• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Crysis Warhead game play thread

nitromullet

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2004
9,031
36
91
So, now that Warhead has been out for a few days, what do you guys think of game play?

I'll try to give my impressions without any spoilers.

First of all, I can come right out and say that overall I enjoyed Warhead from start to finish more than I did Crysis, which I enjoyed a lot before the aliens showed up.

-Warhead does a much better job of mixing things up in terms of the different types of enemies and situations. You do a lot of sneaking and a lot of blowing up stuff.

-Warhead gets to more weapons/mods much quicker so you can use different styles early on. If you like setting traps with explosives, sniping, or are a more run-and-gun type player you can employ any (or all) of these tactics from almost the beginning of the game.

-Aliens/Ice levels... Yes, Warhead has both, but IMO the aliens are somehow more enjoyable opponents than they were in Crysis, where they were mostly just annoying.

-"Epic battles". For some reason Crytek still included a a few parts where you have to 'hold the fort' against an onslaught of Aliens or KPA, which weren't the highlights of the game for me. IMO Crysis and Warhead excel as a lone gunman/hero type games where you essentially win against impossible odds because you're a bad ass in a nanosuit. Open ended solo missions (which do comprise the bulk of the game) are where this game shines.

-Finally, the bosses in the game are generally easier than the final boss in Crysis. I'm not really a huge fan of bosses, and usually do them once just to complete the game, so I'm cool with that. To put this into perspective, I like 'final battles' a la HL2 Episode 2 better than I do the 'mega end boss' a la Crysis or Doom3.

-I had not planned in burning through the game in day, but Warhead definitely has that hard to put down factor. I just wanted to keep going, plus it's more like episodic content on length than a full game. Fine with me, as long as Crytek keeps giving us new episodes every now and then.

Overall, I'd give it a 9/10. Not perfect, but if you liked Crysis, you'll definitely really like Warhead.

Again, please keep this thread to game play only. If you want to talk about SecuROM and DRM, please go here:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2229242&enterthread=y

If you want to talk about performance, please go here:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2228814&enterthread=y
 

Modular

Diamond Member
Jul 1, 2005
5,027
67
91
Cool, thanks. I have nothing to add except to say that I have been looking for a thread like this that doesn't contain some sort of bitching. Thanks for a clean, honest review. I'll be picking this one up for next weekend when I'll finally have free time to play!
 

Xellos2099

Platinum Member
Mar 8, 2005
2,278
13
81
I have yet to play warhead but I don;t think the bosses in original Crysis is really that hard. Even the last boss is a push over if you know what you are doing.
 

SSChevy2001

Senior member
Jul 9, 2008
774
0
0
+ A faster pace makes it much more enjoyable compared to the 1st.

+ Cutscenes show off the nano suit nicely and added great character development.

- No Cutscenes with nomad, which isn't cool. Nomad should of made a appearance at least once.

+ New weapons and vehicles worked out great. Plenty of both all over the place.

- No flying vehicles or alien enemy weapons could be used this time. Also still can't pull enemies out of their vehicles, with our super suits.

+- The small aliens robots now can shield one another, which is nice but should of been in the original. Also same with the large walking alien, which now doesn't have a indestructible shielding. Still plenty of fun, but parallel story anyone...

- Didn't feel that much of a parallel story as I was hoping. Physco should of had more scenes that where in sync with the original. At least a part on the carrier and maybe a extra teaser into crysis 2, something!

I would say 8.5/10.
 

chrismr

Member
Feb 8, 2007
176
0
0
Had fun with the game, but then I enjoyed the original :)

At least it runs smoothly, even if they did drop certain settings to do so.

Levels felt a bit more restricted than crysis 0, but that is not necessarily bad. It keeps things more focused and keeps the pace up. Some of the levels though were just a little too "closed" - I was not fond of the train mission or the hovercraft section, for example.

Snow levels in general are a lot better this time around. For performance reasons as well as for being more open.

I liked the new aliens, and thought they were a lot more fun to fight than in Crysis 0. Their reactions were faster and they did seem more "intelligent". Though the large walkers weren't very intimidating this time around, and came across as a lot weaker than they should have been.

I absolutely loved the 2nd mission "shore leave". While it was quite narrow, the atmosphere was lovely with the rain and very dense flora - I just wish they used rain more frequently.

Vehicles and turrets still have that annoying magic vision though that allows them to see everything for miles and are pin-point accurate.

The cut-scenes can be misleading - try do a cool jump like Psycho does in them and you will soon find yourself dead. Cut scenes look brilliant though, even if some can be quite cheesy.

All in all, I had good fun with it, and have already started playing through it a 2nd time. It doesn't just feel like more of the same of Crysis 0.
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,939
6
81
It seemed to have more destruction.
I played the original in DX9 mode, and Warhead in DX9, but I don't remember being able to destroy all the buildings and sniper towers etc in the original, but in Warhead there seems to be environmental/building destruction which I think was restricted to only DX10 mode in the original Crysis?
 

Psynaut

Senior member
Jan 6, 2008
653
1
0
I very much enjoyed it. It is short, it seemed about half the length of Crysis. It was very wide open, with lots of ways to accomplish any objective. I would agree with all the positive things everyone said above, so I won't restate them.

The negatives for me were very few, and I will mention them since everything positive I could say has been said above:

1) It was too easy. I stopped using the cloak feature half-way through the game just to make it more challenging. You can literally take out 20 KPA at once in that suit. And I played it on the hard level and am by no means a pro-gamer.

2) Human AI sucked. The tanks had much better AI then the humans did. You could be standing ten feet from a human in the wide-open, and he might be looking the other way. The tanks, on the other hand, can sense you at 200 yards, while your laying flat down in the tall grass, behind a bush.

So, I would give it a very high rating. It is a fun game. The only real negative I could say about it is that the nano-suit absorbs so much damage that it becomes maybe a little too easy, while stupid AI contributes to the problem. On the plus side is all the stuff others have already said. I will play it again.
 

Hugh H

Senior member
Jul 11, 2008
315
0
0
Anybody playing the multiplayer portion (Crysis Wars)?

I've had tons of fun with it... enough to pull me decisively away from COD4. The team deathmatch mode (TIA) is superb. I reccommed everyone to try it.
 

nitromullet

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2004
9,031
36
91
Originally posted by: chrismr
I was not fond of the train mission or the hovercraft section
I agree about the hovercraft section, but I kind of liked the train one. Had it been much longer it would have been annoying, but it was a pretty quick diversion from the normal game play. I also read in a review that you only have to keep the locomotive in sight to complete the mission, so it's possible to hop in a vehicle and follow the train. I might go back and try to complete it that way, as it seems like it would be considerably more challenging.

Originally posted by: Psynaut
2) Human AI sucked. The tanks had much better AI then the humans did. You could be standing ten feet from a human in the wide-open, and he might be looking the other way. The tanks, on the other hand, can sense you at 200 yards, while your laying flat down in the tall grass, behind a bush.
This is very true. There were a few times I got careless and a KPA guy could have easily killed me, but instead he just stood there yelling "Yankee shankee". I'm definitely going to go back and play it on Delta. Not having the mini-map showing you where the enemies are makes it more challenging, but I'll miss the auto-ammo pickup (which was a nice addition IMO).
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,939
6
81
Originally posted by: nitromullet
Originally posted by: chrismr
I was not fond of the train mission or the hovercraft section
I agree about the hovercraft section, but I kind of liked the train one. Had it been much longer it would have been annoying, but it was a pretty quick diversion from the normal game play. I also read in a review that you only have to keep the locomotive in sight to complete the mission, so it's possible to hop in a vehicle and follow the train. I might go back and try to complete it that way, as it seems like it would be considerably more challenging.

Originally posted by: Psynaut
2) Human AI sucked. The tanks had much better AI then the humans did. You could be standing ten feet from a human in the wide-open, and he might be looking the other way. The tanks, on the other hand, can sense you at 200 yards, while your laying flat down in the tall grass, behind a bush.
This is very true. There were a few times I got careless and a KPA guy could have easily killed me, but instead he just stood there yelling "Yankee shankee". I'm definitely going to go back and play it on Delta. Not having the mini-map showing you where the enemies are makes it more challenging, but I'll miss the auto-ammo pickup (which was a nice addition IMO).
You can change the difficulty levels by editing the .cfg in one of the Warhead folders, but I'm not sure how if at all you can change whether they show up on the minimap. You can make them more aware/better though.
You can add Korean voices to easier difficulty levels though.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
- No Cutscenes with nomad, which isn't cool. Nomad should of made a appearance at least once.
Making Nomad basically a blank slate who remained mostly anonymous was a conscious decision by the devs as they wanted the user to be able to picture themselves as the hero, and not as a stand-in for the hero. For Warhead they decided to go the other route. I really don't think it has an effect either way, it's not like Gordon Freeman ever says anything and HL is no less exciting because you can't 'identify' with the protagonist.
 

nitromullet

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2004
9,031
36
91
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
- No Cutscenes with nomad, which isn't cool. Nomad should of made a appearance at least once.

- Didn't feel that much of a parallel story as I was hoping. Physco should of had more scenes that where in sync with the original. At least a part on the carrier and maybe a extra teaser into crysis 2, something!
I can kind of see where you're going with these points, as Warhead played a lot like Crysis, but they didn't really mingle much in terms of story.

I'm thinking that this may have been intentional though. Crysis ended up so that to continue to story Nomad would have to go back to the island with Psycho and Prophet to kill aliens... Considering the pretty much universally poor feedback gamers had for the aliens, it sort of put Crytek in bind in terms of making a "Crysis 2" that people would enjoy. I think with Warhead, Crytek stepped away from the Nomad plot line intentionally to give themselves a wider range of plot options for the next installment.
 

L337Llama

Senior member
Mar 30, 2003
358
0
0
I played it Warhead, but never the original Crysis. I liked a Psycho alot. I don't think the blank slate thing works that well in a game like this. HL2 has more interaction with other characters, and the writing makes it work. But Psycho doesn't have as much like that, so it would have been boring for him to blank slate since hed never speak to anybody.

The final boss was easy, and I concur episode 2 had an epic final battle. I was hoping it would be a bit more like that, especially the way the scene started looking before that fight. Flying vehicles would have been nice as well. The game ran pretty well, although I'm only at 1280x1024.

 

badnewcastle

Golden Member
Jun 30, 2004
1,017
0
0
I played the first one and liked it.

I like this one better mostly because as others have stated it is faster.

And more opportunity to blow shit up in Warhead!!! Always a plus!:thumbsup:
 

andylawcc

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
18,186
3
76
nah, I actually enjoyed the first one / original Crysis a lot more. I can't help to feel that, as Yahtzee from Escapist Magazine once said, we are just burning time here for the next installment. I don't feel connected to Psycho as a character, and they could have developed Sam ONeill even further to strengthen the bond with him and Psycho (perhaps an extra mission 4 years eariler where Psycho and O'Niell trying to disarm the "code blue" bomb, kinda like in CoD4 where you play the sniper a few years back). It was fun as the action stayed intense, new weapons are cool (dual wield machine gun and FL-40 grenade laucher); but the game was too easy even in difficult mode, all until the final boss when those darn homing missilles are one-hit-kill.
I very much enjoyed the final boss in the Original Crysis, perhaps the best end game experience I've had.
 

skace

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
14,492
7
81
I'd say the biggest change from Crysis to Warhead is that Warhead does a better job of setting up scenarios. By scenarios, I mean, putting a base in your way and having you infiltrate it. Crysis had this too, but Warhead works at honing these instances such that they are more difficult to overcome and thus require more thought, similar to Farcry in some ways, but far better in others.
 

CrystalBay

Platinum Member
Apr 2, 2002
2,175
1
0
Warhead definitely cuts to the chase much faster. I would say the game is very satisfying and addictive but not "Fun" ... Multiplayer is greatly improved over Crysis but still needs work.

Now as far as coding goes , there seems to be mouse lag problems . I doesn't matter if your at 70 fps or 25 there is some horrible mouse lag at certain times. Overall I give this game a solid 9+ and hope Crytek pushes another episode soon.
 

Zenoth

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2005
5,079
103
106
The one thing I didn't liked in Warhead was, for me that is, the lack of a "something big is happening" feeling on that island outside of the personal mishaps Psycho's friend have had in the past. There's probably a global alien invasion that's about to occur and in Warhead I felt like the developers tried to restrain that "feel" until the very end where finally you've got to realize that the hidden conflict between the KPA forces and the Delta teams is just next to irrelevant compared to what will happen in a couple of hours/days/weeks.

In the original Crysis I liked the story evolution better simply because the missions didn't focused too much (they did, but not as much as in Warhead) on what I'd call local issues on specific parts of the island. In other words I think there were too much KPA and not enough aliens talk or lore/cannon. It's like taking some random Rebel guy in the Half-Life 2 time frame and deciding to make a game about his personal missions on the background of the global Combine invasion.

I certainly liked the action, I liked the voice acting, I liked the maps and the graphics, and the music, in fact I liked Warhead, I don't dislike it, but there are things in Warhead that just shouts to me "if you want to realize again that this game's story is about an imminent alien invasion than you better go back playing Crysis".

And one of the most hated maps in Crysis was for me one of the best, namely Core, and in Warhead there's no levels in which you get to experience any alien environment, not even the interior of a crashed ship or anything, and no, to me seeing ice everywhere doesn't equal alien environment, the ice effects are just a consequence of them and their technologies, but the Core level in Crysis was entirely alien, superb atmosphere, having the feeling that you're not on Earth anymore, like a punch in your face making you remember what you're REALLY up against, and not supposed to fight those meaningless curious KPA's.

The Pros:

- Great action moments, nice battles.
- Better alien A.I.
- New alien "squad" tactics with shielding (I really liked that one, good job CryTek).
- Nice vehicular battles, much better paced and organized and scripted.
- No VTOL, thanks all that is Holy.
- Nice voice acting.
- Last level is great despite its small duration.

The Cons:

- Too much departure from the main antagonists (aliens), until the end comes, but that's too late.
- Too much emphasis on Psycho, in Crysis Nomad was also the main character but we didn't have to know everything about him, we have the possibility to build more of our own avatar around Nomad than we can around Psycho.
- More linear than Crysis, especially the caves and train levels, but at least well executed.
- Too much ice without aliens about, only few encounters with them.
- Not enough time to fully appreciate the new experimental weapon, sadly.
- Some of the missions had the potential to be more intense and stressful if they would have been timed and/or required the player to escort, which in my opinion would have certainly added a layer of difficulty which Warhead overall lacks of.
 

duragezic

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
11,235
4
81
I just got on the sub. It's been excellent so far. It seems a bit easier than Crysis at the same difficulty level.

Has anyone ran into a bug where they just die for no reason? It's happened three times. Twice was when I was dropping the precision rifle for some other gun, instead of just dropping onto the ground flat it sort of wigged out for a second then like crushed me or something and I was dead instantly. Another time I was just walking and like I tripped on a branch or something and again I died instantly.
 

duragezic

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
11,235
4
81
Oh yeah, does anyone else use the laser pointer on their pistol or rifles? I'm finding it to be very effective! I didn't start using it much until recently when I started Crysis over.

I think even though the manual says otherwise, it doesn't seem like enemies can see the laser. That seems to be my experience. I don't think it gets much use by players; I usually see everyone equip the silencer constantly which I don't think a lot of people realize weakens the shot, especially over range (probably the ones who say the KPA takes 10 hits to go down)

Anyway I still use the silencer a lot but I think the laser is awesome. Not only does it provide a pin point crosshair to aim with, but it seems to greatly increase accuracy. I had the dual pistols equipped, stepped about a medium distance away from a jeep and wanted to shoot the gas tank to blow it up. I took about three shots with the pistol and they were all off a bit. I equipped the laser pointer and the first shot hit. In other tests I've found that with the laser pointer your shots go just about exactly to the laser dot, even over range and with a pistol!

So I think that is pretty cool. I really like the weapon customization. I like that every piece has their use. The only thing I don't really use is the flashlight, and for that I wish Crytek had made more night and rain maps (I think some great custom maps will be out for Warhead now that ToD can be adjusted) as I like them anyway. I use the tactical attachment all the friggin' time.
 

coloumb

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,098
0
81
Originally posted by: duragezic
Oh yeah, does anyone else use the laser pointer on their pistol or rifles? I'm finding it to be very effective! I didn't start using it much until recently when I started Crysis over.
Nope - I used Stealth quite a lot. Speed run away to hide, rest until the regen bar fills up, then stealth for the kill. Stealth = god mode. :)
 

roid450

Senior member
Sep 4, 2008
858
0
0
would yhou guys say that this game is less, more, or the same level on graphics intensity as crysis? i ask because in the crysis demo for PC im usually always between 24-35 fps on my gtx260

and i heard a friend say that the full game runs better after some updates.

so does Crysis Warhead require as much PC power as crysis?

thanks
 

Zenoth

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2005
5,079
103
106
Originally posted by: roid450
would yhou guys say that this game is less, more, or the same level on graphics intensity as crysis? i ask because in the crysis demo for PC im usually always between 24-35 fps on my gtx260

and i heard a friend say that the full game runs better after some updates.

so does Crysis Warhead require as much PC power as crysis?

thanks
The general consensus is that it does run slightly faster, but not always, there are still moments where you're bound to get the same amount of "slowness" than in Crysis especially those playing at atrociously high resolutions and expecting to play smoothly, which won't happen.

There is one simple solution for Crysis and Warhead to run smoothly at very high/enthusiast settings and it is to dramatically reduce the resolution. I myself play Warhead at 1024x768 on my system (in signature), all settings to enthusiast, no third party tweaks, no AA, 4xAF, and I get a minimum of 25FPS and sometimes it goes up as high as 45FPS especially indoors and during dawn/night time.

Most of the persons I've seen complain about their "GTX280" not doing the "supposed to" job are running the game at something like 1920x1200, which of course won't have any pity for any cards out there, it will eat them and spit it back at their owner's face.
 

nitromullet

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2004
9,031
36
91
Originally posted by: Zenoth
Originally posted by: roid450
would yhou guys say that this game is less, more, or the same level on graphics intensity as crysis? i ask because in the crysis demo for PC im usually always between 24-35 fps on my gtx260

and i heard a friend say that the full game runs better after some updates.

so does Crysis Warhead require as much PC power as crysis?

thanks
The general consensus is that it does run slightly faster, but not always, there are still moments where you're bound to get the same amount of "slowness" than in Crysis especially those playing at atrociously high resolutions and expecting to play smoothly, which won't happen.

There is one simple solution for Crysis and Warhead to run smoothly at very high/enthusiast settings and it is to dramatically reduce the resolution. I myself play Warhead at 1024x768 on my system (in signature), all settings to enthusiast, no third party tweaks, no AA, 4xAF, and I get a minimum of 25FPS and sometimes it goes up as high as 45FPS especially indoors and during dawn/night time.

Most of the persons I've seen complain about their "GTX280" not doing the "supposed to" job are running the game at something like 1920x1200, which of course won't have any pity for any cards out there, it will eat them and spit it back at their owner's face.
Please try to keep this thread about game play, and not performance. There is already a Warhead performance thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2228814&enterthread=y
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY