Comments on: Analysis: Things Crysis Did Wrong To Make Warhead Even Better

By: James

James — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:45:27 +0000

ugh. ^ some sentence arrangement errors in m above post. i apologize. i meant to say.. the objectives in crysis were all linear despite the expansive maps so u really had to traverse linearly.in that case it killed performance … but for warhead the maps were made justifiably so performance was better .

By: James

James — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:41:06 +0000

It does run better. they turned down the quality and sharpness of many fairly unnoticeable textures from crysis to make warhead run at better rates while giving better performance . not to mention the expansive maps of crysis which were basically honestly useless because ur objects were always in a sorta linear path have become mostly linear ones but still maintaining the quality of graphics… infact i think the smaller enviroments strap even better textures and lighting than the 1st game. the vast open-ness in crysis is just there for idiot gamers who have a vegetation fetish.. or want to go tourist style in crysis. Warhead is all bout running and gunning thru the game which really suits it.. and the maps arent cut down to much of a small size. they are still huuuuuge. crysis was just ridiculously huge.. i didnt even get why we need so much vegetation in places where i never set my foot it.. or wont set my foot in. ).. warhead is just rite with its maps.. The shooting is tweaked too makin it more fun to shoot ppl. But i love both games.. Warhead lackin in epicness of crysis and gameplay hour length.. but makin up in performance whereas crysis has the tendancy to make u feel u need a FUTURISTIC PC FROM SPACE to be able to run the game at all very high .. smoothly.

By: B

Thu, 30 Oct 2008 07:17:36 +0000

I know the graphics and performance are better on higher end cards but since the makers of the games have contracts with the card makers it makes since for them to say certain games can only be ran on certain cards. (even the min. specs they say are wrong. That way, the card makers make more money because people run out and buy a card to play it on the highest settings and constantly upgrade according to the specs of the games that come out. The thing that gets me is when the game maker says the game at the least can be run on say for instance a nvidia 6800 when it can be ran on a 6200. I’m not sure how it works but rest assured every card that’s sold after a demo or full game comes out, the card maker gives a kickback to the game maker. It may be more complicated or could be more simple then my explanation for why they say certain games can only be run on certain graphics cards but we need more truth in graphics and games as we need more truth in lending when it comes to homes. Also, a lot of people don’t realize the card makers just don’t make cards and the bulk of there money dosen’t come from cards so if they can get this fan base to constantlly shell out money when a game comes out, mission accomplished. Like diseases, there’s no money in the cure, just as long as you can live with the medicines you have to constantly buy year after year.

By: B

Thu, 30 Oct 2008 06:23:14 +0000

I also have a 6200 with a pentium 4 chip on a stock 915intel/asueus board with 2500mb of ram added (no pcie slots) and it runs fine on all low settings.

By: shusruto

shusruto — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:47:03 +0000

when’s Warhead coming to Bangladesh
I’ve been waiting for ages for it

By: Sumon

Sumon — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 02:31:03 +0000

I played Crysis on xfx 8800gt zalman on 1024×768 res and the highest setting in vista with 2 gb ram and e7200 at 3.17ghz and i got a whopping 61fps avg. how nice.no lag. hi musfique
dx9

By: The Gaming Wiz/Mushfiqur Rahman

The Gaming Wiz/Mushfiqur Rahman — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:09:19 +0000

@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.

By: shamim

shamim — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:38:53 +0000

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.

By: The Gaming Wiz/Mushfiqur Rahman

The Gaming Wiz/Mushfiqur Rahman — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 03:49:33 +0000

@ 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.

By: Yert

Yert — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:55:49 +0000

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.