Massman

That of course raises the issues of how one should judge the game – as a self-contained game, or as an accompaniment to the original. If we use the former scale then Crysis Warhead is a competent, if slightly incomprehensible experience given the initial lack of exposition. It’s fun, but not something you’d find hugely essential.

If you judge it using the other metric though, then Crysis Warhead becomes something different entirely. If you’ve played and loved Crysis first then you’ll play and love Warhead because it offers up essentially the same experience, but with more of a focus on huge cinematic set pieces with developing Psycho’s character.

Let’s put it this way; If you’re new to the series, or didn’t care all that much for the original then Crysis Warhead is to Crysis as Blue Shift was to Half-Life. It’s an essentially fun game, but a little bit flawed and disappointing on a story-telling level, feeling more like a mod than a real game.

If you’re an aficionado though then Crysis Warhead is more like how Opposing Force was for Half-Life. It lets you see the same scenes from another pair of eyes, getting you closer to the action and unveiling some important details about the story and setting things up for a sequel, as well as providing a fun game when you boil all that away.

If you like the original game then it’s a fair bet that you’ll like Warhead as it’s a very, very similar game. If you didn’t play the original though then you’ll definitely want to do that before you play Crysis Warhead, because its major failing is that although is tries to be standalone experience it doesn’t entirely succeed.

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2008/...ysis-warhead/1

__________________