Crysis: Warhead
Posted 12/31/08 at 11:00:00 AM by Will Smith

We liked Crysis. Despite its less-than-stellar AI, annoying alien baddies, and flawed final mission, we liked it. We liked the game for its wide-open jungle combat and the power and flexibility the nano-suit gave us to approach combat any way we wanted. Whether we wanted to skulk through the jungle, shooting enemies half a klick away with a silenced rifle, or get up close and personal by throwing our enemies through the nearest wall, the game accommodated pretty much any play style.
What was the secret sauce? It’s simple. While Crysis was essentially a linear game that pushed the player down a straight path from one battle to the next, this path was incredibly wide, giving the player a drastically different experience from one play-through to the next. While there were definitely choke points in the game, generally, you could choose when and where you wanted to fight the bad guys. Stalking the enemy and choosing the time and place of every fight was a blast—our major complaint was that there weren’t enough ambush-type weapons such as Claymore mines and detpacks.
Crysis: Warhead finally gives the player the tools to set up elaborate ambushes, but at the same time, the player’s path through the game seems significantly narrower. This limits your options as you play through the game and transforms something that was special into a run-of-the-mill shooter—albeit a very pretty one.
While we’re disappointed by the shrinking game world, we love the greatly improved performance of the stand-alone expansion pack. This is partially due to the inevitable march of progress on the hardware side; Crytek has made some serious optimizations to the default settings as well as the auto-configuration tool. The game automatically chose default settings that produced a good mix of performance and eye candy on all the systems we tested. Naturally, the highly configurable engine lets tweakers crank up the visual quality as high (or low) as they want.
Aside from these changes, the core of the single-player game is essentially the same as the original. The weapons are almost all the same, the nano-suit’s the same, and the bad guys are the same. In Warhead, you play one of your squadmates during the events of the first game. This let Crytek reuse most of the assets and even some of the events from the first game. However, while we appreciate any scriptwriter trying to add depth to our videogame characters, the voice-over flashbacks were more confusing than entertaining, and ultimately unnecessary.
Crytek has also polished and rebranded the multiplayer component of Crysis as Crysis Wars. The framework is an interesting blend of Enemy Territory–style gameplay with traditional team deathmatch. Unfortunately, whether it was the fault of the servers or the game’s large scale, every time we went online, we faced lag bad enough to render the game unplayable, even on servers that registered low pings.
While Crysis: Warhead is a step toward a more mass-market-friendly game, it’s a step back in innovation and fun. Warhead strips many of the amazing design elements that made Crysis fun despite its flaws, and we’re not willing to let them go. While Warhead brings back a lot of the fun of Crysis, especially on the higher difficulty settings, it’s closer to a straight run-and-gun shooter like Call of Duty than it is to the original.
Improved weapon choices and better performance.
Smaller game world; bad lag on multiplayer matches.
Real Fun
Submitted by maniacm0nk3y on Sun, 03/15/2009 - 5:35pm
This game was awesome, but short. The improvements to the graphics engine are the best. With a superclocked 260 (Core 216) I had around 30-50FPS. It's way faster, I like the new guns, but it's still too easy.
Crysis on Delta was a drive-by shooting. Run. Hide. Shoot. Warhead is a little more hiding, covering, because of the big battles but I got about a quarter of the way through on Delta in about....an hour, a little more.
Too bad their new engine is for consoles. It seems to be going that way. Since consoles GPUs are outdated, they are using the CPU power so most games for maybe a year or a little more will probably will be CPU bound.
I would give it an 8.5
The first Crysis was easily
Submitted by vistageek on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 6:42pm
The first Crysis was easily one of the top 3 games I have ever played, but this one just paled in comparison. OK, the floating around part in Crysis was REALLY anoying, but it was a great game. This one, well, it had some great action sequences, but it was pretty lame in terms of the story line (which didn't hardly make any sense, and the fact that it seemed like the entire game world was soaked in gasoline. The graphics warn't as sharp and the contrests and game worlds warn't as good and the maps in single player were confusing yet linear. The multiplayer, is all me and my bubs play at LANs now. It is just increadable. My 2 cents.
More nano suits
Submitted by Bravo_18 on Wed, 12/31/2008 - 9:54pm
Though crysis warhead was not as big gameworld as the first one, it makes good use of the toning down of graphic requirements. More bells and whistles but with less strain to your GPU..
for me the real deal was fighting along with the other nano suit teams on the island.
I'm using a Go 7600 and it works well on medium settings using riva tuner to OC the GPU for some extra juice of power..just under 30 to 25 FPS...
what made crysis a great game was the ability to tweak the graphics on anyway you want it..
What do you need to run it
Submitted by tehR0XX0Rz on Wed, 12/31/2008 - 2:20pm
What do you need to run it (without it looking like crap)?
They were supposed to optimize the engine to the point that you could run it with everything on, but with a fairly average gaming machine.
Sweet game
Submitted by jaeschliman on Wed, 12/31/2008 - 10:37am
I loved this game. Admittedly more for the game
style and graphics than the story line. You can choke chickens and knock down
walls with your fist. I also love how little direction they give you.
Feature
Review
Feature
Feature
Feature





