Crysis: Warhead

[funkydoodycool]

I bought this today, more than anything to see if my PC was up to it.

Well, I can happily report I can play with all settings maxed out, at 1600x1000 (highest the game offers me) at a reported framerate of 30-50FPS, depending on whats going on at the time. Not bad. Only thing off is FSAA, which cut me down to 5-20 FPS when set to 16x.

Unfortunately I don't particularly rate the game, so I'm glad I bought the cheaper (£14) expansion rather than the full price full game.

Anyone here got and like the original game for more than the (admittedly tasty) graphics?

[soggyshoe]

I have it but need a beefier pc still - have an 8800 but it doesn't cut it.

[rabin]

That was the problem with the original Crysis - they pushed the graphics specs too high - it only sold about 50,000 units in USA at release, that is a death knell for a top game right there!

Now the credit crunch has hit, I expect we'll see more games houses trying to maximise sales by keeping specs low.

To be honest, the high specs are often down to piss-poor coding in the first place. There are plenty of algorithms about to cut down on the number of polys that need to be drawn and lazy coders would rather just raise the game video spec than have to use them

[funkydoodycool]

Its true, from what I've read Warhead is a better looking game than Crysis, but has lower system spec. Other things help though - the latest graphics drivers pushed my FPS up by about 5, which is something.

I actually think the best looking games I have are WoW and HL2, both of which are from 2004. Back then I had to reduce the system settings to get a decent frame rate, but now I've found the money to upgrade my PC I'm playing them as they should be. Which is nice.

Maybe Crysis will be good to play in a year or two for people who struggle with it now?