PC Games Online compares the graphics of Epic's Unreal Engine 3 with Crytek's CryEngine 2.
All images are included here at N4G in their original size.
cry engine all the way. even if they put the unrealtournament prerender pics next to crysis gameplay pics.
on robert horry and david stern screwing up your season. on topic, i don't care which looks better as long as they are used to create good games.
The Cryengine2 was soooooooo powerful, it made me cry that crysis is going to be a pc exclusive. On those faces, I honestly thought they were real. Every little dip and divet in their faces COMPLETELY accurately portrayed. Bags under their eyes. Lips look realistic. If the heads were attached to a body, I wouldn't have a clue. I don't care if the Cryengine2 needs a mega-powerful machine, [email protected]
they look pretty much the same to me. certainly not different enough to be able to tell when you have bullets flying over your head.
Are you on crack???
Dude, the cryengine2 obviously has a HUGE advantage. Epic and Midway would say it themselves that it trounces their Unreal Engine 3...
As much as I know UTIII will be the better game...Crysis will still have UTIII in graphics. It's really not a fair comparison...
It's like Farcry against Half-life 2. Farcry definitely had the graphics...but Half-life had the physics...
Know what I mean?
are there any other games in development with the crytek engine
hopefully on consoles cos i don't think my pc will be able to cut it
What? Are you serious? PC is already much more powerful than consoles. The Consoles are the ones you should be worring about. The engine is bound to put a strain on the consoles. Most Mid-high end Dual or Quad core Computers should run the game perfectly fine.
Crytek's engine will be on the consoles next year with FarCry 2 or something they are working on for the consoles and PC. Crysis and the PC version of their new project will be superior graphically though to the console games since it sports DirectX 10.
I think he really means that he doesn't have a 1 or 2 thousand dollar computer that sports dual or quad core cpu's and directx10 cards which are still pretty expensive. I agree that computers are more powerful, they always will be but it would be nice to see if the engine can make the transformation that it would need to in order to hit 60 fps on the PS3 or the 360.
The xbox 360 is tri-core running at 3.2 GHz. The PS3 has 1 main and 7 SPE's (synergistic processing elements)(which do all the computing) all running at 3.2 GHz. Even if you have the best top notch processor, that's quad-core running at 3.2 GHz each, that's still just a bit more powerful than the 360 and not as powerful as the PS3.
PS3 has 256 MB of ram for the cpu and 256 MB for the gpu. 360 has 512 MB of ram shared, which comes out to 256 MB each when divided by two (for the two processors). Yes, PC's have far more ram, but for gaming, the data is streamed from the disc, then stored for a tiny bit, then streamed to the cpu, then wherever it's destined. Ram is great for running multiple programs, and I'm sure PC's have figured out how to use it to their advantage for gaming, but it's not a deal maker/breaker.
Also, do you really believe that a machine, designed for multiple things, is going to do games as well as a machine designed specifically for games? Consoles are used for games. The PS3's web browser sucks so bad, but the games (still waiting for Lair) are awesome. I can't vouch for the 360 yet, but it's also a game's machine, so it's going to play games a hell of a lot better than it trolls the interwebs. My PC is decent and pretty recent, and I play WoW on it, and surf the web on it, and tell theMart how much of a moron he is on it, and watch videos on it, but when it comes to hardcore games, I do that on my console.
Hardcore PC's that can play games like crysis, cost a lot of money. I'm not willing to drop 1-2 grand every 2 years to play the latest and greatest PC games. I can't roll in money, so I like the deals consoles get me of a $400-$600 investment that pays off over the lifespan (10 years my ass, more like 5 or 6 probably).
and i'm spent.
I'll take the CryEngine 2 please!
CryEngine 2 looks better. The question is if it let you do as many things as the UE does. Also, can the CryEngine 2 make it easy to make as many game genre as the UE can? That's the thing about game engines... pretty does not mean better. UE is a more matured engine and probably more featured. Let's hope CryEngine 2 can reach the same level of maturity as the UE. I think Epic needs competitors.
Looks great. Cry seems to produce much more realistic looking people/environments though. Either way, games produced under either engine is going to kick some serious booty.
The Cry Engine wins out.
yeh the CryEngine looks better.
hey deadlyfire please dont tell me your that much of an idiot?? He was talking about his PC not be able to handel this game, thus wanting it for a system because everything runs the same and there is no needed uprades.. Holy crap man dont get your panies in a twist...
who would've thunk it.
It's hard to begin describing how much better the CryEngine is. Depth of field, motion blur, skin texturing. The list goes on. BTW, CryTek (the game) is not coming to any consoles. CryEngine (the engine) will support 360, PS3. Don't expect anything to appear on the consoles look as good as CryTek though. About the platform maturity issue mentioned early, there's a video floating around the net with footage of the CryEngine editor... HOLY CRAP!!! It is amazing! Sorry, I don't have the link handy. Maybe somebody else knows what I'm talking about and can post it.
I don't think it is fair to compare screens from a game that is out already for almost 6 months and a game that is over a year away. You can worship Crytek all you want but by the time it is release there will be better looking games out at the same time. Call me stupid but what is the difference between kiera knightly and paris hilton, nothing i will still hump both them..get it
You hump Paris and risk getting Hilton size herpes whereever she touched you...Keira is a different story. Both have no curves to speak of however. Wtf would you hump anyone you didn't know? Higher standards and morals are needed. Your analogy is correct if a bit lewd...
CryEngine looks better, and is more powerful (HUGE maps, high view distance, destruction overdrive, WYSIWYP...) on paper. But fact is that UE3 is used in a lot of games for the 360. And we will just have to see if developers are going to use the CryEngine2.
The first screenshot is two ancient screenshots of both games. The third is comparing a tech demonstration for Speed Tree in UE3 (Not even UT3) while the Crysis shot is some of the most final work they have (Except it's coming from the DX9 trailer versus the newer DX10 one). Same with the last one. The UT3 screenshot is from August 2005, that gun model hasn't even been used in UT3 for ages. Yet the Crysis screenshot is DX10 and only a few months old.
"...how much better the CryEngine is. Depth of field, motion blur, skin texturing. The list goes on..."
Those are all possible in Unreal Engine 2.x and definitely in UE3. Two cores, quad cores, eight cores, UE3 supports it. The only CERTAIN advantage Crysis has right now is the fact it has full blown support and effects from DirectX10. At this point in time Unreal Tournament 3 only recently announced it's support for it, wont add any detail whether or not the game is going to be actually prettier because of it.
..."CryEngine editor... HOLY CRAP!!! It is amazing!"
The Unreal games have been famous for their customization and editors for over 8 years now. The new editor is just more noob friendly than ever for map building.
"HUGE maps, high view distance, destruction overdrive,"
If you've ever played Onslaught in Unreal Tournament 2004 you'd know that even the old engine is capable of huge levels. Epic is promising levels many many times larger than what we've seen already using streaming loading, which you already glimpse of in Gears of War.
No I'm not an Epic fanboy, I'm looking forward to Crysis almost just as much as UT3.
how about compare which engine has more dev support hmmmnn
I honestly think that Unreal's engine is alot more refined. Not only do their models look nice, but they're texturing in the world is alot sharper as well.
Of course CryEngine looks amazing, but I'm not going to shell out $400 for a new video card. I'd rather have Unreal Engine which looks great on a console system.
The Unreal3 looks better for the character, lighting and just plain sci-fi look but the Cryengine looks better for outdoor environments with its lush greens and fantastic water effects. Not one of these engines will compare to the Alan Wake engine when its done especially on physics, weather, lighting and outdoor environments (except plant life Cryengine is got that cold right now) Both have there advantages though, but the true test is how easily they can develop games. Cryengine won’t matter to much if the only game you can find it working on is Crysis.
I mean they both have a screen or two that's better than the other so there quite equal I'd say, but the true question would be, is which handle physics better, better AI....
I noticed that the CryEngine has really good grass...
I would say the Cry Engine 2 for sure.
why didnt they use the pics from Turok for comparison (made using UE3)? The forests in those pics look a lot better than the ones used for UE3 example in this comparison...
screw Cryengine Unreal PWNS
And why compare screenshots? That really has nothing to do with how the engine can perform but more so on how good textures, bump maps, etc were done...
But whatever. I cant wait to play both Crysis on my PC and Unreal Tournament on either my PC or Ps3 (with keyboard and mouse how can i resist)
crysis has a easy win
both engines are impressive to say the least!
Both are nice but I want to cry.
Both look like crap
whatever happen to Galaga's Engine??
lol "both look like crap" nice comment, but i dont agree with you
Any engine which provides environmental destruction, bump mapped surfaces, day night cycle, dynamic weather system. I've been seeing these flat textured surfaces ever since i bought 3dfx's Voodoo monster 3d card, back in the 90s. Comeon 98% of the games still dont have any kind of 3d textures and bump mapped surfaces. Its high time with such advancement in technology that we start seeing these and more features built into games.
Each next-gen iteration I sit infront of my PC watching for volumetric
enhancements done on assets, they are really very few. Most of the
things are just 'paint/texture' on flat surfaces.
We all know that:
-The advancement is only when something reaches out more for the
realization of 'Virtual Reality', rather than flat screen mirage.
-For this we need physics based programming to capture the realistic
-For that a game asset should be very close to its real-world
counterpart in orientation and shape.......so an edge should be an
edge, a bump should be a bump physically, in polygons and not just
painted on a texture and applied on a flat surface.
-Only after this the physics model will be more realistic, as how does
water would fall down a wall realistically, complete with its fluid
mechanics if that wall is just a flat texture ? And how would a car
shake on a road physicall if the road is just a flat texture ? so we
do need advancement in "mesh" and not the "texture-on-the-mesh" ; !!!
Games like MotorStorm, Lair and Drake's Fortune are basically the only
ones out there that are bringing out the 'mesh' level advancement, but
most of the devs are just taking short-cuts with usage of Unreal-Engine
C'mon Gameswank.com or Pcgames.de, we all want to see a comparison
of the two, and we all already know which one is gonna beat the other's
Then why compare if you're so sure?
graphics aren't everything
I think they are comparable to one another neither one winning, Because I certainly know that from what i've read UE3 was built for adapation to hardware, Cry wasn't, you pretty much need a monster to run games built on the cry engine.
Cry engine looks more realistic. But thats what you get for blowing the extra cash on a hispec pc with a tasty graphics card.
I used to have a hispec pc 3 years ago, now its only good for writing e-mails and playing World of Warcraft.
Cryengine for me having seen Crysis first hand.
Damn your lucky. Wish my PC could handle that game.
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.