Crysis vs Crysis Warhead

wolfric

downloaded the sp demo a while back was just looking into getting the full game... saw there were 2 versions. anyone know the difference? There are some reviews about performance comparisons between the 2 but nobody's really telling me straight up what's the difference or why there's 2 of them.

The dates of release are only a year in difference so i'm assuming it's some sort of expansion or single player update? Which one is worth getting (or both?) for single player?

B0X

They are two different games. Warhead is an expansion pack type game (Doesn't actually require Crysis to play though) so it's shorter and cheaper. They are both quite similar but i enjoyed Warhead more.

KilOit

Action is better paced in warhead also runs better, if you enjoyed the demo get both of them.

humanji

You should be able to pick up a double pack in most shops. As above the Warhead is better and plays better, but they're both good.

Sierra Oscar

Loved both the games myself, a real joy to play. As said already, Crysis Warhead had more action, was more optimised and just more fun. Get both though!:)

PogMoThoin

For me with 64bit Vista the first ran better as I have a copy of that and can launch the 64bit .exe with the dvd in the tray. Warhead didn't get 64bit .exe's at launch, it was patched in later and the 64bit .exe is still not cracked so I'm reduced to playing it in 32bit mode as I've not bought it :mad: My point being that if You've got 64bit windows, run the 64bit Crysis or Warhead, it gives much better performance.

The first Crysis is more of a tech demo than a game which they fixed by releasing Warhead, which is more enjoyable. Play both, Crysis first.

5uspect

I got the Maximum edition for €30 in Gamestop. Crysis, Crysis Warhead and Crysis Wars (boring multiplayer).

It's good fun. Not the greatest game by gameplay standards but worth a play.

dreamers75

Never looked at these as actual games more interactive tech demos. Crytek can make pretty engines but their games are ****e as soon as Elvis or whatever alien monkey comes into it.

tman

dreamers75 wrote: »

Never looked at these as actual games more interactive tech demos. Crytek can make pretty engines but their games are ****e as soon as Elvis or whatever alien monkey comes into it.

Aye, both lovely looking, but both absolutely terrible games underneath all of the eye candy.
I would advise getting Warhead if you really really really must play one, but you really shouldn't bother with either imo

PogMoThoin

How come no other developer has used their engine to make a proper game? It now runs well for me, in fact I can play the first complately maxed at 1920x1200 with 4x AA. But I don't, I use it to show off to console gamer friends when they call, "Look at how good pc games can be", show them 5 mins then turn it off

dreamers75

PogMoThoin wrote: »

How come no other developer has used their engine to make a proper game? It now runs well for me, in fact I can play the first complately maxed at 1920x1200 with 4x AA. But I don't, I use it to show off to console gamer friends when they call, "Look at how good pc games can be", show them 5 mins then turn it off

Games Using CryEngine

• Far Cry (2004, Microsoft Windows) - Crytek, Ubisoft
• Far Cry Instincts (2005, Xbox) - Ubisoft Montreal, Ubisoft
• Far Cry Instincts: Evolution (2006, Xbox) - Ubisoft Montreal, Ubisoft
• Far Cry Instincts: Predator (2006, Xbox 360) - Ubisoft Montreal, Ubisoft
• Far Cry Vengeance (2006, Wii) - Ubisoft Montreal, Ubisoft
• Aion: Tower of Eternity (2008, Microsoft Windows) - NCsoft, NCsoft

Games using the CryEngine2


An in-game screenshot of Crysis.

• Crysis - Crytek: Finished; Release 16 November 2007 in Europe and the U.S.
• Crysis Warhead, uses an upgraded version of the engine; Release on 12 September 2008.
• Entropia Universe Upgraded from Gamebryo Engine on 18 August 2009; currently open pre-beta (VU 10.0.6.29273).
• Blue Mars - Avatar Reality, inc. - gaming platform, similar to Second Life; will be open beta[2] on September 02, 2009.
• New MMORPG - XMLGames, in development (TBA).[3]
• Forged by Chaos - Panzar Studio, in development (TBA).
• Lightspire: Fortunes Web[4] - Lukewarm Media, in development (TBA).
• Merchants of Brooklyn[5] - Paleo Entertainment, Released: Mar 17, 2009.
• The Day by Reloaded Studios.
• Vigilance (Military Training Game) - The Harrington Group, Inc. (Not for public release).[6]

Never heard or played any of those games.

Overheal

Again I suspect it has a lot to do with spec, and the hardware market. Wait a while.

PogMoThoin

How long? Crysis is already old tech, it was released in Nov 2007. We've gone from directX 10 to 10.1 and now to 11

Sierra Oscar

The industry is stagnant at the moment anyway it seems, most big titled games coming out have the backing of a large publisher and are using an in-house engine . . . its far cheaper to use an in-house engine over having to spend a large amount of money to get to use another engine. Anyway, the small developers probably cannot afford the costs of using an engine such as the Cry Engine and they are the ones who are most likely to use a third party engine . . . the large developers publishing multiple games every few years are better off using their own engine for all games.

KilOit

PogMoThoin wrote: »

How long? Crysis is already old tech, it was released in Nov 2007. We've gone from directX 10 to 10.1 and now to 11

old tech but still best looking game even now only to be surpassed by the CryEngine 3 which will feature in Crysis 2

Overheal

PogMoThoin wrote: »

How long? Crysis is already old tech, it was released in Nov 2007. We've gone from directX 10 to 10.1 and now to 11

And how many people do you think have adopted DX10, or give a rats ass about quad core? A lot.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

30% of the market has finally adopted DX10 Operable systems, 15% have quads. And even with DX10 capability (oh yes, Im a drop in that bucket) I still run bare specs on Crysis. Companies arent blind to these facts. Nobody is mad about going AAA on something 15-30% of potential users are going to play - when in reality about 15% of that 15-30% will actually happen to pick up the title after you account for preference and demographics.

Im sure we've had this discussion before, you and I.

Zillah

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The industry is stagnant at the moment anyway it seems, most big titled games coming out have the backing of a large publisher and are using an in-house engine . . . its far cheaper to use an in-house engine over having to spend a large amount of money to get to use another engine. Anyway, the small developers probably cannot afford the costs of using an engine such as the Cry Engine and they are the ones who are most likely to use a third party engine . . . the large developers publishing multiple games every few years are better off using their own engine for all games.

Wait, I thought developers paid to use an existing engine because it is faster and cheaper than trying to design, create and test your own? Surely creating a new engine from scratch is very expensive and time consuming?

dreamers75

Zillah wrote: »

Wait, I thought developers paid to use an existing engine because it is faster and cheaper than trying to design, create and test your own? Surely creating a new engine from scratch is very expensive and time consuming?

i thought that too, i tried to licence the Q3 engine back in the day and was quoted 100k for it with full source and got Carmack for one day and 2 other developers on other days.

Always assumed getting someone elses engine was cheaper than developing it.

Sierra Oscar

Zillah wrote: »

Wait, I thought developers paid to use an existing engine because it is faster and cheaper than trying to design, create and test your own? Surely creating a new engine from scratch is very expensive and time consuming?

Not if your publisher can afford to pay a hefty amount of the fee, and if you are developing multiple games then it is cheaper create your own engine and just reuse it rather than having to pay a license fee to a third party for every game.

gizmo

Indeed, for small developers working on only one AAA project at a time or established developers who are comfortable with a certain tech, licencing is still the way to go. Once you go up the ladder to wholly-owned publisher studios or larger independent studios with multiple teams then the benefit of developing your own engine is far more apparent.

AlmightyCushion

Overheal wrote: »

And how many people do you think have adopted DX10, or give a rats ass about quad core? A lot.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

30% of the market has finally adopted DX10 Operable systems, 15% have quads. And even with DX10 capability (oh yes, Im a drop in that bucket) I still run bare specs on Crysis. Companies arent blind to these facts. Nobody is mad about going AAA on something 15-30% of potential users are going to play - when in reality about 15% of that 15-30% will actually happen to pick up the title after you account for preference and demographics.

Im sure we've had this discussion before, you and I.

A 1GB 4870 is enough to max out crysis warhead at 1920 x 1200 and you can get one of those for about €130. A decent dual core processor will handle it as well. Plus a lot developers catter to the higher end of the market. They always have. So I don't think the hardware aspect of it has much to do with it.

Overheal

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

A 1GB 4870 is enough to max out crysis warhead at 1920 x 1200 and you can get one of those for about €130. A decent dual core processor will handle it as well. Plus a lot developers catter to the higher end of the market. They always have. So I don't think the hardware aspect of it has much to do with it.

Im not saying the hardware isnt there, im saying adoption has been slow to take. particularly of late. A big blow to DX10 was the perceived failure of Vista, for instance.