This game is a classic, but Warhead is better

[admiral1018]

Not sure if this is a controversial take or not, but I personally find Crysis: Warhead to be much better than this game. I think both games are criminally underrated, with Crysis typically disregarded as a tech demo without much else going for it. But the gameplay is absolutely top-notch, and the nanosuit (in these two games) is one of the coolest FPS inventions of all-time.

This game's main problem is that it has too many parts that flat out suck. Namely, Core, Ascension, and most of the final mission. This becomes a completely different game after the General Kyong encounter, and nothing from that point on really matches some of the spectacular early stages.

Warhead seems like it kept everything that worked well in Crysis and fixed the parts that didn't

• Player-character being bland? Psycho is a big step up
  
• Terrible vehicle segments? The two parts in Warhead (APV and train) are much better executed. The game also gives you the ability to ditch the vehicles and go on foot if you want
  
• Fights with aliens being tedious? Warhead makes sure that almost all encounters ensure you have access to heavy weapons (usually Gauss) or turrets. The AI was also completely redone. Make the fights much more enjoyable

I'm sad to see that Warhead wasn't included in the Remaster, as that will only further cause people to forget Warhead ever existed. But it's an incredible (if short) game, with gameplay that I wish we could someday see recaptured or re-imagined in a more modern form.

[Ceejay]

Yep I too never understood why people called it a tech demo, when it is a good game too, though I also agree it goes down hill, however I believe I am sure I read somewhere the ending was somewhat rushed. (publisher timescales maybe). Which would possibly explain the slight drop in quality.

[admiral1018]

I think the "tech demo" slander was because most people couldn't reasonably play this game until several years after release, meaning they never got to experience the bulk of the gameplay. And because of that delay, many people never really did, and the old reputation stuck.

I do remember reading that some levels and level design choices were made specifically to show off the capabilities CryEngine 2, something the team at Crytek did knowing they would make money in licensing the engine. Ascension is the most famous example of that, and some of the devs later commented how much they hated that level.

By the time it got to Warhead, the focus seemed more on optimizing gameplay rather than designing a game around everything CryEngine 2 could do. And I think we definitely get a tighter experience because of it.

[hoaxey]

Originally posted by admiral1018:

Not sure if this is a controversial take or not, but I personally find Crysis: Warhead to be much better than this game. I think both games are criminally underrated, with Crysis typically disregarded as a tech demo without much else going for it. But the gameplay is absolutely top-notch, and the nanosuit (in these two games) is one of the coolest FPS inventions of all-time.

This game's main problem is that it has too many parts that flat out suck. Namely, Core, Ascension, and most of the final mission. This becomes a completely different game after the General Kyong encounter, and nothing from that point on really matches some of the spectacular early stages.

Warhead seems like it kept everything that worked well in Crysis and fixed the parts that didn't

• Player-character being bland? Psycho is a big step up
  
• Terrible vehicle segments? The two parts in Warhead (APV and train) are much better executed. The game also gives you the ability to ditch the vehicles and go on foot if you want
  
• Fights with aliens being tedious? Warhead makes sure that almost all encounters ensure you have access to heavy weapons (usually Gauss) or turrets. The AI was also completely redone. Make the fights much more enjoyable

I'm sad to see that Warhead wasn't included in the Remaster, as that will only further cause people to forget Warhead ever existed. But it's an incredible (if short) game, with gameplay that I wish we could someday see recaptured or re-imagined in a more modern form.

I also enjoyed Warhead more than Crysis, although I really like Crysis. I totally agree your assertion that Warhead is more streamlined. I mean that in a positive way.

[KRZH0RS3]

Played all games in order when they came out and I did like Warhead a lot more

[KZ_Understanding_the_Rain_000]

As somebody who played this game at launch, I always thought it was ahead of its time not just graphically but in terms of gameplay as well. Back in 2007 Crysis was like this thing from the future, there was literally nothing else like it.

[admiral1018]

Can't agree more. It's sad that so many FPSs ended up just trying to copy CoD after seeing its success, because I've really never played a game quite like Crysis and Warhead since. This kind of game felt like an evolution in the genre, but in hindsight it was an outlier.

I'd love to see a developer try to replicate the feeling of a game like this one, but I can't imagine that would happen at a major studio given how different it is from what console gamers are used to now.

[KZ_Understanding_the_Rain_000]

Originally posted by admiral1018:

Can't agree more. It's sad that so many FPSs ended up just trying to copy CoD after seeing it's success, because I've really never played a game quite like Crysis and Warhead since. This kind of game felt like an evolution in the genre, but in hindsight it was an outlier.

I'd love to see a developer try to replicate the feeling of a game like this one, but I can't imagine that would happen at a major studio given how different it is from what console gamers are used to now.

Agreed. This game was kind of like the successor to HL2 and Doom 3 back when PC exclusives were really pushing the envelope. But CoD4 came out the same year, and you're right that CoD and not Crysis became the game to emulate going forward.

It is a shame, became Crysis was all about emergent, system-based gameplay, which is the way better and the opposite approach of CoD's tightly scripted missions.

You might find Prey 2017 worth a look. It's much more SS2 than Crysis but it runs on a newer Cryengine and benefits from a lot of the things that made Crysis great that are just baked into that game engine.

[Fahobomoclowbia]

does crysis warhead have open ended levels?

[admiral1018]

It's the same type of level design as the first Crysis. The game is broken into levels, but each is mostly open, allowing many different ways/tactics to complete them.

[+]

@TS, not sure where the opinion came from about this being some high tech demo game but this game rocks. I especially LOVE the story and it is one of the coolest Open World games that has a HUGE Sci-Fi upside to the story. From North Korea being the bad guys to starting out like an infiltration style game with political overtones that then just turns everything on it's head and goes pure sci-fi this is one of if not my favorite First Person Shooter EVER.

The suit is one of the BEST game play elements of any FPS I have ever played and it was so amazing to have a multi button Mouse to control the various suit options, the graphics are gorgeous and the sound design is top notch. This series of games truly has it all in my opinion.

The Ceph are a really cool enemy, and each game surpasses the one before it story wise. Although I find this and Warhead are both better than Part 2 I like the story of Prophet and the Hero the man becomes and I find it a cool Heroes Journey. Part 3 graphically is stunning, even more so than part 1 and Crysis Warhead although I also really like Warhead's story line and the change of pace.

I remember buying this in 2007 and trying to play it, my system didn't mean even the minimum specs and all it rendered were the eyes and the voices. *Laughs* this game still has it 16 years later and IMHO one of if not the best FPS Trilogy EVER.

I'm lucky enough to have ALL the games on hard copy too, it makes a nice display.

[Ayearepee]

I completely missed Crysis when it came out - I didn't particularly enjoy Far Cry and judging by the reviews Crysis was more of the same - but I decided to check it out recently and I was pleasant surprised. There are some odd gameplay decisions but it's much better than I expected and it still looks good.

I have to admit I didn't even realise Crysis: Warhead existed until I bought it (nowadays the only way to get the original game on Steam is to buy a double-pack of the original plus Warhead). I agree that it feels more polished. And the main character is much more interesting. Lord knows why the developers decided to kill everybody off in between the first and second games.

If someone could chop out the last third of Crysis and graft on all of Crysis: Warhead to the original game the result would be a classic. About the only thing Warhead didn't do better was the vehicle aspect - the tank assault in the first game is great fun and Warhead doesn't really have anything to match it.

[Sar]

Warhead is pretty good but I don’t know how to feel about the fact it massively nerfed Koreans’ gun damage. I think people were upset they died fast if they tried tanking damage, but I barely even die in Warhead to Koreans even when playing poorly until they get Gauss rifles.

The new Ceph AI is so good, though. They flank and suppress you, it’s so much more fun than dumb Cry1 Ceph.

[undefined]

Originally posted by admiral1018:

I think both games are criminally underrated

Were you too young to remember when these games launched? They were met with universal critical acclaim. To say they were a big deal would be an understatement.