[QUOTE=kevlar jens;16194550]It's a shame the germans came and restricted Crysis' ragdoll, because the ragdoll-physics in Far Cry was kickass.
Oh, and Cryengine looks way better than Unreal.[/QUOTE]
The German law didn't restrict their ragdolls. They did. They were scared that the game would get on the games black list if they had ragdolls moving after death.
It's still legal to buy those games, but they can't advertise, German magazines and news sites can't write about it and the shops have to keep them somewhere were nobody can see them and only hand them out if you ask for it.
You guys are stereotyping the Unreal3engine based on UT3 and GOW. There are tonnes of games which look completely different.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games#Unreal_Engine_3[/url]
Mirror's Edge for example.
[QUOTE=Askaris;16195426]Probably would have to say unreal engine 3. While CryEngine 2 looks better, unreal is far more optimised.[/QUOTE]
This is such a stupid thing to say. You're just basing this on Unreal Tournament 3 vs Crysis, which is a bollocks thing to do. Crysis was made to be a high-end PC game, UT3 was made to run well on the Xbox 360.
Stop judging engines based on games created to meet totally different criteria.
Are there any games other than Crysis that use the Cryengine 2?
There was a military sim developed by the government called Vigilance. It used the cryengine but was very similar to crysis.
[QUOTE=doggunn;16195541]Are there any games other than Crysis that use the Cryengine 2?[/QUOTE]
Non that are out, there are a few TBA games:
# Entropia Universe - signed a license agreement on July 25, 2007. Expected to be ready mid-2009
# Merchants of Brooklyn - Paleo Entertainment, Released: Mar 17, 2009.
# Lightspire: Fortunes Web - Lukewarm Media, in development
# The Day by Reloaded Studios
# Blue Mars - Avatar Reality, inc., in development
# Forged by Chaos - Panzar Studio, in development
# Vigilance (Military Training Game) - The Harrington Group, Inc. (Not for public release)
# New MMORPG - XMLGames, in development
Neither, Dunia is where it's at. But if you had to choose between the two, I'd say Unreal is better optimised and would appeal to a wider audience due to it's easiness to run, while CryEngine 2 gives far superior visuals. They both have their traits. But Unreal Engine 3 is better as a financial decision, while CryEngine 2 gives better graphics.
Again, Cryengine doesn't 'give better graphics but isn't optimized', you're thinking of Crysis.
Don't judge an entire engine based on the art direction and execution of 2 games built for different platforms, that's retarded.
[QUOTE=FPChris;16194725][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_SXc6t5iRg[/media]
Do want, but the creator never released it.
Oblivion on CryEngine2.[/QUOTE]
If I remember correctly, He was warned by bethesda that releasing it would result in criminal charges. Since it's oblivion models just ported right over and released for free.
[QUOTE=kitthehacker;16195604]Neither, Dunia is where it's at. But if you had to choose between the two, I'd say Unreal is better optimised and would appeal to a wider audience due to it's easiness to run, while CryEngine 2 gives far superior visuals. They both have their traits. But Unreal Engine 3 is better as a financial decision, while CryEngine 2 gives better graphics.[/QUOTE]
Dunia? why so?
Funny thing about Crysis, is a lot of people are interested in it because it takes or did take a lot of power to run at max, a lot of people got interested solely because it's so amazing looking, not so much for the game or story it's self.
Crysis, why does it run worse than unreal tournament? Because it's graphics on max is much better. If you would scale their graphics to same levels, I bet they would perform the same. But crysis's maps are a lot bigger than ue3's.
Unreal Engine and Source Engine always was my favorites for it's awesome optimization and great line of games.
Crysis suck ass. Game is shit and engine is pretty beautiful but horribly slow and sucks ass too
[QUOTE=Suicide Requiem;16196283]Unreal Engine and Source Engine always was my favorites for it's awesome optimization and great line of games.
Crysis suck ass. Game is shit and engine is pretty beautiful but horribly slow and sucks ass too[/QUOTE]
You have no idea.
Stop basing your facts on a that PC cannot run Crysis with it's full potential. The Cryengine2 is very well optimized, too.
How exactly does it "suck ass"?
Everyone's ripping the UT3 engine for all of the muscular people in UT3 engine games, but how many fat guys do you see running around in Crysis?
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;16193206]as in they fall down and die as ragdolls...but i guess you mean you can't move them much afterwards hmm?
[editline]01:32AM[/editline]
does ut3 even have ragdolls like that?[/QUOTE]
when they are dead they cease to ragdoll
that is what i mean. if i meant while they are dying i would have said that. but i didn't
Well I'm going to go with the Cryengine2 just because it seems a lot more flexible. Every game I've played on UE3 seems to feel a little bit like each other. When I bought Hell's Highway the view and graphics reminded me of Bioshock for some odd reason. When I played The Haunted mod it felt like I was playing a different gamemode for Gears of War almost. Also, Unreal Tournament 3 just had a whole lot less in content than UT 2004 and I think the engine might have been to blame.
I don't like UE3 because it got some strange way of rendering. Every game with UE3 has a lot in common.
It's not a clear case, but I'm personally in the Unreal camp.
There's a lot of negative bias versus Unreal because a lot of games look similar using it - but this is an ART decision, not influenced heavily by the engine at all. there are a number of games which do not necessarily follow the same art styles.
Unreal has a much better asset pipeline and is demonstrated to being considerably more flexible by the sheer volume of licensees developing software using it; from military simulations, architectural visualisations, and as prototyping tools for use in film - then the usual fair of games; racing games, shooters and adventure games predominantly. It also scales down far better than CryEngine, and will run on a broader set of machines. It's also multi-platform almost out-of-the-box, enabling development for three out of four major platforms with considerably less difficulty (PC, Ps3, 360) - although there are naturally more considerations to take into account with a multiplatform title. Unreal also has demonstrably superior networking versus CryEngine thus far.
CryEngine however, does have it's pros over Unreal. It has a very refined terrain engine and foliage renderer which allows it to produce dense outdoor scenes in a manner that Unreal presently cannot, and it does seem to have much more efficient dynamic lighting and shadowing.
Merchants of Brooklyn also really showed how far you could stretch the CryEngine2 away from the original game. Then also Aion is made with CryEngine1 so I'm guessing one using CryEngine2 is possible in the future as more powerful hardware becomes more mainstream, and yes I know Huxley was made using the UE3 engine but from what I heard it was pretty much a Fury clone with guns, and if you haven't played that it really isn't much of an MMO at all :D
[QUOTE=Suicide Requiem;16196283]Unreal Engine and Source Engine always was my favorites for it's awesome optimization and great line of games.
Crysis suck ass. Game is shit and engine is pretty beautiful but horribly slow and sucks ass too[/QUOTE]
Why.
[QUOTE=rosthouse;16193186]They still are, but I think they are planing to move out to Poland.
UT3 is better optimized and runs on nearly every system out there (including the consoles) while Cryengine is just :wow:
And, in just about every UT3-engine game, everyone looks like they're on fucking steroids.[/QUOTE]
a lot of the team is now in the US, actually
[QUOTE=MisterM;16197795]Why.[/QUOTE]
Because he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Visually Cryengine 2 (it should be used for movies actually) for actual game purposes UT3.
[QUOTE=wingless;16198087]Visually Cryengine 2 (it should be used for movies actually) for actual game purposes UT3.[/QUOTE]
I'd actually use Unreal for movies - the built in cut-scene editor (Matinee) is a bit more heavyweight versus Crysis equivalent. Also, with Unreal, you [i]can[/i] enable some significantly better dynamic shadowing and lighting, but it's very expensive and not too well optimised. It looks better than Crysis lighting - and is more accurate, but obviously, it's quite slow, especially when multiple dynamic lights are involved. Heck, UE3's lights can have shaders attached to them. That's just cool.
I say Cryengine 2 because UE3 has texture pop, the most annoying graphical glitch EVER.
It's not a glitch, it's an optional feature. It reduces loading times - and in a multiplayer game that is important, so you spend less time waiting for all 32 players to load up and can jump into and start playing a proper game right away. I'll happily trade a bit of texture popping over a lot of extra waiting any time.
well, given that it's supposed to be off in games like Bioshock, and it's there anyway, i'd say it's a broken feature. and thus a glitch.
[editline]08:47AM[/editline]
it's there in GoW and UT3 when you're just playing by yourself. be it campaign or literally on an MP map all by yourself
[editline]08:49AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=kitthehacker;16195604]Neither, Dunia is where it's at. But if you had to choose between the two, I'd say Unreal is better optimised and would appeal to a wider audience due to it's easiness to run, while CryEngine 2 gives far superior visuals. They both have their traits. But Unreal Engine 3 is better as a financial decision, while CryEngine 2 gives better graphics.[/QUOTE]
dunia's awful
[QUOTE=M_B;16198063]a lot of the team is now in the US, actually[/QUOTE]
I thought their main branch was still in Germany, and they have a branch in Hungary which did Warhead, and they have Crytek UK which was Free Radical.
I don't like the unreal engine. It feels clunky.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
