ZFGC
General => Entertainment => Topic started by: FrozenFire on January 19, 2010, 07:59:15 am
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDay3GOBdtU
My favorite part is at 1:08 when he's shooting up the actual cement blocks and they break up. Seriously, how can this not be total win?
I wonder what kind of power this engine is going to require from a PC though? It did say "multi-core" support (of course!). I just hope my PC can handle it (my PC plays Crysis on very high settings with a slightly noticeable slowdown, but on high everything works perfectly).
I just hope they fixed up how things gain more detail when you get closer. On Crysis, even with the graphics on very high some things would still suddenly appear and it kinda ruined the experience for me. If only they would kinda fade things in nice and easy-like. Gosh dang I'm just so demanding! :P
Any thoughts or more info to share about CryENGINE 3?
-
It looks nice, but honestly not a quantum leap above CE2. What the CryEngine really needs is optimization: Unreal Engine 3 approaches it in terms of quality and features far better performance.
-
Time for nerds to have a new engine to benchmark their PC's
-
Loved the first Crysis, apart from the stupid aliens in the cave :/. Looking forward to it.
-
It looks nice, but honestly not a quantum leap above CE2. What the CryEngine really needs is optimization: Unreal Engine 3 approaches it in terms of quality and features far better performance.
Actually, I never really looked in to the Unreal Engine 3 until now. Some comparison videos I found:
Unreal Engine 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m4pe6UAS2M
CryENGINE 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0hkSsBNlNc
As summed up as possible (and probably put too simply), this is how I see it:
CE3 = Realism first, performance second.
UE3 = Performance first, realism second.
It really depends on the players preference (and the power of their PC [excluding xbox and ps3 because I don't own either one, lol]). I like both engines but for different things.
-
It really depends on the players preference (and the power of their PC [excluding xbox and ps3 because I don't own either one, lol]). I like both engines but for different things.
Actually, it's the game creator's preference. Most games aren't released on two engines for choice.
-
As summed up as possible (and probably put too simply), this is how I see it:
CE3 = Realism first, performance second.
UE3 = Performance first, realism second.
Sorta. It gets a little more complicated than that due to the diminishing returns of realism. Like is the increase in detail so significant that it logically warrants a 30 FPS drop?
I still say CliffyB and the boys at Epic are the best coders in the industry.
-
I've always preferred the unreal engine. The crew and company behind it is a lot better.
-
As summed up as possible (and probably put too simply), this is how I see it:
CE3 = Realism first, performance second.
UE3 = Performance first, realism second.
Sorta. It gets a little more complicated than that due to the diminishing returns of realism. Like is the increase in detail so significant that it logically warrants a 30 FPS drop?
I still say CliffyB and the boys at Epic are the best coders in the industry.
I guess I'd have to agree.
But this wasn't supposed to be CE3 vs UE3, lol. I just thought CE3 looked pretty nice, but I never really did much of any kind of research on either engine until now.
With all things considered, I do like the unreal engine better.
I just realized that game developers often choose the unreal engine over the cryengine (tons more games that have been released use the unreal engine as opposed to the cryengine). I never realized that Mass Effect, Bioshock, Gears of War, Mirror's Edge, and a whole lot of other games I know, use UE3 (and of course Borderlands does ;p).