Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ill leave out the boo, hiss part. But Id would like an explaination for the omission of those parts.
Kyle?
edit: WTH?! You're saying that at 1680 the GTX260 outperforms the X2 at the exact same settings?
Then we will follow with apples-to-apples testing based omn real gameplay as well.
Kyle or Brent,
Did you guys have any problems with the game crashing all the time?
I for one had a helluva time with the game. It would crash about every 30+ mins or so. The outdoor levels caused the most problems, the train level especially.
Omn. Heh.
I had several crashes on the 4670 and framerates all over the place. on the 8600gt in the same system performance seemed much less sporadic and no crashes. I had texture streaming set to 1 instead of 2 which may have caused some crashes but it still only crashed with the ATI card.Kyle or Brent,
Did you guys have any problems with the game crashing all the time?
I for one had a helluva time with the game. It would crash about every 30+ mins or so. The outdoor levels caused the most problems, the train level especially.
~~~~~~~~~~
I will post my experiences for reference on a lower end system (more on level with the "Crysis" PC, a little below actually)
WinXP DX9, 2GB of RAM, Athlon X2, Radeon 4850, running FRAPS.
Can run ALL Gamer settings at 1280*1024. No AA/AF. Runs at playable frame rates (40-50 FPS) throughout outdoor levels. Indoor levels (e.g. caves and inside Carrier) FPS shoots almost to 100. I could probably do better now that I know what settings are the most intensive and can tweak accordingly. Thanks for the review guys.
Outdoor levels were there is a lot going on will bring it down to near unplayable levels, as the FPS reads teens and 20's...but it glitches like crazy, making it feel even slower than that. I imagine that has a lot more to do with my CPU than anything else.
Its obvious to me the AI routines of the Aliens have improved, but not by much. They will atleast try to flank you now. But I've seen a couple times were they were stuck in the rocks.
<snip pictures>
Nice to see lower resolutions (hope they will be shown in future reviews) used with higher IQ for those with smaller LCD's.
I couldn't agree more. Please continue to do this.
I dont see how you guys are playing it on high settings and resoltions with just 2gb of memory. even at 1024x768 on mostly mainstream(medium) DX9 settings the game uses over 1300mb of ram according to the r_displayinfo in the console. adding another gig to my crappy pc made all the difference in the world.
Hitting the 2GB address space limit?This would lead me to believe there is a possible memory leak leading to a crash in this game that only seems to appear in certain situations or certain system configs. The game never blue screened, it would just freeze, then crash straight to desktop.
which brings up the question of whats taking them so long to get 64-bit Warhead out.Hitting the 2GB address space limit?
Hitting the 2GB address space limit?
which brings up the question of whats taking them so long to get 64-bit Warhead out.
Probably for the same reason they didn't use the leaked 179.xx drivers for nvidia.
Kyle or Brent,
Did you guys have any problems with the game crashing all the time?
Ill leave out the boo, hiss part. But Id would like an explaination for the omission of those parts.
Kyle?
edit: WTH?! You're saying that at 1680 the GTX260 outperforms the X2 at the exact same settings?
How come there's no mention or analysis in any crysis related articles of the multiplayer portion (crysis wars).
I bring this up because there's more to a game engine then just graphics and there's something to be said about the consequences of using (or rather shoehorning) these 'next gen' engines online.
I'm currently playing Wars on a GTX 260 and it runs like crap. Lag and slowdowns all over the place. I've lowered my settings as much as i can in the hope of squeezing every fps i can, but there seems to be no avoiding the lag spikes when there's intense action.
So now im left with a game that looks like something out of 1998, and still runs like crap.
Seems like the crysis engine is simply not well suited for online gaming. There's a difference between building an engine that does one thing well (graphics), and building an overall solution that will work well under any scenario.
I'll fully admit that crysis singleplayer is the best looking thing on any platform out there. But that's about it.
How come there's no mention or analysis in any crysis related articles of the multiplayer portion (crysis wars).
I bring this up because there's more to a game engine then just graphics and there's something to be said about the consequences of using (or rather shoehorning) these 'next gen' engines online.
I'm currently playing Wars on a GTX 260 and it runs like crap. Lag and slowdowns all over the place. I've lowered my settings as much as i can in the hope of squeezing every fps i can, but there seems to be no avoiding the lag spikes when there's intense action.
So now im left with a game that looks like something out of 1998, and still runs like crap.
Seems like the crysis engine is simply not well suited for online gaming. There's a difference between building an engine that does one thing well (graphics), and building an overall solution that will work well under any scenario.
I'll fully admit that crysis singleplayer is the best looking thing on any platform out there. But that's about it.
trapilales, you are not alone. I've been PM'ing another forum member about this same issue after he read this thread.Sounds like network issues you are having to me, and thus is the problem evaluating multiplayer games, there are many more variables in place that we cannot control.
With current generation video cards, impact enabling AF is minimal. There is a very clear difference in texture quality in Crysis and Crysis Warhead having NoAF vs. 8X or 16X AF. As a gamer, I want it to look the best it can, and I simply cannot play with NoAF in Crysis or Crysis Warhead, it just isn't crisp enough, I really hate blurry textures, IMO AF should be a given these days, enable 16X AF and leave it on for every game. I wish it was enabled by default on games. I was really shocked when Crysis and Warhead did not have in-game AF controls.
Crysis: Warhead does perform just slightly better than the original game. Overall however, performance and Image Quality in Crysis: Warhead remain the same with no real noticeable differences compared to Crysis.
well considering that several people have come up with better looking/better performing configs I would say it isnt as optimized as it should be. standard performance is all over the place and to be honest a lot of the graphics look like shit. pretty much every inside scene looks like its from 2003 even on very high settings.To all those people who claimed Crysis was badly optimised, and said their proof was that Crytek was going to make Warhead so much more optimised, here is clear proof that it was just bullshit.
Crysis is a demanding game due to the high fidelity graphics and interactive physics, AI etc, it is not badly optimised. I hope this is finally put to bed.
well considering that several people have come up with better looking/better performing configs I would say it isnt as optimized as it should be. standard performance is all over the place and to be honest a lot of the graphics look like shit. pretty much every inside scene looks like its from 2003 even on very high settings.
there are plenty of games that look better on the inside scenes. even the first STALKER blows Crysis out of the water in that respect. take a screenshot of inside one of those huts and look at 4 year old games and you will that Crysis is a joke in those environments. pots, pans, office furniture, stoves, appliances and other objects look horrid and out of place. even the vehicles and planes in Warhead a pretty darn dull looking. sure Crysis and Warhead look stunning overall but even outside there are several things that look like total crap.Sow me one game that looks better...ball in your court.
there are plenty of games that look better on the inside scenes. even the first STALKER blows Crysis out of the water in that respect. take a screenshot of inside one of those huts and look at 4 year old games and you will that Crysis is a joke in those environments. pots, pans, office furniture, stoves, appliances and other objects look horrid and out of place. even the vehicles and planes in Warhead a pretty darn dull looking. sure Crysis and Warhead look stunning overall but even outside there are several things that look like total crap.
I just simply gave you examples of what I was talking about and thats it. Crysis looks as bad inside as orignal STALKER does outside. I can take great looking shots of Crysis and at the same time I can find plenty of substandard graphics in the game. I already said that Crysis looks stunning overall so it sounds like you are the one that is a fucking troll.You come with one game, that CANNOT match Crysis in the visual department?
You are nothing but a troll...welcome to my ignore.
Also, I wanna add that the reason Crytek claims the game runs better is simply because they're using lower resolution textures. I have screenshots from Crysis at 4000x3000, high settings, DX9 and nothing looks blurry or pixelated. In Crysis Warhead, even at 1024x768 you can see lots of blurry textures and a lot of the character textures are blurry up close now, when they weren't in Crysis for the same character models.
Sure, that's what "optimizing" is, but come on...of course it'll run better if you turn down the graphics.