Anyone else playing Crysis Warhead already ?

[mindcycle]

I wish they would just announce whether or not the steam version uses SecuROM. On another forum someone claims they contacted steam support and they confirmed that it does use SecuROM, but no official announcement yet.

http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-b...wthread&threadid=91455

The guys (developers) on the crytek forums (crymod.com) are telling everyone to wait for an official announcement and locking threads when people ask about it. Sounds like it probably does and they don't want to effect sales by coming out with it.. How ridiculous it that? Buyers should have the right to know what they are downloading and installing on their computer.

 

[bullbert]

Originally posted by: MTDEW
If video cardswould have continued their trend of doubling in performance like they were, then Crysis would have played just fine on the newest cards.
Unfortunately that didnt happen and Crysis's performance was percieved as poorly optimized. IMO

They can't double forever. The performance timeline is more like a Equilateral Hyperbola (reverse performance on one axis, time on the other axis). Moore's law only applies to the near-linear portion at the start of the curve. Once you pass the knee of the curve, performance increases are minimal. We are approaching the knee with GPUs. We are well past the knee with CPUs. It take a whole new architecture to reset the timelines.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
I wish they would just announce whether or not the steam version uses SecuROM. On another forum someone claims they contacted steam support and they confirmed that it does use SecuROM, but no official announcement yet.

http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-b...wthread&threadid=91455

The guys (developers) on the crytek forums (crymod.com) are telling everyone to wait for an official announcement and locking threads when people ask about it. Sounds like it probably does and they don't want to effect sales by coming out with it.. How ridiculous it that? Buyers should have the right to know what they are downloading and installing on their computer.

Yeah, I'm a bit curious about this as well. The interesting bit about the Steam version is that I don't recall having to click through an EA EULA screen like you have to with Mass Effect. I guess it's also a matter of opinion, but I really don't care if SecuROM is present if they don't limit my number of installs.

 

[TheNiceGuy]

How is the online play? Anything as fun as BF2?

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: TheNiceGuy
How is the online play? Anything as fun as BF2?

I had a blast playing last night. Treehouse level is cool. I was on the upper level when another player power jumped from the lower level up on to my level and power punched me off.

spectating is like watching a movie because it looks so good.

oh, and it runs hella better in crysis wars than it does in the actual game. I think its because of less AI and smaller maps

 

[MTDEW]

Originally posted by: bullbert

Originally posted by: MTDEW
If video cardswould have continued their trend of doubling in performance like they were, then Crysis would have played just fine on the newest cards.
Unfortunately that didnt happen and Crysis's performance was percieved as poorly optimized. IMO

They can't double forever. The performance timeline is more like a Equilateral Hyperbola (reverse performance on one axis, time on the other axis). Moore's law only applies to the near-linear portion at the start of the curve. Once you pass the knee of the curve, performance increases are minimal. We are approaching the knee with GPUs. We are well past the knee with CPUs. It take a whole new architecture to reset the timelines.

Agreed with what you said , but if i recall correctly not many anticipated "passing the knee" as you put it at that paticular point in time, since we were all on here expecting the "new 8800GTX Killer card".(again at about the time when Crysis launched and obviously it didnt happen)
And with a games development time, i just assumed Crytek had to anticipate where GPU performance would be a few years in advance and they seemingly just underestimated where GPUs would be at the launch date of Crysis.

I even kinda remember Crytek saying there was even the possibility of cranking Crysis's graphics even higher than the VERY HIGH settings the game came with, but that info seemed to dissappear after everyone complained about the performance as it was.
I guess they felt there was no need to push the graphics further and instigate more complaints, so it was never really mentioned much after the games launch.

Anyway, i do feel the game engine doesnt get the praise it deserves, although current hardware still struggles a bit to "keep up" , you cannot deny that it renders a beautiful open ended world better than anything else out now.
I cant imagine how the Crytek team feels, they should be getting praise for what they accomplished when all they get is complaints.

anyway, sorry to get off the the subject in someone elses thread.

I plan on trying Warhead this weekend as i for one enjoyed Crysis. (aliens and all)

 

[marmasatt]

So I'm a little worried here on performance. I've got an e6750 @ 3.2 and an 8800GT. Am I basically at the minimum in reality to have this looking "good" yet playable? How's the game itself? Don't see many chiming in on the single player game play thus far......

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: marmasatt

So I'm a little worried here on performance. I've got an e6750 @ 3.2 and an 8800GT. Am I basically at the minimum in reality to have this looking "good" yet playable? How's the game itself? Don't see many chiming in on the single player game play thus far......

It looks f'n good on all low settings.

set it to mainstream and you should be happy.

I'm playing mostly on Gamer, and I have an Athlon X2 5000 with an 8800GT. There is some stuttering but its playable.

 

[EvilComputer92]

I'm playing on 1280x1024 with some settings gamer and others maximum. Looks very good on a 8800GT and overclocked Opteron 165. I get around 25 to 30 fps. I'm really enjoying the campaign so far.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: phexac
Gona pass on this game just as I did on original Crysis. From what I saw on my friend's computer, you either make it look good and play a slideshow (C2D 8500 and 9800 GTX in SLI), or go for smoother framerate, in which case the game does not look that great at all. Crysis really does not scale down gracefully. Now Warhead is repetition of the same story, plus DRM that limits the number of installs. Nope, not interested, especially considering the DRM bullshit. But I am sure Crytec guys will blame poor sales on piracy, just as they did before. It has nothing to do with the fact that they put out an average shooter whose sole distinction is its graphics...which no one can actually take advantage of.

or get a 4870, and play maxed settings at 1680x1050 smooth as silk...

I doubt that.

smooth = avg in 30s, drops to 20s

 

[bamacre]

So, is there a common agreement that the game plays better than Crysis? Performance-wise?

 

[quadomatic]

So multiplayer is pretty good then? I haven't played Crysis yet, and this game seems relatively short so I was thinking I might pass on this one. But, if it's good...does anyone think it'd be worth the $30 if you haven't played Crysis yet?

My 9600GSO should come in by friday of next week...gonna OC the hell out of it to get 8800GT performance, then volt mod it if possible and push out some more performance.

 

[sourthings]

Originally posted by: bamacre
So, is there a common agreement that the game plays better than Crysis? Performance-wise?

The new high settings which are 'gamer' play better now, but the new very high which is 'enthusiast' seems more taxing. Also the performance under DX9 seems to be better and on it's max settings, offers most of what you see in DX10 now.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: sourthings

Originally posted by: bamacre
So, is there a common agreement that the game plays better than Crysis? Performance-wise?

The new high settings which are 'gamer' play better now, but the new very high which is 'enthusiast' seems more taxing. Also the performance under DX9 seems to be better and on it's max settings, offers most of what you see in DX10 now.

OK. I'm running a Q6600, 4GB, and a 512MB 8800 GTS, and I played Crysis in DX9 at 16x12 with some custom settings and it played pretty well for the most part. So, I should be ok with Warhead.

 

[extra]

Just bought the game and downloaded it via steam. (thanks for putting it on steam guys, so much more convenient for us to purchase that way!). It just completed downloading, off to play (sigh low end card, 9600gt here)... I'm a bit concerned about securom, but hopefully soon some friendly pirates will make a crack that gets rid of securom, i don't like the idea of having a rootkit installed on my machine.

 

[TridenT]

Originally posted by: batmang
8.9's were just release today. Maybe those may help?
http://game.amd.com/us-en/drivers_catalyst.aspx

OHH MY GOD. Anything good... >_> Better be, hopefully I can install these!(8.8s were massive f-ups because they didn't work with my 4850 crossfire)

 

[funks]

Originally posted by: marmasatt

So I'm a little worried here on performance. I've got an e6750 @ 3.2 and an 8800GT. Am I basically at the minimum in reality to have this looking "good" yet playable? How's the game itself? Don't see many chiming in on the single player game play thus far......

I pretty much have the same setup. Runs great on when everything is set to "mainstream".. I'm happy with the graphics.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: extra
Just bought the game and downloaded it via steam. (thanks for putting it on steam guys, so much more convenient for us to purchase that way!). It just completed downloading, off to play (sigh low end card, 9600gt here)... I'm a bit concerned about securom, but hopefully soon some friendly pirates will make a crack that gets rid of securom, i don't like the idea of having a rootkit installed on my machine.

I'm waiting to buy it until it's officially announced that SecuROM is not on the steam version. They've been extremely tight lipped about it so far, telling people to wait for a faq that will explain everything... They've been telling people that for a few days now but no faq so far. Not really a good sign IMO.

I convinced that the steam version has SecuROM (in some form), just like bioshock did. They must believe that coming out and just admitting that will damage sales. It's just ridiculous trying to trick people like this. I hope that i'm wrong about that.. I really do.

 

[sticks435]

Here's a forum topic over at Amazon that links to an offical FAQ by Crytek. I think they are lying in some of the answer's though.

http://www.amazon.com/DRM-work...g=UTF8&asin=B001ATHKVC

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: sticks435
Here's a forum topic over at Amazon that links to an offical FAQ by Crytek. I think they are lying in some of the answer's though.

http://www.amazon.com/DRM-work...g=UTF8&asin=B001ATHKVC

Yeah, that info was posted on their official site awhile back. I'm interested in the steam version. Nothing specific has been said concerning whether or not it has the same crippling DRM that retail copies have and the crytek guys are skirting around the issue.

Thanks for the link though.

 

[andylawcc]

got it at Fry's for 23.99; so far so good. running smooth on 1024x768 @ "Gamer" Setting. THe Motion Blur thing could be a bit annoying however.

 

[error8]

What annoys me is that this game has been advertised as running way faster then the normal Crysis. It doesn't run faster, it feels even more sluggish then its predecessor and stupid sites like IGN are saying "the game runs with high frame rates even on an 8800 GT". MY ass, it doesn't . Even on high I get 15-20 fps at 1680X1050. Did Crytek payed the reviewers to lie about system requierments??
"Ok, tell the morons that are reading these reviews that the game runs great!" And so, the morons bought the game. I should have kept these money for getting another videocard sometime later, but nooo, I had to get Warhead, since it runs so smooth.

 

[mancunian]

Hmm, was hoping the performance issues would have been addressed, but it seems not.

So I would expect about 15 fps at 1680 x 1050 very high settings on this rig.


Think I might wait a while until graphics card technology has advanced some more.

 

[extra]

Happy to report that it's running great on my e7200@3.6ghz and EVGA superclocked 9600gt.

I run at 1360x768. No AA obviously.
Everything set at "gamer", running in dx10 mode.
FPS is between 25 (ice level)-35 (other stuff, or indoors). I'm very pleased. It looks amazing, I'm extremely happy with how well it plays on this card!

 

[Psynaut]

Tonight I played right up till the Ice Part at 1680X1050 on all highest settings and am getting better frame rates than I did with the first Crysis, which wasn't even playable for me on the highest settings. I'm not pulling 60 FPS or anything, but it is definitely playable at these settings, so far at least. With the original Crysis I was on all medium to get the same performance. The only difference is that I went from a significantly overclocked 8800GTS 512 to a non-overclocked 9800GTX, both of which get identicle scores in 3DMark.