Analysis: Things Crysis Did Wrong To Make Warhead Even Better
Everyone had really high expectations of Crysis. And that’s what probably killed it. It’s not to say Crysis is a failure, but rather the opposite, amassing 1.5 million sales world wide. However, Crytek admits that they “had hopes it would do better”. “I think we announced [Crysis] too early”, says Cevat Yerli, CEO of Crytek in an interview with GamesRadar and adds that unrealistic expectations ultimately hurt the game. Yes, Crysis was over-hyped but it is a stellar performer nonetheless.
High Requirements
However, things did go wrong with Crysis. The first set back is probably it’s high system requirements to play the game. But it might be misconception amidst the gaming public. Admitted that Crysis brought down the very best computers down to it’s knees, but Yerli attributes the blame to “mislabeling of the graphics options”. He said that “very high should have been ultra high, and high should have been very high”. Agreed. Most games that run on the highest setting doesn’t match Crysis’s best graphical quality, and a simple change of labels might have stifled a lot of complaints. We gamers want to be able to run the game at the very highest setting, after having spent $5000 on a newly built gaming rig. And when Crysis sneered at the 5000 buck rig you just bought, you would have taken up arms.
Crysis Warhead will solve this because the game code is being tweaked to offer better performance using less system resources. If you were able to run Crysis on your machine, Warhead will play even better. That’s not to say Warhead won’t push the graphics barrier. Besides, Warhead will be built upon a further optimized CryENGINE 2 and will scale better to older hardware because it’s being optimized for consoles.
Pages: 1 2
Get Gamers World Bangladesh Blog Delivered Straight To Your Inbox
/images/Custom/sidebar-subscribe-ad.png)
/images/Custom/comments.jpg)
Jul 16th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
I honestly always thought of Crysis of more of an ad for a game engine then anything else. The developers would be smart to start licensing that sucker out, as it is very future proofed. This is the type of engine Duke Nukem Forever should have been made for… maybe it wouldn’t look as aged as it will after more then a decade of development.
Jul 17th, 2008 at 3:49 am
@ Yert
Yeah, maybe Crysis was just to tout the CryEngine. Before I get the flamewars started, I would like to say that I enjoyed a lot of it, but not all.
Jul 31st, 2008 at 11:38 am
i played crysis with my poor Geforce 6200 on low settings and it ran well.
i see many gamers want the best graphic and spend 500$ for just a graphics card
well that money will buy me 5 or 7(stretching 8-12 years atleast) low to medium end graphics cards and that would serve me 8 to 12 or years.in the meantime those 500$ card buyers will see that their 500$ premium graphics card become useless in 3 to 4 years and need to change to another 500$ card.ouch
so i think spending less to get more value for your money and still be able to play games albeit in low setting is wisest choice and gives ultra value for your money.
But yes if you have the money then you probably wouldnt bother too much spending 500$ bucks every year or two to buy a new Graphics card and play games at the best setting.
Jul 31st, 2008 at 3:09 pm
@shamim
Really? On a GeForce 6200?
I have two ATI HD 3870 X2 in CrossFire and a dual core Intel E6850 with 4GB RAM, and even I get lag in Crysis running very high in DX 10 mode. 
But in DX9, Crysis looks absolutely gorgeous at the very highest setting, and I don’t have any frame stutters. 
You’re right, it doesn’t make sense for us Bangladeshi people to pay so much for a high-end system. Although I know many Bangladeshis (myself included) who will pay top dollars to get the absolutely best gaming rig. heck, I just spent $800 on my graphics card alone.