Crysis Warhead: What i think..

Senture · 21 Sep 2008 at 11:13

I'll be interested to see what the game is like when it actually gets through the mail. So much for next day delivery

thecremeegg · 21 Sep 2008 at 11:18

Hotpot said:
Proof. Nuff said. It literally runs twice as fast as the original

I hate to say it but from those screenshots, it looks half as good. Maybe that's why it runs twice as fast?

Lol thats all well and good if you game at 1280x1024 and have a new graphics card. Only 55 FPS in a game that looks worse than the original is pretty pants tbh.

I game at 1920x1200 with a 640mb GTS, so for me, it will not be running at a playable framerate - therefore not worth puchasing

Delvis · 21 Sep 2008 at 17:35

thecremeegg said:
Lol thats all well and good if you game at 1280x1024 and have a new graphics card. Only 55 FPS in a game that looks worse than the original is pretty pants tbh.

I game at 1920x1200 with a 640mb GTS, so for me, it will not be running at a playable framerate - therefore not worth puchasing

You choose to run at that resolution, you choose to put on whatever graphic settings, so hey, each to they're own.

If you don't like certain aspects, enable them, if you want a further draw distance, enable it, if you want less vegetation popups, change the setting.

Or just wait a week untill one of the many cfg guru's tweak the game to buggery to make it "playable"...Even though the game is playable, just not at the settings you think it "Should" run at.

Hunders · 21 Sep 2008 at 18:31

I just completed it on hard mode. The game itself was rather fun but there were some annoyances like, for example, the AI which could sometimes be incredibly dumb. On numerous occasions the AI would just gather at one point facing a wall and vehicles would drive forward and back with no sense of direction or try and climb un-climbable terrain.

Cut scenes were terrible, too.