@Warlokk: Oh, so they did put the Advanced settings in there, but they kept the rebranding of Low, Medium, and High. *shrugs* Well, at least they were consistent. Annoyingly renamed, but consistent.

Salen

I can't wait till 2012 when I'll have a pc worthy of playing this wonderful game!

wtf007

@macr0planet: Just graphics and physics? Have you played crysis? Crysis is such an open ended game that if you're not having fun with it, it's not crysis' fault, it's yours.

220

@Salen: They did, the Advanced settings let you individually tweak different things like shadows, particle effects, etc... it uses the same naming convention, but it does the job. They're right though, it runs about the same as Crysis, but personally I think it looks great on the Gamer settings, which my rig is managing OK.

Warlokk

@greyhoundbus: It is using that engine, and that's a mix-up.

Far Cry 2 is not related to CryTek or CryEngine more than by the predecessor, Far Cry. FC2 = Dunia = Ubisoft. It's actually FC2's proprietary engine.

Candlejack

At the end of the article they say Far Cry 2 will also be based on the CryEngine 2. I thought it was gonna use a new engine called Dunia?

greyhoundbus

About time someone showed off what those settings mean via a side by side by side. I wonder why they didn't just put an advanced video option in there instead to let folks pick and choose how they wanted the settings to run instead of just giving folks weirdly named things instead. Or maybe they did and I just didn't hear about that part.

Salen

Well what did they expect? If you spend less than a year working on the most advanced game ever created, obviously its going to run like shit.

Anaralia

I'm happy with AVG 25FPS on Enthusiast at 1280x1024, because I can't ask for much more with a by now dated 8800GT. Once I hook my PC up to my LCD, I will be playing in 1366x768 anyway, because that's as high as VGA will go for my TV. So that's a slight decrease in pixels (= more FPS).

Candlejack

Makes you wonder if seeing the horizen line is worth dropping 30fps :P

Omniel

It's a lot smoother on my machine than Crysis was. I can run it on Enthusiast now, doesn't seem to dip below 15 ever. (Which is fine as long as motion blur is on. Tricks the eye into seeing smooth movement doncha know!)

I'd say the graphics aren't as nice any more though. The holiday resort areas look a bit crap. Their bright clean colours really don't lend themselves to the way crysis shades objects. Everything looks a bit fake. It looks a lot grainier overall now too.

will

They really didn't. I almost want to say the graphics don't look that good, at least compared to Crysis vanilla.

The only thing going for Crysis anyways is the fancy graphics and the physics.

macr0planet

"but how well do those graphics settings actually performed."

*scratches head*

Royal_Highness

i've been totally spoiled with COD4's 60fps, don't know if i could go below that heh

F22

@Vitalz: I doubt they ever will. Some consider graphics one of Crysis' selling points thus they (Crytek, EA) have developed a sadistic desire to fry our computers just rake some cash in.

RandomPoltergeist

At least their benchmark matches my performance...

Mustakrakish

Figures, I didn't think they were going to change that much.

Vitalz

@macr0planet:

That's what I was wondering.... is this game worth the hype, or just another boring FPS?

"The only thing going for Crysis anyways is the fancy graphics and the physics."

Gervy

crysis games require better programming, so they could actually run decently on computers :p

titlecade

Rumor has it, Crysis will be ported to PS3 with close to the highest resolution. Any truth to this?

Gervy

I appreciate that they tested on a "wide-range" of cards. Mostly 512s, so no 256 or 128? I mean in all seriousness, the 256 card crowd would probably be where the most gamers would be at.

exkon

Technical aspects aside, I've been putting off on getting this. The reviews have been really good for it. Majority of them state that if you liked Crysis you'll like the expansion....

belo

@kwizhader: isn't that the way these types of things go? game as proof of concept for an engine.

pasquinelli

i wish there was more to crysis than eye candy... the game got real boring real quick with the predictable plot and its not too memorable characters... with a few new weapons and a new vehicle, I'm sitting this one out till i can borrow it from a friend.

kwizhader

@220: Couldn't agree more.

TM-Oliveira

Is it me or does "Mainstream" look better than the "gamer" and "enthusiast" screens? :P

At least, in the pic that kotaku posted.

It's the contrast probably.

9a3eedi

Man, this game looks so pretty. It almost makes me want to get it, even despite the retarded process blacklisting that it employs. I might crack and buy it, if it can run on a year-old system reasonably. D:

TetraNitroCubane

@exkon: 512 is the new 128.
The 3850 and 9600gt are both ~$90.

tex1ntux

I have a Core 2 Quad with a GeForce 9600 and it runs Crysis beautifully, with everything set at High.

I really don't understand all this crap about having to sell a healthy kidney in order to buy a machine that can run it properly. It was true when the game was released, back in 2007. Nowadays you can keep your kidneys.

TM-Oliveira

running maxed out at ~30-40fps still seems surprisingly smooth in crysis, and even more so with crysis warhead (which i find indeed runs faster). also, after playing through warhead, i must say, its defiantely the better game. each sequence felt alot more epic and action packed.

Kayin

Im on minimum and it still runs poorly. Optimised my arse.

dunnace

@TM-Oliveira: Hmm yeah that's great but all I heard was... "I have [ssshhhhhhhhhhhhh white noise ssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh] set at High".

Sorry to single you out, but I am a little bored of sentences that are comprised solely of system specs, graphics settings for Crysis, and frame rates.

^There's no way I'm coming out of that comment without sounding like a prick but hey, you pays your money, you takes your chances.

ThursdayNext

@macr0planet: I kind of thought the graphics weren`t as good in some sections, the lighting didn`t seem as good as cryisis which i play with a tweaked cfg to an extra high level.Yet the fps was a little lower in warhead.Warhead was set to highest settings.
I disagree about it only being fancy graphics and physics though.The single player game is great, challenging and manic at times.I just found some cut scenes a little cheesy.
I have to say though, i couldn`t put warhead down till i finished it where as bioshock whilst still a good game in my eyes, just didn`t hold my attention as long for some reason.

UFO

@tex1ntux: i think what he means is that they pretty much looked only at newer cards and didn't think about the people who bought their equipment more than 1 year ago.

@exkon: i agree that it should be a bit broader in scope as well. But most of these benchmarks don't work for everyone in that many of us aren't going to just pick whatever default settings are available. We're going to tweak things here and there (turn shadow detail down and turn textures up, etc).

jp182

But really, what's with the double standard? Most "AAA" console games have trouble with a steady 30fps at sub 720p resoultions, and much worse graphics

Spoit

@Vecha: I can see that, but I also think they had amazing sandbox environments, unfortunately it doesn't hand hold you to do the really cool fun things. Unlike a Valve game where it's very linear and very forced.Valve makes you think you are choosing to do cool things but in reality they are very carefully planned out events.
Sort of reminds me of when I played Deus Ex for the first time as a typical FPS and found it clunky and boring(the demo), before I realized what it was all about.
FarCry and Crysis are action movies with plenty of things to play with. It depends on how much you like your action fed to you or to DIY.

Ehardergardens

seemed to run about the same for me as Crysis.. I have quad core 2.4
8800 gt 512mb with 3 gigs of ram
I tried enthusiast, went to gamer and frame rates are very inconsistent to say the least...
I stopped playing the first one when it got to the boss ship fight, as it was too choppy and I really didn't find fighting the aliens all that fun...
@homernoy: are you saying it won't take advantage of the extra 2 cores? and just faster duo beats a quad?

Ehardergardens

@220:

Open ended?

You go the wrong way...YOU DIE!

Just LIKE far cry.

Vecha

I disliked both farcry and crysis...just seemed to be aimed at the "GRAPHICZ" crowd...

Vecha

@dunnace: What are your specs? I do know that besides the in game settings, resolution and processor speed can make a huge difference. A Core 2 Duo @3.00Ghz will fly compaired to a Core 2 Quad @ 2.2Ghz in Crysis. I also would never run the game with less than 2 gigs of memory.

homernoy

@Ehardergardens:

eh...tried stalker...it was great...but just...I don't know...was buggy on my comp.

I am looking forward to FC2.

Vecha

@Vecha: What the hell are you talking about?! I've spent quite a bit of time on crysis , replaying certain levels many times, taking different approaches each time and never had I died from going the wrong way .. in fact there is no wrong way ... also, I don't recall that happening in Far Cry either ... please elaborate.

220

@Vecha: Have your tried Stalker? FC2 also sounds like it might be what you are looking for, or at least a step toward that goal--which is pretty hard to do satisfactorily.

Ehardergardens

@F22: I have to say the Crysis is a strange game. If you run at 25 to 30 FPS it is very smooth compaired to any other game I have ever played at that framerate.

The other thing that I have noticed, if you run higher than 35FPS, the game kind of 'comes alive' and is visually mesmerizing. Sometimes I have to stop and kill everyone just so I can walk around and check out the surroundings. Amazing.

homernoy

If they are using dx10, no wonder performance is poor. Countless people complaining about their uber rigs dropping frames in dx10, but when using dx9 (which is pretty much the same this time around) they get a decent increase

bantros

1440x900 is not a mainstream resolution, last time I checked. Damn, I consider myself a gamer (or am I enthusiast?) and I play at 1152x864. Normal people will just lower the resolution until the game runs smooth.

EloraHRanma

@will: Nah, the graphics in general are better I think. There's a German site with comparison pictures you can tell they have improved

bantros

@Avrus:

You could have made a complete thought on how you find that it is silly that piracy caused poor sales instead of doing something that will get you smacked in the head with a hammer...or cut up like a emo kid with blades.

Vecha

In before 'Piracy caused poor sales'.

Avrus

@Ehardergardens:

I like that FC and Crysis do thing differently....

but I want a TRUE sandbox FPS...ala GTA...but FPS.

FC and Crysis Trick you into thinking it's a total open ended sandbox. Many times I would try to explore the whole place...and end up being shot By super snipers from 50 billion miles away!

So I had to go the certain "correct" way(s).

Then again...I guess GTA isn't as open eneded as I'd like...

Vecha

@Ehardergardens: Yes. I am saying a higher clock speed with two cores is going to have better performance than a quad core CPU clocked lower. The game engine doesn't seem to take full advantage of more than two cores. I have an SLI system, and Crysis ran better on one card until the very latest Nvidia drivers and the 1.2 patch as well. Strange.

homernoy

The fact that the comparison doesn't include anything sub-8800GT is slightly ridiculous.

PC gamers constantly stress that you don't need to constantly update, but the 8800GT was released less than a year ago.

Crysis' minimum spec for GPU are actually a 6800. Yet these benchmarks only consider 512mb cards as mainstream? Mainstream my ass. Even the Steam surveys (which are going to have a tons of gamers with better than average rigs) show a huge number of people with sub-8800 cards.

Krondonian

@220: Fun with Crysis!?!? Did we play the same game!?!? After the initial sightseeing eyegasm wears off, it's a very bland uninteresting game.
Also, not all of Crysis's physics were good. Shoot down a heli and let it crash onto metal, you'll know what I'm talking about. It was literally a chore to go through that game. And when it got to the alien's part it was downright irritating.

harshalizee

I think they screwed up on the sky graphics.

goddessakasha

@kwizhader:

Warhead is actually a lot tighter and more fun. I think its what they were shooting for in the original version but they didn't have another year to work on it.

Cell9song

I played for a half hour until I got to the hoverboat/ice area. Seems the big change in shaders shot my GPU temp up to 176C. Needless to say it was a slow crawl and I had to log off for a bit.

time to start pricing a water cooling system methinks.....

Cell9song

They ran all the Test on DX10.
I had 25 FPS on Gamer setting on DX10. Still very playable, crytek makes great use of the motion blur.
But on DX9 same settings, 40ish FPS.

The Warhead PC doesn't even come with vista. They know the DX10 performance is poo.

Bagelmobile

I don't know what the problem is with these people's PCs, but I'm having no trouble pushing 35+ FPS in Warhead on a Dual Core AMD system.

4gig RAM, 8800GT(OC), etc....and it's incredibly smooth on Enthusiast.

Why can't they get the performance I do?? I built my current media center/gaming PC for about $550...below what they quote would run the game well.

Shandy706

You can pick up an 8800gt for about 100 bucks, and it will run the game just fine. Ran on "gamer" at 1680x1050 25-30 fps. Throw in a modded config, and it looks even better.

The game was designed for the high end on the 8800 series, why is this such a big deal anymore? It's not even that new and will play anything you throw at it.

HioMrSan

From seeing those pictures I assume that the different settings mean:
Enthusiast: Brown
Gamer: Gray
Mainstream: Color

Tikey

"Mainstream" graphics settings on this game, which most gaming graphics cards can run significantly better than 30 FPS at high resolution looks better than any console game.

And the problem with this review is that they dont mix settings. I could run texture settings maxed out without losing ANY performance, and I could mix and match what I cared about most... for example, I completely turn off shadows (which look rather poor on low quality settings) in favor of upping other settings.

Harmatia

The thing I noticed about Warhead is that it runs a bit smoother and looks better (IMO) than Crysis because it integrates a "texture pop" that I don't remember seeing in the original. At longer distances, since you're not close enough to see the detail, the game doesn't fully render the texture. As you get closer, the texture quality slowly improves. Seems to make the game run a lot better at the same settings for me, while not sacrificing visual quality (why render in high detail what you don't see?). The only part of the game that I had stuttering in was the hovercraft chase; after that, things smoothed out significantly.

For the record, I'm running it on a laptop with a GeForce 8800M (512MB), 4GB RAM, and a Centrino dual-core at 1.83Ghz (not enough to fully take advantage of the card, I think, so that'll get upgraded eventually). I have my settings all on 1440x900 Mainstream except for Textures, Objects, and Shaders, which are on Gamer. Vanilla Crysis I ran the same way, except with Shaders on the medium setting instead.

RedRaptor

Seems to run just as well/bad as the original Crysis?

lumpi

@9a3eedi: Yeah, I thought the same thing!

CukyDoh

...Shocking stuff... Oh wait, no it's not!

CukyDoh

@RandomPoltergeist: Isn't that a bit ironic though? Most people can't afford the sorts of systems that will run this game on max settings. They need to realize that more efficient engines like Source are what they need to use under the hood for games to sell better.

GreyFoxV1

@harshalizee: oh boy ... we were using the same piece of software but we definitely weren't playing the same game! You were playing a generic fps shooter while I was playing an immersive ,tactical and original fps. Like I said before, the amount of fun you have with crysis depends on you! To an extent, This is true for most games but it is especially true for crysis. Here's a two-step guide to having fun with crysis:

1) Play on the hardest difficulty.
2) Use your imagination (this game allows it.)

If the whole 'take any approach you want' thing doesn't appeal to you , and you prefer a game to hold your hand from beginning to end then I can understand why you would dislike crysis.

As for the physics, it's true that simulating physics with limited computing power is going to have flaws, why don't you point out an fps that has better physics then crysis ..

220

But I'm a mainstream gaming enthusiast! What ever will i do?!

J0hnny-Kickass

@J0hnny-Kickass: Play Bejeweled?

goddessakasha

@9a3eedi: i totally agree. i looked at all threee of them for a couple seconds and the Mainstream does look better then the Enthusiast. to me at least. but of course a screenshot cant prove it 100%

DarthMetalHope

@9a3eedi: Yeah....Mainstream does look better in that picture then the rest....

Pupnasty

@Vitalz: There's a glaring omission in this article: DX9 performance!

From comparison screenshots, there's hardly any visual difference between DX9 and DX10 modes, and DX9 runs a HELL of a lot better!

Also, unlike the original Crysis, the highest graphics settings are selectable under DX9, so it'll look almost imperceptibly the same as DX10 and (if my experience is any indication) run at least twice as fast.

FraGNeM

@kwizhader: you didn't like running around stealthed, a la "predator?" you didn't enjoy the zero-G level, one of the most amazing levels ever designed? did you play Crysis?

rainofwalrus

I got it. It's nice. Fun too. Most the haters can't run it on Mainstream. Hence the hate.

rainofwalrus

@Gervy: Er, probably not?

Sounds like a completely unfounded rumour to me - or else some nonspecific developer bragging that was taken out of context. If you're lucky maybe that means it will really run in 720p? I'd assume it'll be somewhere around 1100x600 or whatever most of the fancy-looking games are, though.

(Which is absolutely plenty imo...)

quen

1440x900 may have been the lowest that they tested but the game can go down as low as 1024x768. If they tested at that resolution with mainstream settings, I think they will get decent fps.

lancaster1

@Pupnasty: It looks flat in actual practice though. The colors are brighter, but there's less detail in the area. Plus, though it may just be me, I noticed the draw distance seemed worse at mainstream.

guitarzan2k5

The game's stock presets either turn too many features on (Enthusiast) or turn too many off (Mainstream). With the right combination, you can play at 1440x900 with almost max settings and still stay above 30fps comfortably.

cqdemal

Realistically we do not believe the performance of Crysis Warhead is any better than the original, and we failed to see any substantial optimizations. Ideally gamers are going to require a current generation high-end graphics card to play this game in all its glory. More to the point, something like a GeForce GTX 280 is required, and at over $400, good luck building a $600 system that can play Crysis Warhead.
bummer...

neojam

@rainofwalrus: Agree, I'm sick of crysis bashing. I really enjoyed it.

MentalNote

@FraGNeM: You could select the highest settings in the original crysis with some minor changes to config files.

MentalNote

@Candlejack:

Dude if you think your 8800GT is outdated, try my 7800GTX. When overclocked it's only stable if I loop reruns of Matlock and promise to take it to the Country Buffet once a week.

LanciePants

Is it me, or doesn't "changing the video card has nearly no impact on performance" mean that the limiting factor is something else? All I heard (my PC is too old for anything Crysis) it runs much smoother now ...

develin

It is absolutely smoother than the original Crysis was for me on my 8800gt, and that's using Enthusiast settings. There must be some disconnect between dx10 and dx9.

kiseki

so which one are we supposed to use, they all look like crap to me.

SPitFyRe666

Since when was benchmarking your rig the most important part of a game?

*unpauses NES game*

MAConcep00

Crysis is poo anyway.

sigh....