IGN: Crysis Warhead Post-mortem

When Crytek finally shipped in 2007 it came about a year behind schedule and demanded a high-end machine. When Crysis Warhead shipped about a year later, Crytek delivered a follow-up on schedule and it actually ran better on existing hardware than its predecessor. How did the company do that? Producer Bernd Diemer gave a presentation at GDC to explain the hard lessons that Crytek learned with making Crysis, and how developers can use that info to produce better games.

Crysis Warhead was a challenging product in a number of ways. For example, a newly formed studio, Crytek Budapest, built the single-player campaign. To have a new team establish itself and build a game at the same time is always challenging. Meanwhile, the multiplayer was built by Crytek Frankfurt, which meant that the company had to timeshare critical programmers and developers and carefully integrate the product. However, Diemer noted that having one team on single-player and another on multiplayer created a healthy competition between the two studios, as they raced to completion.

The story is too old to be commented.
Software_Lover3547d ago

To a very disappoint ending. I hated the Warhead ending more than I hated the Halo 2 ending.

Leio3547d ago

Lol and the drama it was so stupid i almost cry ...

mastiffchild3547d ago

All that about Warhead running better on less well endowed systems didn't really come across for me. While my main comp had no problem with either my secondary comp(which I end up using more for games even though it's not made for them as my family hog the best one)actually had fewer issues with Crysis than Warhead. Well I had to turn more off this time anyway.

That said my mate found the opposite so god knows but it definitely isn't running better for everyone.

dirthurts3547d ago

The original Crysis ran MUCH better for me. On two different builds actually. I don't know what gives.
Crysis warhead to me seems much worse as far as optimizations.

Ju3547d ago

Hm, I don't know. For me that game is totally overrated. Maybe it has great visuals - on something like a 280GTX+, but I got GeoW and FarCry2 (got the steam special) running on the same machine (X4, 9600GT) in high with 4AA, and Crysis needs to get toned down to run there with a decent frame rate (all I got is 1680x1050 in "Gamer" mode), and with these settings it can't even get close to the other two games.

Gameplay wise the same. But then, I play console games, and I use a 360 controller on a PC. And while its pretty apparent, that both GeOW and FarCry2 were designed for consoles (as well), Crysis obviously was not, due to how well the controller works with the other two games. That's a pity. I just don't want to play that game with the KB, but not to makes me getting frustrated very quickly.

So, where does this leave me with the game ? Don't know. Gameplaywise I didn't expect it to beat the others - just to maybe be on the same level, which it isn't, and visually. Hm. Another pity. I can't play screenshots.

I am really curious if Crytek can transport that engine well to the consoles. At least from a gameplay standpoint, that might have an impact on the controls the next time (just because a game has working controller settings, won't harm it for the KB enthusiast. Just to avoid future critics here, but it will make the game more accessible for console gamers). Hopefully the CryEngine3 will do what the videos show. I don't really think it will beat out the big exclusives, though (yeah, I mean PS3 exclusive engines, like R2, KZ2, UC2, GoW3 and even inFamous - sorry, don't know anything for the 360 - UE3 won't cut it). I mean, I even think the PhyreEngine can compete now ( - looks everybody does deferred lightning these days ).

Well, the jungle looks great, I have to admit that, and that's obviously the strength of Crytek, but the beach house and the other environments, well, I don't know.