots from afar, explosions and whatnot hardly stand out.

    I didn't really like Crysis, so I'll be avoiding Warhead.

  • Hugh.G.Rection #30 4 years ago

    Yeah I've got a 64 bit operating system and I'll be the first to admit 8GB of RAM is excessive, but I bought my system 4 months ago and it was one package, no additional extras like a heatsink.

    I think it won't be that long before my setup is around the standard so my point was that I didn't see the need to 'dumb' the game's requirements down when a large percentage of systems could still experience the same gameplay at lower settings, which I did when the game was first released. Its only now I can go back and marvel at the technical achievement of the engine to go with the gameplay. Which, honestly, was just far cry + suit powers. T'was disappointing to see another shooter end up with aliens/creatures down the barrel(Gears, Resistance, Uncharted, countless others). There seems to be a tremendous amount of unoriginality in today's shooters/games, or is it just me?

  • UncleLou #31 4 years ago

    It's simply idiotic to write a game that you know no-body can run as intended. It's borderline criminal to mislead everyone into thinking otherwise and the poor sales and general backlash because of it were well deserved by crytek.

    You're wrong. But I really can't be bothered anymore. I am confident that if you calm down a bit and think for yourself for a minute, you'll see why that's just nonsense.