Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
First Person Shooters (Games) Entertainment Games

Crysis Sequel Announced, Still PC Only 86

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the go-upgrade-your-pc-now dept.
EA and Crytek have announced a sequel to Crysis , one of the highest rated games of last year. Unfortunately, it seems that still only PC users will be able to celebrate the good news. "In Crysis Warhead, players will don the Nanosuit of Sergeant Sykes, also known as 'Psycho', one of the most memorable characters from Crysis. More brash and aggressive than his Delta Force squadmate Nomad, players will experience Psycho's parallel story during the events of the original game, finding that life on the other side of the island is even more intense and explosive than they ever could have imagined. Luckily, Psycho's Nanosuit is just as capable and he's equipped with an even bigger arsenal of fully customizable weapons and new vehicles, giving players access to the tools they need to dominate any situation. Aside from this new, exciting single player campaign, Crysis Warhead will also feature new multiplayer content."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Crysis Sequel Announced, Still PC Only

Comments Filter:
  • So... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jor-Al (1298017) on Friday June 06, 2008 @10:57AM (#23682981)
    does this one require dual, dual-gpu video cards and a dual, quad core system just to get 30fps at full settings?
    • Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 06, 2008 @11:03AM (#23683105)
      Of course not. That was just the *first* crysis.

      This one requires quad, quad-gpu video cards and a quad, 8 core system just to get 30fps at full settings.
      • by BobNET (119675)

        This one requires quad, quad-gpu video cards and a quad, 8 core system just to get 30fps at full settings.

        I think you have that wrong. This one requires 4 quad-core video cards and 4 8-core CPUs just to get 30fps at the lowest settings...

    • what you're trying to ask is ... can anyone without a $3000 computer run this?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Lordrashmi (167121)
        My ~$1200 PC ran it well on medium and the game looked good. I don't know what everyone was bitching about. Besides looking good I thought it was a damn fun single player game, and spent a couple of weeks playing around online before getting into TF2 heavily.
        • Re:So... (Score:4, Informative)

          by mobby_6kl (668092) on Friday June 06, 2008 @01:11PM (#23684925)
          People are way overreacting over the Crysis hardware needs. Sure, it's a demanding game hardware wise, but not ridiculously so. It ran smoothly (~30fps most of the time) with high settings at 1680x1050 on a one year old $1200 pc, and that was also more expensive that it needed to be (for games) because I got a quad core Q6600 instead of the E7200 as listed below. Otherwise it's quite similar in terms of performance.

          Core2Duo E7200 2.53Ghz $135
          GeForce 8800GT $180
          2GB DDR2 Corsair ram $50
          Asus P5K motherboard $130
          ----
          Whoa, that's like $495!

          The rest basically won't affect the performance so you can use whatever's lying around. But anyway:
          Antec case with a 360W PSU : $80
          WD 320gb HDD : $75.
          ---
          +$155
          As for the game itself, I really enjoyed most of it. Even the alien spaceship/base part was a pretty good change of paces, although it did drag on a little longer than I'd prefer. So I'm looking forward to this, and especially Far Cry 2.
      • by ivanmarsh (634711)
        My computer is well in excess of $3000 and I can't run Crysis at full settings (unlike with every other game).

        I guess the Cryengine was a bit overhyped.
        • Really? 3000 When 1993?

          There is no reason why you can't run Crysis at max on any regular resolution (including widescreen)

          Or does your PC have 3K allocated like this

          150 case (only if your looking for something really extravagant)
          300 power supply (Really? no, this should be a touch lower (like 1/2?)
          200 Mobo (any decent MOBO)
          1000 processor (Top of the line Proc for said Mobo)
          1000 4 gb of DDR3 Top speed RAM
          150 HDD
          600 HDD (assuming twin velociraptors.)
          and you forgot to buy a videocard?
          • by jdinkel (1028708)
            He didn't forget, the video is integrated.
            • by ivanmarsh (634711)
              Funny, but no, it's not.

              It's an EVGA 8800GTX and like I said, I don't have frame rate issues with other games.
              • by jdinkel (1028708)
                I have a Quaddro FX 1700 and Crysis plays beautifully on Medium settings. I don't know how a Quaddro FX 1700 compares to a 8800GTX though.
          • by ivanmarsh (634711)
            It's got an EVGA 8800 GTX in it.

            If you have any wisdom on how to get a greater frame rate in Crysis I'd love to hear it.
            • 9800GX2 FTW man.

              Oh BTW, I got an EVGA 8800GT (no X) and was disappointed that they put a capacitor where they shouldn't have and after market water blocks wouldn't fit it. In fact any sort of full coverage solution probably won't. Definitely buying from another "manufacturer" or whatever nVidia is calling them next time.
            • I am in the middle of playing it now. Do you turn off AV when playing? What about indexing services (Msft indexer slows me down / distributed clients (FAH, Seti) / Torrents

              I'll double check everysingle setting I have on, but if your running a high res (like I do, I am either @ 1280 or 16x1200 can't remember, but I'll check tonight) TURN OFF AA. The higher the res, the less AA you need! 800x600 You need it up there. as you increase resolution, decrease AA. so for 1024x768 go down to 4x (or 2x), and 2x (
            • So I checked my settings and I play @ 2048x 1536 (I didn't think I set res that high but I guess I did I'll turn it down, and graphics up, but out of time this evening) but all options other than physics and sound are set to medium (those 2 at High).
          • My system as a reference (bought in march):
            $100 case
            $180 PSU 750W
            $400 mobo X48
            $1000 CPU QX9650
            $400 4GB DDR3 1333MHz
            $200 ($100x2) 500GB HDD SATAII 32MB, raid0
            $300 8800GTS (G92)
            used dual monitors from previous system
            $2380 total without tax/shipping

            Runs on 1280x1024 on high for everything except antialiasing. I can run AA at x2 for whole game, or x4 for everything except last scene but I have to set the graphics card to single performance mode or it gets bad, like in Doom3. I'd try higher but my monitor doesn
        • by Kneo24 (688412)

          My computer is well in excess of $3000 and I can't run Crysis at full settings (unlike with every other game). I guess the Cryengine was a bit overhyped.
          High on Vista? Or High on XP? There is a difference between the highest settings on the two different OSes.
          • by @madeus (24818)
            Good point - to which I'd like to add that IIRC "High" isn't even the highest setting in Crysis.
      • Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Spatial (1235392) on Friday June 06, 2008 @11:59AM (#23683903)
        Anyone who bought a $3,000 computer for gaming is a complete sucker (or can afford Ferraris). An extremely high-end gaming machine can be put together for $1,000 including a 20" monitor and all required peripherals. Beyond that price-point you begin hemhoraging money for practically no gain.

        Seven months ago I bought one for 950 euros, with which I happily played through Crysis on high settings at a merry 35-40 FPS. Currently, for that much money I could buy a significantly more powerful computer.
        • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Jor-Al (1298017)

          An extremely high-end gaming machine can be put together for $1,000
          You must have a different notion of "high-end" than the rest of the world, then.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Dark Kenshin (764678)
          You do realize you just contradicted yourself. 1 euro is not equal to 1 dollar. 950 euros is roughly $1495 give or take the exchange rate.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Cecil (37810)
          extremely high-end

          You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
        • by compro01 (777531)
          your rig comes to about $1500.

          my $2k system (as of last september. core2 duo e6850, 8800GTS, 2GB ram. likely about $1500 now) runs crysis nicely on high
        • That's true to an extent. Almost exactly one year ago I put together my first "new" computer (as opposed to ones I'd cobbled together from random discarded or donated hardware). I wanted to keep the price down but have gaming performance since I do love my FPS games.

          The final cost was about 1100 dollars for a dual-core e6600, GTS8800 768, two gigs of RAM, 500 gig SATA drive, motherboard, case, power supply, fans, and a very nice 21" 1680x1050 LCD. It's not a completely top-of-the-line machine (though
        • So did you pirate your OS or are you doing Linux "gaming?"
        • by @madeus (24818)

          An extremely high-end gaming machine can be put together for $1,000 including a 20" monitor and all required peripherals.

          After buying two 9800 GX2's and a motherboard (no processor, no display, no RAM, no peripherals at all) you'd already be over 1,000 USD - with a fully loaded motherboard (3 x 9800 GX2's) you'd be well over 2000 USD after adding 2-4 GB of RAM, A CPU and a PSU... and that's before you even include a display or any peripherals.

          Beyond that price-point you begin hemhoraging money for practically no gain.

          That's true once you pass about the 3,000 USD mark for a system, not the 1,000 USD mark.

          If you are regularly playing games like Call of Duty 4, Crysis or Gears of War on your PC your a

    • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Hatta (162192) on Friday June 06, 2008 @11:41AM (#23683673) Journal
      If your computer can't handle that, why not just run it on a lower setting? I don't get this complaint. Would you rather they artificially limit the graphics of the game so that "full" is what "medium" is now? That would be silly.
      • Mod parent up (Score:5, Insightful)

        by vecctor (935163) on Friday June 06, 2008 @12:07PM (#23684019)
        So true.

        The best is when people compare it consoles - where you have no choice on quality and it is locked at whatever the devs could get to run.

        I guess the take away "winning strategy" from this is just to artificially limit the settings so stupid people don't bitch and give your game a bad reputation. Then 2 years later release a "graphics upgrade patch" that removes the limits :)

        Future-proofing AND idiot mitigation. Win! (Profit???)

        It's all perception. People want to think they are running it at "The Best Settings" and feel cheated if they aren't. Because, by God, they are entitled to the best settings no matter what their computer is like. It's just not fair otherwise!
        • I've heard that Crytek will release the "Ultra High" graphics settings in a patch later on when they think machines can handle it. I guess they did the same thing with Farcry before, but I don't know.
        • by KefabiMe (730997)
          The problem with Crysis is that it looks like shit running at medium or lower graphic settings. I mean, it looks uglier than Half-Life 2 does on the same computer. People who play on medium or lower wouldn't understand what the fuss around Crysis was about. For the record, it's very pretty on high settings, but not the best FPS out there. Half-Life 2 was still much better.
          • by vecctor (935163)
            That's fine - then the critism should be "it looks shitty on medium" rather than "it runs like crap on high! Why did they bother releasing this since nobody can play it!".

            Not understanding what the fuss is about is fine too - there are a ton of games I play where I have that feeling. I just figure it isn't my kind of game.

            Incidentally, I think HL2 was one of them for me. I borrowed it using a friends steam account one time, got bored, and quit part way though. I now own it with the Orange Box bundle, but I'
      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by kalirion (728907)
        The problem is when those "medium" settings both look and perform worse than the "full" settings of another game.
      • by drsquare (530038)
        Because people don't want to spend money on the latest game only to have to turn down all the settings and make it look like shit. Especially as modern games are pretty much based on having slick graphics.
      • by Kneo24 (688412)
        The problem here is not exactly as clear cut as you make it out to be. It's expected of games to be able to run smoothly on high settings (minimum 30 FPS) on gaming rigs that don't cost in excess of $1200 these days. When the game came out, it obviously couldn't. It couldn't run on rigs at those settings where people threw more money at. That's a pretty big no-no and it pisses people off. A good portion of the people who are bitching aren't bitching because they have shit PC's.
      • by tooler (36824)
        Would you rather they artificially limit the graphics of the game so that "full" is what "medium" is now?

        Oh no, vanity sizing for geeks has arrived.
    • by gmuslera (3436)
      Imagine a beowulf cluster of those... then maybe that cluster will be able to perform at 30fps at full settings with the next version.

      But your options don't end there, technology has advanced. You can get people to run a modified seti@home client to give you the missing cpu cycles to be able to get that performance (2-3k machines could do the trick?), or go to the black market and hire a mid-sized botnet for that task (will have the side effect of reducing global spam too, those machines will not have spare
  • it's sad that the cryengine2 needs so much performance, look at Call of Duty 4, i think it's look pretty much the same like crysis but it doesn't need that much performance :/
    • Re:requirements (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 06, 2008 @11:36AM (#23683607)
      and Call of Duty 4 limits you to a single tiny linear path with invisible walls and unclimbable rickety fences. And relies on tricks to deliver those visuals.

      Why does everyone hate on the crysis engine when it WORKS FINE FOR MEDIUM SPEC MACHINES, JUST NOT ON MAX SETTINGS.
      • by dfm3 (830843)
        Crysis is just as linear as any other FPS, they just did a much better job of hiding it.

        I remember reading numerous reviews and forum hype about how Crysis was supposed to be so "open" and less "linear". Sure, the environments create the illusion of openness, but when you get down to it, Crysis was just another "go through each objective one at a time in this exact order" game. Any choice you had was more along the lines of "do I take the beachfront path to reach the village, or do I stick to the road? To
        • I expected something more along the lines of an Elder Scrolls style "go anywhere, do anything" openness. Not that I think such non-linearity necessarily would have worked for an FPS

          What's the difference between an Elder Scrolls game and a FPS, anyway? I almost always play Oblivion in first-person view, and if you've equipped a bow and arrows you can shoot people.

          And what about Grand Theft Auto? That, likewise, can be first person, and it sure as Hell is a shooter!

          Swim out too far, and you are eaten by sha

          • by dfm3 (830843)
            My point is that people often fail to differentiate between linearity in gameplay/plot and linearity in level design. Crysis has a fairly linear plot (there are a few optional side missions, though), and sticks you on an linear path along the way. However, unlike the "single tiny linear path" as described by the GGP, Crysis does a very good job of "widening" the path to create an illusion of openness.

            The way I'd heard the game described before I played it, you'd think that your character was plunked down o
            • by jdinkel (1028708)
              just FYI: it's "genre", not "genera."
            • I think it's less linear, most of Farcry was the same way. You could take very different routes through each level and not just different approaches to scenarios.

              I originally thought the same thing about Farcry, where you have an entire island you can explore. You can explore to a certain extent but there are definite boundaries that guide you in a certain direction.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Aranykai (1053846)
          Lets see. It has a singleplayer plot where you take on a role?

          Seriously, how "open" can it be? You still have to hit the plot points or the story wont progress.
    • What version of COD4 did you get? Because mine looks nothing like Crysis? I enjoyed COD4 but that engine can't hold the Crysis engines jock.
  • are they also going to stop supporting this one after 6 months? 8 Ball says: Outlook not so good.
  • by flyingsquid (813711) on Friday June 06, 2008 @11:03AM (#23683103)
    I would be interested in this, but I just heard about that video showing gameplay for Duke Nukem Forever, so I think I'm going to wait and get that instead.
  • by XanC (644172) on Friday June 06, 2008 @11:11AM (#23683205)
    I have a PC, but as a Linux user I'm left out too! You mean it's only for Windows, not for "PC".
  • by Rageon (522706) on Friday June 06, 2008 @11:13AM (#23683241)
    I'm not typically an FPS guy, but I found the first half of Crysis to be one of the best games I've ever played. The found the second half extremely boring. Once the aliens show up, the game just wasn't the same. If Pyscho's story is supposed to involve "life" on the other side of the island, as the release calls it, I have to assume they are talking more about the aliens than the Koreans. Too bad.
    • I wouldn't think so (Score:3, Interesting)

      by vecctor (935163)

      If Pyscho's story is supposed to involve "life" on the other side of the island, as the release calls it, I have to assume they are talking more about the aliens than the Koreans.

      I would think just the opposite. IIRC Nomad and the squad leader were the two mucking around in the ship while Psycho was off doing something else. This says to me more koreans rather than less.

      Like you, I found the first half the game much better (and CERTAINLY more replayable) than the second. The second part was fun for about 10 minutes with the whole floaty thing, but that is only novelty value.

  • I think it's just a little ironic this will be a PC only title, considering how loudly these guys bitched and moaned about piracy and swore up and down they'd never put out another PC exclusive title.
    • by Shinmizu (725298)
      And I seriously doubt piracy had anything to do with their crappy sales. Who would want to pirate a game that got 5 fps on their system? I'm convinced that the horrible performance of the game is a big factor in its "lack" of sales. (I sure wish I could sell a million of something.)
      • by Haeleth (414428)

        And I seriously doubt piracy had anything to do with their crappy sales. Who would want to pirate a game that got 5 fps on their system?

        It's not just performance, either. I tried the demo. It ran very nicely on my system and looked fantastic.

        Unfortunately, it wasn't fun. Admiring the sunlight filtering through the leaves was very nice, but hardly exciting. Cutting down trees with a machine gun is fun for a few minutes at most. The AI was lacklustre, the plot derivative, the combat uninspired, the chara

    • I was thinking the same thing - I thought PC gaming was so rife with piracy that PC only (more specifically Windows only) games were a no-go for studios? Either someone was lying about that or they're making a stupid choice, and I'm guessing the former.
  • Reaks of EA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by phresh (1285616) on Friday June 06, 2008 @11:39AM (#23683649)
    The really lame thing about this is they've told us they will not be continuing to patch Crysis because of this game being their new priority. In fact they canceled the continued development of the much anticipated 1.3 patch for Crysis.
    (http://www.crymod.com/thread.php?threadid=29356)

    This is a big slap in the face to everyone who bought Crysis with high hopes for it's multiplayer aspect and especially those of us working on multiplayer-focused mods for it. Even those who were just hoping to get more improved performance from a future patch - not yours.

    EA seemed to pull the same shit with DICE and the Battlefield series, before this. BF2 expansions and then BF2142 were out before major issues with BF2 were ever resolved. Some of the same old BF2 bugs still exist in all of the games on that engine, today. We've once again been sold on continuing support that ended up amounting to nothing but too-few-patches and hosted community forums. At least DICE continued patching BF2. Crytek seemingly wants us to buy Warhead if we want the 'optimized' and presumably less-buggy CryEngine2. Still, given their track record thus far, I imagine many of the issues that plague Crysis will remain in Warhead. Then you can expect the next installment to end support of Warhead, just the same.

    The sad thing is that this should, by most PC gaming standards, be an expansion pack, with the core game being updated with the revamped code and assets. The single player campaign is going to be parallel to the Crysis one, you just play a different character. Yet it sounds like it's going to be a full-priced title.

    Personally I've despised EA for years and hate supporting them. I bought Crysis with a frown because of this. Now this. At least I know I wasn't delusional when I flamingly urged the Crytek people to sever ties with EA, once Steam went to free e-publishing.

    I for one will not support this sort of bullshit. Boycott EA. Everything they touch turns to fail and AIDS!
    • by vecctor (935163)
      Yeah, I agree. But they'll keep doing it as long as they can get away with it. Look how many people play BF2 and BF2142. It is many times more than people who play similar team-based FPS games made by non-asshat companies.

      This habit of theirs is one reason I passed on BF2142 and simply waited for ETQW to come out.
    • Linux server plan got axed too. :(
    • by Wildclaw (15718)
      That is because EA isn't a quality brand. It is a mass production one, that relies on advertising and other brands to sell their products. The EA brand on a product is a negative factor, not a positive one.

      If you want quality you have to with a brand like Blizzard which is know to support their products far beyond what is expected.

      If you want a product from a company that are only interested in your money and not in your satisfaction go with EA. Sure, they may produce soom good products, but that is because
    • I haven't played Crysis, but the description in the summary (no, I didn't RTFA due to being in a rush) sounds *exactly* like an expansion pack. Sequel, my ass.

      The Half-Life series did this several times with Opposing Force, Blue Shift, and arguably Portal as it has ties to that universe indirectly... This doesn't seem to be advancing the main plotline in the same way that a true sequel would, but then again, I think I'm hair splitting here.

      Hell, I seem to remember Quake mission packs billing themselves in
    • The sad part is, companies don't see lack of sales equating into that no one likes their game. They look into some divine epitaph and conjure up some bullshit numbers stating that piracy was the reason why the game sold poorly. The game couldn't have been bad, right? All the while not releasing where they get their sources of information.
  • I thought that Crysis was fun. But the final 1/4 of the single player game left much to be desired -- it was buggy as hell. (Falling through the world in the final boss fight, anyone?)

    I expect that a game of this calibre should actually be finishable -- not be impossible to complete because of clipping issues with the world terrain and corrupted savegames. Their lack of support on Patch 1.3 is a slap in the face.
  • it will take before the official release date that the cracked version of the game will be on the bay this time. Last time I believe it was 3 days. If they keep that secuROM crap or any other debilitating DRM on it I'm not buying it. I got Crysis 'free' with my graphics card. I wasn't going to install it because of this. But then I found out that Daw of War: Soulstorm had already installed it on my computer anyways without me knowing. If you have it on your game list it on the box! I'm sick of this shady ma
    • by Kneo24 (688412)
      No one played DOOM 3 online even when people could play it. That game goes to show that amazing graphics can't make up for lackluster gameplay. Crysis will be in the same boat.

Every successful person has had failures but repeated failure is no guarantee of eventual success.

Working...