Crysis vs. Crysis Warhead - CryEngine 2 comparison

"Crysis Warhead - the nail in DirectX 10's coffin"

Gameplayer's PC guru has put both versions of the CryEngine 2 (one in Crysis, and the second in its recently released expansion Crysis: Warhead) and documented his findings in this article.

"Warhead suffers from the same 'gradual slowdown' as Crysis. It's worth saving, then quitting out of the game once an hour or so to clear it out. Presumably some sort of memory leak, it hits worst in the ice levels."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
SlappingOysters3793d ago

Originally Vista and DX10 were going to bring this whole new generation of PC gaming. I remember E3 a few years back an MS were just as proud of the games for windows line-up as they were of what was coming for Xbox.

Crysis was the flagship title, but it got delayed and delayed and then came out when gamers were sticking to XP and DX10 sucked anyway. What a disaster.

Charmers3792d ago

Well two things happened firstly Vista turned out to be a dog of an operating system. If MS had made Dx10 work in XP as well then we would all be playing games in Dx10 now, but they didn't. They foolishly thought people would go out and pay $200 for an operating system just to play Dx10 games, which leads us nicely into the next thing.

MS has done the sums, it isn't in their interest to be a backer of PC games. Think about this for a second as a business what is in MS's interest ? Would it be to sell you an xbox for your games and a PC for all your other needs ? That is MS's goal they have no interest in PC gaming except to sabotage it. They will do the bare minimum to prevent anyone else getting a foothold gaming wise on the PC but that is all they will do.

MS is currently creating an xbox like environment for PC gamers ie Games For Windows Live whilst at the same time holding games off the PC and letting it stagnate and die so that when PC gamers have too make the choice of living the PC as a gaming machine chances are it will be to a environment they are familiar with ie xbox live.

kevnb3792d ago (Edited 3792d ago )

and you can still use dx9 if you like, I wouldn't upgrade from xp but on a new pc I would go with vista. Back on topic, Crysis sure is awesome once you get it running well. Its not just the graphics, its the total immersion factor. The physics and the massive amount of action on screen make the game awesome. I haven't tried warhead yet, but this sounds kind of disappointing.

baraka0073792d ago

I like crysis but it's just no worth it anymore IMO to upgrade your PC. I agree with you charmers MS just doesn't care and I can't support them anymore. I bought a new comp last christmas with vista and it's been nothing but problems for me. I can't believe they charged me 200 bucks for vista and then turn around and give all the games they're making to only xbox360 users. Why can't pc have gears 2 or halo3? I spent more on vista alone than someone who buys the xbox arcade system. Then the games they do come out with like gears 1 needs a gold account just to get achievements. I wasted so much money on MS I think it's about time to say enough already. Everything they do now seems to be a money sucking not working failure. Live and learn I guess...

iistuii3792d ago

what outdated pc's these people test these games on. My Crysis Warhead runs as smooth as all my games 1920x1200 with all bells with my gtx 280. I'm on vista 64 and when i shut off Crysis it shuts completely down.

cruckel3792d ago

If you got a rig that can run this game, i would recommend getting this game. It is worth it, not for the graphics, not for the story, not for the gameplay, but again, for the immersion. The amount of detail put in this game is outstanding. A game that set the bar high, and will keep it there for years to come, much like Farcry did.

Now to the question at hand, there is only one reason to get Warhead, and that is Crysis Wars, Multiplayer was improved upon and is much much better then what is was. And there is a reason to keep DirectX 10 on when playing online. There are those few Dx10 servers that have daytime/nighttime battles which change the feel of combat in minutes.

Don't waste the money unless you know your rig can run it. And I def would not recommend getting it if you plan on playing it on a laptop.

FantasyStar3792d ago (Edited 3792d ago )

Crysis is what it is because the graphics and gameplay blends together nicely. I can't play Crysis or Warhead unless it's on the highest setting possible, that's only then I can enjoy the full immersion factor.

overlorduk3792d ago

This was the first review I've read that said the graphics in Warhead were not as good as Crysis. All the other dozen or so reviews I've read said the graphics were slightly better in Warhead.

Mclovin963792d ago

When I played warhead I noticed that some of the textures were not quite as sharp as Crysis, and some parts of the world were slightly less detailed. However, the only reason I noticed was because I spent so many hours playing Crysis in the past year. IMO, the performance increase that you get from the lowered graphic quality is definately worth it. I was blown away at how fast the game ran compared to Crysis. Crysis did not even run that bad on mid-range systems. Its sad to think of how much money Crytek lost because of a bunch of losers trash-talking the game on forums when they had never played it.

Anyway, Warhead is still way better looking than any other game on the market and will be for a long time, not to mention it is one of the most fun games you will play this year, period. The only knock I have against it is it's too short. But then again it's only $30.

Show all comments (11)