Friday, June 27th 2008
New Crysis Warhead Details Emerge
Some early details about Crytek's Crysis Warhead game have been revealed today by the PC Gamer magazine. Here are all the new key points at a glance:
Source:
Tiscali Games
- Begins when the original game's Nomad character parts ways with Warhead's new hero, Psycho, and follows him all the way until the two are to reunite again on board the aircraft carrier.
- Mostly located on the other side of the island.
- Less linear approach and more sandbox type of gameplay, as opposed to the original.
- Same nanosuit and the same functions, with more likely to be revealed later (definitely a "surprise" in that matter is promised).
- Singleplayer campaign to last 8-10 hours.
- At least two new weapons, the granade launcher and double SMG.
- Improved enemy AI, betterily able to organize itself and follow tactics.
- New vehicles incl. Armored Scout Recon (about the size of a jeep with a mounted gun) and a hovercraft, both playable in multiplayer as well.
- New team-based MP mode and less complex than the original two.
- Betterily optimized to run faster than the original game on the same hardware.
- Won't require DX10 for maximum details and full effects.
- Dialogues done by Bioshock's Susanna O'Connor.
- Completely stand-alone and as noted by developers, not an add-on but a full title.
- The possibility of Crysis 2 to rely heavily on Warhead's sales.
31 Comments on New Crysis Warhead Details Emerge
@ malware: you might want to edit the quoted text as it's a bit harder to read like it is right now.
There better had be optimisations right across the board, and the last bit is hilarious "The possibility of Crysis 2 to rely heavily on Warhead's sales." That's a guilt trip if ever I heard one "Don't pirate this game or we won't give you a sequel".
To illustrate my point (previous post): how much of a drop does a move from DX9 to DX10 causes in Crysis?
The fact that even a GTX280 with all it's power can't get decent FPS (60+ FPS) with everything on very high speaks volumes, IMO. Thanks, dude!
You know when they boast something like that as a 'feature,' then something's definatley wrong with modern games.
"DUDE what's Warhead gonna be like!?!?" "I heard it's gonna have eight to ten hours of single player action!" "WOAH ten hours...awesome man!"
heh
I think Crysis is just a thing to get you to buy copies of Vista. I also feel it lies about frame rates since it's "surprisingly playable" even at frames you couldn't deal with in world of warcraft. XD
I hope since they are just re-releasing a better optimized version of the 1st game just from another viewpoint that will mean a lower price at the checkout.
Coming out with a version that performs the way the 1st one should've, and making a minor shift in the story-telling doesn't impress me. They're still trying to sell me the same game twice!:shadedshu But time will tell. PLEASE NO ONE PIRATE WARHEAD SO THAT CRYTEK CAN GET PAID & WE CAN ALL CONTINUE WITH ALL THIS CRYSIS GOODNESS!!!!!!......:shadedshu pathetic.
How about . . . make a game worth the $70 brand-new-to-the-shelf price, and we might just purchase a copy.
Or, how about @EA: back off your ridiculous current, 6-month-after-release shelf prices of $45-$55, and people might be willing to pick up a copy as well, knowing their system might struggle with it.
gizmodo.com/5020195/pc-gamers-pirating-20x-the-games-they-buy
I still haven't bought or played Crysis, and I won't until I can run it all Very High 1920x1200 or the price drops to $30 or less. They want far too much money for a game that is so poorly optimized.
And lets not fool ourselves. Crysis isn't slow because it's "ahead of it's time". It's slow because it wasn't optimized at all. Look how terribly it scales to higher resolutions. The performance hits you take by changing resolutions are a dead giveaway as to how well a game has been optimized.
Anyway, back on-topic, 10 hours of gameplay is at least better than most FPS's that have been coming out in recent times. Now, they need to release in the $45 range if they want great sales. $60+ is just unacceptable.
as to the notion that Crysis is "advanced" like everyone wants to believe; these two marketing points listed for Warhead:
*Better optimized to run faster than the original game on the same hardware.
*Won't require DX10 for maximum details and full effects.
if true, will completely piss all over the glamorized ideal that Crysis is a game ahead of it's time, and will only cement the fact that the original was poorly optimized, poorly coded and that DX10 support was a marketing-hyped afterthought than a note worthy achievment.
its the way of the map is designed if its optimized
1024x768 > 1280x960 > 1600x1200 > 2048x1536 each of these resolutions has 60% more pixels than the precedent one, or looking in the contrary order each resolution has 37.5% less pixels than the bigger one. A totally pixel dependant engine would take that same hit from every jump in the resolution. Now if we look at COD4 it only takes a hit of around 20%, but if you look at Crysis the hit is close to that 37%. It's not optimization is how the engine works.
If you don't like that kind of performance scaling, be prepared for when ray-tracing finally comes to games, you will hate it.
@imperialreign
They will just make the engine do a lot less things and say they did a better optimization, and most of you will believe it is better optimized, because from what I read very few know what it really is to optimize.
Optimize is to make the same program utilize less power, but most people think it is to "fit" the game to the hardware relaxing or removing features. It's not.
I'll definitely give crytek the fact that everything was written from the ground up - and that *it appears* that a lot of "specialty" aspects of the game are handled by the cry engine itself . . . i.e. audio occlusion and mapping, physics . . . instead of relying on a hand full of 3rd party routine calls
but sometimes, in game, it just felt like there was too much workload for the system . . .
Crysis, @ lower FPS (22 or so), is far more playable then other games @ the same FPS. That's a testament to the quality of the engine, when compared to the others.
HOWEVER, if that playability comes @ the expense of needing a 2x better card to run the game @ the same resolution as other games (if your lucky), that's a HUGE drawback.
Look @ this:
VS this:
These show both HD4850 and GTX280 (as well as others): was unable to get this of a HD4870 :(
2 different game engines and look @ the difference in FPS, even with the GTX280 monster!