cool

Brilliant, but they should have kept the music form the original add. Here is a comparison with the original Bravia add: LINK

Those Crytek guys amaze me sometimes.

This is a terrific article from IGN in which they talk to the devs about the future of the CryEngine on PC as well as consoles.

LINK

what i saw in that video blew me away, i wonder what kind of monster could run that demo... this reminds me of the time where UE3 was first shown , it was truly amazing at the time and it gave a clear look to the future (today).

Well that was friggin' pointless; a bunch of gone-off smarties bolting and flipping
down the sunny roads of San Francisco, and one of the characters in the video is
bulimic whilst the other is just hungry but seeing as she' s a Zombie, she can only
look through her window because she doesn' t have the muscles in her wrist to turn
door handles.

This was shown at GDC. Funky as hell.

Well that was friggin' pointless; a bunch of gone-off smarties bolting and flipping
down the sunny roads of San Francisco, and one of the characters in the video is
bulimic whilst the other is just hungry but seeing as she' s a Zombie, she can only
look through her window because she doesn' t have the muscles in her wrist to turn
door handles.

Yeah, but it' s real time.

lol. If they actually rendered that right there in Real-time that is pretty damn good. The graphics were very detailed but it wasn' t really all that impressive in the same way that Cryengine is now. I didn' t see any impressive lighting, reflections, or anything really notable. Everything was just high polly and high res. From an engineering perspective that isn' t impressive.

It was mainly meant to be a showcase of their new physics system.

It was mainly meant to be a showcase of their new physics system.

And what a showcase it was!

ORIGINAL: UnluckyOne

It was mainly meant to be a showcase of their new physics system.

I read that was it was to showcase everything. The physics weren' t too impressive. I saw some teapots clip through the ground, and they didn' t bounce all that realistically.

The whole lighting system sounds somewhat impressive but it definitely still needs some work after watching the video. I also wonder how well it actually performs.

I like how you are putting this engine down. I find it funny. It' s on another level compared to the rest of the engines out yet you cut it down constantly.

If you had the engineering persective I have you would understand why it isn' t that impressive.

Umm... I have a degree in game design. I know what goes into making stuff like that. That engine is a huge feat in gaming technology. If it' s not why can' t any other engine touch it?

Say you have a standard car with a 4L V6 engine.
CryEngine 1 is like a 5L V6 engine.
CryEngine 2 is like a 10L V6 engine.

UE3 is like a 6L v8 turbo charged with nos injection, shit hooked up to the breaks to regain energy, has a cone belt, etc.


When I see CryEngine my reaction is, ooh, they made it bigger. Sure they add some new features, but nothing that impressive.

It is amazing how well UT3 looks and runs on relatively low end hardware and it is amazing how good it looks and runs on high end hardware. It is amazing how smooth and pretty COD4 is on an xbox 360.

CryEngine has bragging rights for being the most detailed and most demanding in power, but that is about it.

Oh please. First off you haven' t seen the CryEngine 2 run on a console. Until you do that' s a piss poor reason to say UE3 is better. From what has been said about the console versions of the engine it should be running the equivalent of High settings on the PC which are still amazing.

You also didn' t seem to pay attention to how great the engine looks even on it' s low settings on older rigs. Sure, it may not go as low as UE3 but that' s what happens with beefed up engines. In the end CryEngine 2 on its highest royally outshines UE3.

UE3 is also a bitch of an engine. There is a reason there is so much conflict about the engine. I had to use the Unreal Engine all throughout college. It' s what my school licensed (gratned it was the 2nd not the third). It is horribly unstable, flawed, and just a pain to work with. Guys at Epic even admit to this. At GDC it' s amazing how much developers complained about it.

Of course this brings up the question as to why its so widely used. Simply put, it saves on time and money for having to develop your own engine. It' s got a long history have great titles behind it. It also is a very easy program to use (when it isn' t crashing and corrupting your shit).

I like UE3, as flawed as it is, and think it' s a great engine that has been behind some great looking titles. Still, it doesn' t hold a candle to CryEngine 2.

You know, I know jack about the technicalities behind graphic engines. But I can say this, that demo was real pretty.

ORIGINAL: Chimura

You know, I know jack about the technicalities behind graphic engines. But I can say this, that demo was real pretty.

That' s what it really comes down to in the end. You can all sorts of bells and whistles under the hood but what you see in the end is what really matters.

Obviously I haven' t run CryEngine 2 on anything. But UE3 easily beats out CryEngine 1 in performance to detail ratio. And I have used the Unreal Engine, and I' ve also used the Far Cry Engine, although not as much. The Unreal Engine is very easy to use compared to most engines. I haven' t used the CryEngine to do anything but when I used the Far Cry Engine it was actually fairly easy to use, although not as easy as the Unreal Engine.

If you think UE3 is a bitch to use you are going to have a really tough time using others.