With next gen gaming just around the corner, we at TheGameHeadz.com take a look at two of the more high profile game engines in the gaming industry and see how they compare as they both make their move into this new lucrative gaming market.
cryengine 3 has better prospects
But teh Unrealz Engine... lol!
Idc whether Frostbite and CryEngine can pump out better graphics. Unreal is INFINITELY more friendly to work with and get assets in.
I guess you work for EA then? Frostbite is in EA only, that it was bad to work with was one of their reasons for a major rewrite to FB2. Every report I heard (inluding Swedish) says that it is easy to work with... Why will DICE do Mirrors Edge 2 with Frostbite and not Unreal? (Don't say licensing cost, the are almost irrelevant for AAA games)
Ok so first, I personally do not work at EA however I do have a buddy (for however much that's worth on the internet) who is a modeler on Command & Conquer, and from what I've played around with Frostbite it most assuredly is not by any means bad, I actually like some aspects of it better than UDK. So I guess the word "INFINETLY" was a bit of an overstatement cause I had just finished some particle effects pretty easily in UDK. Kinda that post work hell-yeah moment. My big gripe about Frostbite is how much radically different controls than Maya, which IMO is a bad thing because almost all major programs use Mayas control scheme and it's a bit weird to get used to anything different. It's like playing an FPS where the A button shoots, and SELECT reloads. Again not bad, just a bit unnatural at first. And why will DICE use it for Mirrors Edge 2? Well idk... maybe cause they built the damn engine?!?! Idc how weird an engine is to make stuff for, having the ability to walk down the hall and ask for root engine changes to solve a problem has got to be the greatest thing EVER.
CryEngine 3 and Frostbite 3 oh boy that's a lot of eye candy! Both are FANTASTIC Engines and will WOW us for years to come. Starcitizen CryEngine 3 will blow minds and Command and Conquer on the Frosbite 3 will take destruction to new heights. but right now I'll take Real Virtuality 4! Bells, Whistles, Candy, Ballistics, real world physics, and HUGE game worlds with super High detail. When you can clearly see the Thread inside button holes well then you know you got Hi Res Detail
Unreal engine 4 and the infiltrator demo look pretty as well.
meh who cares about engines it's the devs effort that matter plus these engines get blown out of the water by many other engines especially the japanese engines,fox engine,panta rhei,and luminous engine
I totally agree.
it ALLLLLLL HAPPEN IN MAYA
yea engines arent a big deal lol i make lvls n charachters n it really depends on how good ur pictures r for textures n poly usage.engines r just a space n do lighting.
Engines aren't always representative of a level of graphics. Even as graphics greatly improve the same engine can still be used. God of War 3 uses the same engine as the original SOCOM. Engines are very malleable and can do many different things especially with good tools. Comparing those two by the graphics of those games isn't really saying much. With either engine you could easily get the same looks from the other game. The lack of colors in BF4 is a stylistic choice. BF3 has some very nice colors but they added so many unneeded effects it ended up looking bland. DICE blued tha hell out of it and added dumb flare effects. There is a PC mod that removes this and makes the game look much nicer. More than anything engines are about all the little things you don't notice and some technical details that you will never know. For the most part the most noticeable differences would be the physics.
Umm why are they using an older game like Crysis 2 with the older CryEngine to compare that engine to BF4 which hasn't come out yet and is using a new Frostbite 3 engine. I also think the article is wrong because I thought Crysis 2 used CryEngine 2 and Crysis 3 used CryEngine 3. So why why are they using Crysis 2 instead of Crysis 3 to compare? Anyways, it seems kinda meaningless to me. Maybe they should be comparing the graphics in Ryse to BF4 instead of comparing an older shooter to an unreleased shooter.
I did not use Ryse as graphically I still felt the game was inferior, and wanted to focus more on a title that had more critical acclaim for its graphical capabilities. Plus I also wanted to use a game that was actually released, as it seemed a suitable comparison in graphical styles and the many other aspects that come with a game engine. Simply comparing two unreleased games didn't feel like it would hold enough practical substance. Crysis 2 did use the CryEngine 3 as did Crysis 3, it was only the first Crysis game that used CryEngine 2.
Fair enough, but wouldn't Crysis 3 vs BF4 in this case been more fair. I thought Crysis 3 was graphically superior to 2 and was a newer use of the CryEngine 3 and its underlining systems, which would seem like a better compare. Heck they even had to patch in DirectX 11 after launch of Crysis 2. Regardless of any criticism I did enjoy reading the article.
Crysis 3 looks better then everything shown to date. Why didn't you compare it to BF4 ? Crysis 2 can look amazing with Maldo 4, but still not at the level of Crysis 3.
I prefer Dat Phanta Rhi engine.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.