Crysis Warhead won't make your PC cry

by Randy Nelson { Jun 20th 2008 at 3:15AM }

It's always a little ... awkward explaining to guests that the "modern art" in our living rooms are actually PCs melted by playing Crysis on its highest settings. Thankfully, Crytek has heard our whimpering and is working to make Cysis: Warhead play more nicely with mid-range gaming rigs.

Voodoo Extreme was kind enough to translate an article on German gaming site PCGamers.de which states that the PC-exclusive Crysis folllow-up is being designed to run at a locked 30fps on a roughly $600 system. Now, compare that to the original game, which was sluggish even on a PC costing three times that much and ... you have happier PC gamers. If Crytek's programmers can actually pull off such a formidable feat, we sense a stalling in the PC upgrade market come the game's release.

Tags: crysis, crysis-warhead, crytek

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

CJLopez @ Jun 20th 2008 3:23AM

If this is true, and I can play it with my actuall rig, 'll be buying a copy of this game (first, 'll download it)

Lets see how true is this

GreyFox @ Jun 20th 2008 1:31PM

If this is true? Don't hold your breath until the demo or reviews go live.

Lekko @ Jun 20th 2008 3:27AM

My system could handle Crysis pretty well, So it's good to know that I'm already set for the sequel.

....Then again, they assured us that the game would run very smoothly on a single 8800 GTX at full spec.

#28 @ Jun 20th 2008 3:35AM

Yeah, I ran the original Crysis on about a 1600$ computer at medium settings with not a single moment of lag. Most of the game was fun, but the second half realy dragged.

Aprime @ Jun 20th 2008 4:00AM

I don't know about you guys, but to me, technological showcases are worth jack if nobody can actually appreciate them.

rokobungi @ Jun 20th 2008 4:04AM

wait a second..... does that mean a $600 rig or what they expect a $600 rig will be in a year from now?

mundox @ Jun 20th 2008 4:32AM

"Thankfully, Crytek has heard our whimpering and is working to make Cysis: Warhead play more nicely with mid-range gaming rigs."

AKA trying to make the engine capable of running on consoles.

JiN66 @ Jun 20th 2008 6:18AM

You're saying that like it's a bad thing?

Wes @ Jun 21st 2008 9:38AM

It is in a way mundox. I think all of us gamers kind of dream of photo-realistic real-time graphics through a high interactive/innovative control system with great gameplay.

The great gameplay is a hit or miss (See: Haze) and what some consider good gameplay others may not (See: MSG4)

Graphics are a bit different though. Most of the public can tell when they see something they like or that looks good to them. When games hit a new-level of graphical capabilities in a genre, it usually sells decently well (See: FF7, Halo CE, Gears of War, etc)

The nice part about pc gaming is you can experience those cutting-edge graphics by investing more money into your system if there is a game to stress your system.

For example, I could go out and buy two GTX280s and have substantially better graphics than the ps3 and xbox 360 combined in most games. (good aa, af and much higher native resolutions). However, if a game does not exist to stress my dual GTX280s, and its limited to the nearest most powerful console. Its a mute point. Why bother getting anything better than an ATI Radeon x1900 which is about what is a 360?

jsutcliffe @ Jun 20th 2008 8:00AM

Once I realized there was a DX9 mode, my fps skyrocketed to an average of 50-60fps on max settings, and my rig isn't particularly fancy.

Kevin Ghadyani @ Jun 20th 2008 1:19PM

Usually, all games published by EA aren't optimized. Why? I dunno, but it's common in the gaming realm to realize that. If you installed the patch for Crysis from the original to 1.2 or something, you'd notice a huge speed boost. All the game needed was a bit of heavy optimization.

Kael @ Jun 20th 2008 1:33PM

When I played the game with the highest settings, I thought the graphics were awesome, but when I saw how fabulously my computer ran every other new game out there, noticeably overtaxing. I imagined they could trim the fat and get it running much better, and now Crytek's doing just that. Hey, that's great.

Kevin Ghadyani @ Jun 20th 2008 1:59PM

They are doing that! But see, there's even BETTER settings. Oblivion had this too, where you'd edit up the INI file and the game would look a ton better. But Crysis... Wow dude. You're missing out if you think everything on high was as good as it gets :P. I'm not being mean or insulting if it sounds like that.

I can't find the link, but it was truly amazing. I've even got something on my rig to run at high or medium graphics, but it's tweaked so it looks like very high or better, but at the performance of high or medium. Pretty cool eh?

uh-oh polio @ Jun 20th 2008 7:57AM

So does this mean its getting closer to being on the ps3???
"i can dream cant I?"

t_m @ Jun 20th 2008 10:33AM

In other words "we realise we talked 90% of our potential customers out of buying crysis by giving the impression it was only worth running in max-quality and that needed a monster PC... so now we're gonna release the same game but hype its scalability and hope people will buy it this time"

Ninjakamster (PS360 FTW!) @ Jun 20th 2008 11:15AM

So, since this is using the same engine, will they release a patch for the original to have it run better as well?

It runs about 20fps on my mediocre PC with a 2.2ghz C2D, 2gb ram, 7900GT on 1280x1024 at mostly medium, couple high settings.

Need a better videocard now.

CJLopez @ Jun 20th 2008 12:15PM

Really, i run at 28-32 fps on a P4 3.6, 1gb ddr and a 7100 GeForce overclocked to 512 (srtest.com claims I have 1 gb, don't know how) at low specs, and the game still looks gr8

brandon @ Jun 20th 2008 11:31AM

30 fps locked? ugh. i hope they mean at least 30fps. yes, i know, some people can't tell the difference after around 30 fps and tv runs near that, but i like to run my games as close to 60 as possible so things are buttery smooth...

Chase @ Jun 20th 2008 11:27AM

Crysis averted.

Jhongerkong @ Jun 20th 2008 2:22PM

punny

XLM @ Jun 20th 2008 12:43PM

My friend just priced out a PC for his brother and it came in around $600.

I forget the Proc, but it was a dual core AMD, 8800GT, and 4GB Ram.

A comparable rig when Crysis shipped was around $1200.

So, yeah, I would expect that when this ships it would be hard NOT to meet their goal.

iofthestorm @ Jul 1st 2008 7:09PM

Yeah, a $600 PC at this point is nothing too shabby if you know how to choose your parts.

Xavier Gill @ Jun 20th 2008 12:47PM

My monitors max resolution is only 1024x768...

Ninjakamster (PS360 FTW!) @ Jun 20th 2008 1:26PM

Thats weak man, get a better monitor when you can, you'll really appreciate the extra screen estate!

McL33t @ Jun 27th 2008 5:55AM

I've never had any trouble at all running crysis (64bit, dx10) on full whack at 1400x1050. O.k. so I do have a Quad core (Q6600) oc'ed to 3ghz with 8gig of OCZ ram running at 3-3-15, and i suppose the geforce 9600 oc'ed to melting point may have helped too. Yet still, no trouble with crysis... temperature, yes, but crysis no.