Crysis Warhead...It's even more demanding

[Hussein19891]

like i said previously, the only reason that company exists, is to push the hardware market. imo.

That is so true, the resolution was at less then 1200x768 with a GTX 260 and still hit about 29 fps. Normally I don't care if a game is demanding or not, cause I'll lower the settings. But when its brining 300$ cards to their knees at such low resolutions. Then its just kind of outrageous that they still continue to make games.

 

[dario03]

Take it up to 1680x1050 and see what happens.

I played Crysis at 1600x1200 with some very high settings. And really if you set shaders to high and everything else to medium the game still looked really good.

 

[Kharn]

Fact: Crysis an Warhead are bench marks.

There where over hyped for not much of a good story an for people to say "OOOO look at the prity gfx" it's not as if it did anything new apart to force a load of people to buy hardware they didn't really need. I am all for having very powerful systems but it's a shocker that you need one to play a game.

 

[Oreo]

Crysis isn't just a benchmark, if you watched all the dev vids for the game (like i did) you would see how much effort they did actually put into the game it's self, very few video's concentrated on the graphics of the game. They pushed the current hardware to the limits to make the best game they could - they only failed this in my opinion for a few small reasons.

 

[mikee]

I guess the crytek team got lazy and didn't optimize the code like they said they were going to so people with a 600$ computer can play it at decent settings

Edit: they say right in the article that they are using a pre release version so the final version might not be like that at all.

On another note does anyone know when the demo will be released?

 

[Method]

I doubt a demo will be released. As its a cut down sort of expansion pack except its standalone. Same story, different perspective. Its only £15 new, so I wouldnt expect a shed load of content, but still a fair amount. Im mostly looking forward to the improved MP aspect being released with it.

 

[Ethan_Kaizer]

I heard they were going to lower the demands for Warhead, to lower than the first one.

But for me, graphics isn't everything. A game could have mediocre graphics, but have much better game play, and I would play it over a game with top of the line graphics. People forget sometimes that games are meant to be fun. That's why I like the Wii more than the PS3. If I wanna look at something nice I'll watch Girls Gone Wild just kidding...

 

[dario03]

I guess the crytek team got lazy and didn't optimize the code like they said they were going to so people with a 600$ computer can play it at decent settings

Edit: they say right in the article that they are using a pre release version so the final version might not be like that at all.

On another note does anyone know when the demo will be released?

You probably will be able to. I played regular Crysis on a 1.5 year old computer that costed around $600. I was able to play with shaders on high so the game looked great. I think if the computer had 2gb of ram I would of been able to play at high on all settings.

I think my computer will be able to play on decent settings and my current computer was around $600 after MIR.

e2180 ~80
ip35v ~60
6gb ram ~65 (soon I'll have that much)
8800gt ~150 (I bought used a while back but you can get new for less now)
750gb hdd ~100 (I have more drives but you don't need a lot of space for just games)
PSU ~50
Case ~40
DVDRW ~20
Cheap cooler ~2

Total ~567 + shipping after Mail in Rebates.

For a little bit more you could have a ati 4850.


And like I said Crysis isn't the best game ever but its not the worst either. Its a decent game to play through at least once. Plus you don't have to have all settings maxed. I think High looks great and Medium is pretty good, Shaders on low doesn't look good though.

 

[carnageX]

I thought the original Crysis was pretty fun actually. I like sci-fi type shooters, and I wasn't following the hype. I decided I was going to play it when it came out, and that was that. Played through it, and thoroughly enjoyed it.

 

[Drizzt]

I played Crysis at 1600x1200 with some very high settings. And really if you set shaders to high and everything else to medium the game still looked really good.

Agreed!

Take it up to 1680x1050 and see what happens.

He's got a 8800gs... If he can play it at high settings at 1280x800 then good for him! That's not too bad.

People over exaggerated Crysis's requirements. Crysis is very playable with high settings DX9 at 1280x800 on my overclocked 8800gs.
If Warhead does need that much ram I have an incentive to get Vista 64bit and 4gb of ram..

Agreed, although I never realized how hard it was until vern said he got 15fps at lowest lowest lowest settings. And he has his gpu at 8500gt level which isn't too horrible :/.

I want vista 64bit also, but I'm still gonna hold out a little longer. I want to start trying out some dx10 features

I heard they were going to lower the demands for Warhead, to lower than the first one.

But for me, graphics isn't everything. A game could have mediocre graphics, but have much better game play, and I would play it over a game with top of the line graphics. People forget sometimes that games are meant to be fun. That's why I like the Wii more than the PS3. If I wanna look at something nice I'll watch Girls Gone Wild just kidding...

Agreed!! And I thought they were going to lower the graphics also.

I thought the original Crysis was pretty fun actually. I like sci-fi type shooters, and I wasn't following the hype. I decided I was going to play it when it came out, and that was that. Played through it, and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Ya, but I do agree with people who say the alien ship part was crap. That bored me... but going through the jungle and crap was pretty awesome. My favorite part was the bridge when I was like *"Pew pew, punch punch" power up! jump off bridge rawr I'm a beast!*

Final boss was alright also.