Crytek says CryEngine 3 already does awesome graphics as good as Unreal Engine 4 (interview)

GamesBeat's Dean Takahashi interviews the Yerli brothers and Nick-Button Brown about graphics technology in the best video games.

[Orpheus]

Waiting to see who wins the graphics Olympus of 2013 , Metro Last Light or Crysis 3 .... im betting for the first one

[WeskerChildReborned]

Metro Last Light look's amazing.

[ProjectVulcan]

CryEngine 3 is powerful, seriously, you just need to see what modders can do with it even in Crysis 2. Crytek themselves may not really be the masters of it, whereas the difference is that Epic and 4A are probably the masters of their own engines and make the best looking games (with them).

Just looking at the wastage in Crysis 2 is jaw dropping, with millions of tesselated polygons spunked on........concrete barriers. http://techreport.com/artic... Honestly there is a VAST amount of flexibility there just waiting to be unlocked.

Crytek built a good looking game in Crysis 2 on PC (FINALLY after the DX11 patches) but then the modders turned up- and blew them away.

You can really pick up some superb texture mods for example, that are much higher res than Crytek's. With community tweaks, Crysis 2 looks beserk and performance isn't too badly hit.

If a developer really takes Cryengine 3 by the scruff of the neck and allocates the right resources, they would achieve something truly mindblowing visually on existing PC hardware

[tokugawa]

why are you not a mod vulcanproject?? your posts are always well worth reading, and are always backed up with links and sources...

plus, being as you are one of the very small minority on here than isnt a rampant fanboy. it baffles me why you are not helping to sort out the mess that is the n4g message boards.

n4g is seriously lacking decent mods. and unbiased mods are rarer than rocking horse shit on here

bubbles +

[ZoyosJD]

"it was impossible for PC to be ran cheaply as a console"

This is exactly where you went wrong. Starting off by putting words in other peoples mouth. I just said "I don't see the bang for your buck in PC games anymore".

*At minimum a gaming PC will cost you the same as a console...I understand that well, but at that point you are only getting the same results as a console and would still have dropping framerates below what is standard on consoles. *If you want more you pay more for better hardware, but the laws of deminishing returns kick in. *And, consoles have a greater focus from developers as well.

Hell, I know that PCs can be ran cheaper than consoles, but then you don't even get console level performance.

"But i know i have saved a minimum of £200 every year on multi plat games...."

*And as I stated I have saved over twice what you did each year for several years now on games making your "saving in the long run" point moot.

*I don't own a 360, so adding Live into the equation is not sufficient for my case.

*I got my PS3 used, as I am sure you have recieved some of your PC parts...further reducing costs from what you assumed. And, no repaires or upgrades have been needed.

*Every headset/periferal I have purchased has been usable for both PC and PS3. Meaning costs are equivalent there.

"anything about steam at all in any of my posts"

Steam was brought into the convesation by the poster below you, to whom I was responding to as well. Again, jumping to conclusions. Anyways, assuming you recive your games legitimately, the results would be the same.

There is no reason to end the conversation, so please, take your time, give me a reason on each of the askterisked (*) points I have made. I want to believe that my purchases have been warrented as well.

PCs may very well be more powerful, I'm just not seeing the value in the cost of that extra power.

If you want to make a point, then be desicive...don't tuck your tail and run when your faced with logic. The whole idea of a debate is to get to a point where people can make an informed decision based on the info provided.

[Orpheus]

@Vulcan Project
Crytek did that shitful tessellation bcos they ate money from nVIDIA. dont get me wrong im an nvidia fan ... but thats wht crytek did ....

@WeskerChildReborned
We havent seen anything of Metro Last Light yet, 4A is keeping their heads down , just compare some screenshots specially the hall room filled with people with the video counterpart , the screens depict more of the final product , the videos are dumbed down ... they will start to shine when the 780GTX arrives.

[ProjectVulcan]

Yep, it was indeed most likely marketing tie ups with Nvidia and they didn't bother implementing it properly.

But looking at it, looking at how many of those barriers and polygons the engine can push is phenomenal. Added in to modders high resolutions textures, lots of 1k and even 2k replacements performance was still pretty damn good. A GTX670 can actually do over 60 frames in 1080p maxed and texture mods....said card would only do about half that in metro 2033 maxed. Clearly the engine is very powerful and pretty well optimised.

Hopefully someone will really take advantage of it sooner rather than later.

[CanadianTurtle]

I remember when Crysis 2 came out, and to be honest, it looked nothing special. Especially on consoles, it looked very mediocore on the PS3.

[Tachyon_Nova]

Did you expect a console game to look anything other than mediocre at this stage?

[NYC_Gamer]

I believe the CryEngine is better than UE and Crytek should license it out to more studios

[roblef]

At a certain point, though, who cares?

[SamPao]

you know just crytek talking shit like always

if nobody cares what you say, then you just comment crap on others.

(not saying cry-engine isn't impressive... cuz it is, but they still have to deliver a "WOW" game, all they have for now is mediocre)

[deantak]

i care! the uncanny valley must be crossed.

[wAnxTa]

Nope. CryEngine is even better imo.

[Harelgur]

Cryengine 3 is a dumbed down joke for consoles.
Unreal 4 is playable CGI.

[NastyLeftHook0]

i want to see square enix engine, it kills both.

[joab777]

How about the new square enix engine...better than both. And its good to hav variety. But there's more than just graphics. I only know about UE4 but it was made to make building a game easier, to cut down on man power and to streamline relationships between coders and artists so that less is lost in translation. Just imagine how expensive next Gen will be to create and how long it will take...unless steps are taken.

All I know is that I hope all this powers is used for something other than graphics too. I'm tired of starting a stage, looking at enemies, mowing them down and repeating until credits roll. I want more.

[GamingPerson]

In the end it's a bout the art direction.

[soundslike]

Made me think of the first UE3 games that just maxed out those bloom type effects every time...

[Bakkies]

Unreal Engine is not only a graphics engine, but a game development suit. Indie devs can easily pick it up and make a 2D game if they wish.

It's only held back by Nvidia's PhysX, since developers can't assume everyone has a Nvidia card.

CryEngine: it only seems like Crytek and some other company actually knows how to use it or the licensing must be through the roof.