[IMG]http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m105/coppykoppy/catpushingwatermelon.jpg[/IMG]
Isnt the whole point of this thread to argue?
[QUOTE=bigbadbarron;16239128][IMG]http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m105/coppykoppy/catpushingwatermelon.jpg[/IMG]
Isnt the whole point of this thread to argue?[/QUOTE]
My argument isn't invalid Jesus is on my Side, Anyway I am arguing... Source kicks CE2 and UT3's Ass, look at my other post.
[QUOTE=wingless;16239159]My argument isn't invalid Jesus is on my Side, Anyway I am arguing... Source kicks CE2 and UT3's Ass, look at my other post.[/QUOTE]
Because Half Life 2 uses it? really now
[QUOTE=wingless;16239159]My argument isn't invalid Jesus is on my Side, Anyway I am arguing... Source kicks CE2 and UT3's Ass, look at my other post.[/QUOTE]
Take your bible out of the room for a moment,
Good, as fun as source is, it really can not compair to the modern engines, just about any source game you play is the same, fps shooter, and the few and far between dont seem to be nearly as popular
[QUOTE=bigbadbarron;16239220]Take your bible out of the room for a moment,
Good, as fun as source is, it really can not compair to the modern engines, just about any source game you play is the same, fps shooter, and the few and far between dont seem to be nearly as popular[/QUOTE]
Huh? oh I don't belive in god, Jesus DID exist I never said anything about him being holy 'n' shit, that's yet to be proven. anyway STOP RUINING MY FUN!
Well, source got the best first person melee game, DMMM. But I guess that could be remade in any other engine.
[QUOTE=Shogoll;16237388]Note the soldier in the background who looks like he's recently had a dip in oil.[/QUOTE]
What? What the fuck are you talking about?
[QUOTE=abcpea;16239855]What? What the fuck are you talking about?[/QUOTE]
[URL=http://filesmelt.com/Imagehosting/#b8ef9f5ad4512d93b4ed1386338949b4.png][IMG]http://filesmelt.com/Imagehosting/pics/b8ef9f5ad4512d93b4ed1386338949b4.png[/IMG][/URL]
Clothes don't shine white hurf
[QUOTE=wingless;16239159]My argument isn't invalid Jesus is on my Side, Anyway I am arguing... Source kicks CE2 and UT3's Ass, look at my other post.[/QUOTE]
Really, think of it.
Putting your custom models to source is a fucking mess, in UT3 you just export your object as .ASE and it's done, and the flow graph material editor is sex compared to writing with notepad.
[QUOTE=Shogoll;16240063][URL=http://filesmelt.com/Imagehosting/#b8ef9f5ad4512d93b4ed1386338949b4.png][IMG]http://filesmelt.com/Imagehosting/pics/b8ef9f5ad4512d93b4ed1386338949b4.png[/IMG][/URL]
Clothes don't shine white hurf[/QUOTE]
And I think weapons don't shine like that too. (But I could be wrong, I am not a gunnut, so what do I know)
[QUOTE=abcpea;16232098]I'm sick of people saying Cryengine 2 has good physics, it does NOT have good physics, they are fucking shit, and aren't much better than those of Source. Hell, drive the jeep in HL2 then drive a humvee in Crysis, the jeep handles a LOT better, and the vehicles in UT3 handle even better still.
All that procedural tree breaking and wind is just a stupid gimmick that doesn't have anything to do with physics engines at all.
With that said, I'm also sick of people saying that Crysis doesn't have ragdoll physics, or that they freeze up or whatever. This is bullshit, you can poke ragdolls around with physics objects, the only limitation is direct player interaction.
[editline]01:06PM[/editline]
Oh wow pictures of models that aren't even in the engine yet nice work.
[editline]01:10PM[/editline]
[url]http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2008/073/944074_20080314_790screen002.jpg[/url]
Could easily be mistaken for cryengine, note the lack of extremely shiny things.[/QUOTE]
That aren't in the engine yet? What? Those are in the game retard, and that model has over 80,000 polygons.
[QUOTE=Odellus;16240616]That aren't in the engine yet? What? Those are in the game retard, and that model has over 80,000 polygons.[/QUOTE]
I don't think so, Tim.
That model looks way too high-poly to be put into a game. It looks like the model they used for the box-art (notice the similar pose) etc. Or maybe the high-poly they used in order to bake normal maps over to the low-poly model.
[QUOTE=bigbadbarron;16239030]well the multiplayer it has for the ps2 is well, against bots, so if they had servers on steam, if would be more fun?[/QUOTE]
That would require a port, and has little to nothing to do with steam...
[QUOTE=thisispain;16237931]
Crysis is only normal mapping and shaders. If you took away normal mapping and shaders, the game would probably look worse than Quake 2.[/QUOTE]
*sigh*
Idiot, go check Wiki or something.
P.S. "Take away Shaders", *facepalm* then you would stare at completely black screen.
[editline]07:24PM[/editline]
Also this.
[QUOTE=Suicide Requiem;16217485]This thread have no fucking idea what it's talking about.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Shogoll;16237388]:downs:
As for physics in CryEngine being better/worse than UE3, I can't make a fair or objective comparison considering that I don't own any UE3 games, however, I would like some proof as to why UE3's physics are so comparatively godly. I'm not going to accept that statement until you show me why.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0R9veCqr2U[/media]
On the other hand, from what I see, CryEngine's rigid body physics seem to be incredibly high fidelity compared to any other existing game engine that I know of. I've so far seen absolutely no mass physics demonstrations in UE3, nor have I seen any heavy physics dependent scenes in ANY UE3 based games, which leads me to believe that it's physics engine is inferior to that of CryEngine.
Also people, just leave Source out of this comparison, it's too fucking old, and technologically it's shit compared to either engine. The AI, the Physics, the Graphics; simply put, everything is outdated. No comparison here.
[editline]11:44AM[/editline]
Note the soldier in the background who looks like he's recently had a dip in oil.
Let's face it, UE3 just doesn't handle normal mapping under directly lighting well at all. The only reason everything doesn't look like it's made of metal in that picture is because no one apart from that soldier is in any direct light.[/QUOTE]
Whats so dumb about my statement Shogoll? Also that video isn't in real time. Anyone could do what that video did before since all he is doing is spawning thousands of boxes, taking a picture of each frame, and then making a video of it.
I think physics are better on CE2 because if you look at UE3 games, they barely have any physics besides ragdolls, I think I never saw any physical object besides ragdolls in Mirror's Edge and Gears of War.
[QUOTE=Jaehead;16248885]I think physics are better on CE2 because if you look at UE3 games, they barely have any physics besides ragdolls, I think I never saw any physical object besides ragdolls in Mirror's Edge and Gears of War.[/QUOTE]
That's if you don't have physX, but ut3 has soft bodies and cloth.
This video showcases most of the reasons that I like CE2 over UE3:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8y1ZbA6oK0&feature=related[/media]
I don't like CE2 physics much. Sure it is good in masses, but it is so undetailed, eugh.
[QUOTE=edja007;16240208]And I think weapons don't shine like that too. (But I could be wrong, I am not a gunnut, so what do I know)[/QUOTE]
Maybe not but they shine like that in Crysis so your point is moot.
[QUOTE=edja007;16249405]I don't like CE2 physics much. Sure it is good in masses, but it is so undetailed, eugh.[/QUOTE]
Undetailed? how?
[QUOTE=MisterM;16251374]Undetailed? how?[/QUOTE]
This is how:
[quote=Chunk3ym4n]Yeah Crysis's physics are terrible compared to Source, obviously they cant be accurate at this scale. Try putting a barrel on the truck and drive it. Theres absolutly no friction to the barrel and it just slides until it hits the edge of the truck in where it then spazzes out and blows up your truck if you keep on driving. Now try putting a ragdoll on the jeep in Garry's mod. It realisticly stays on the car if your driving with friction unless you crash it or do really hard turns. Theres also nothing special about the tree breaking in Crysis either. It's basically just a tree with a whole shitload of sections to detach from if you shoot it. For the better engine I would choose UE3. It just seems a lot more supported by the developers and the community and it is probably a great engine since a lot of games use it.[/quote]
I vote for source. This thread is now about source
[editline]04:14AM[/editline]
[img]http://developer.valvesoftware.com/w/images/2/23/SourceLogo.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=Chunk3ym4n;16245866]Whats so dumb about my statement Shogoll? Also that video isn't in real time. Anyone could do what that video did before since all he is doing is spawning thousands of boxes, taking a picture of each frame, and then making a video of it.[/QUOTE]
Not anyone can do what is done in that video, the point isn't the higher FPS, the point of that video is the fact that CryEngine can even handle that many objects with that level of fidelity in the first place. If you tried to stack up that many boxes in Source you'd probably run into some stupid shit like the entity limit or allocated memory limit.
Also your statement is incredibly dumb because a greater proportion of developers using the engine does not correlate at all to the quality of the engine. A lot of developers use the UE3 engine because they're scared away by rumors that it's supposedly impossible to run on new computers, and by the general ignorance of the gaming crowd, or because it has aggressive marketing and is a popular brand name. Not necessarily because it's a superior or better suited engine.
[editline]02:21AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=LoserMan255;16251721]I vote for source. This thread is now about source
[editline]04:14AM[/editline]
[img]http://developer.valvesoftware.com/w/images/2/23/SourceLogo.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
Yeah dude fuck you
[editline]02:24AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=abcpea;16251705]This is how:[/QUOTE]
Again I can't make an objective comparison since I haven't experimented with this in depth, but as far as I know Source physics aren't as good as those in CryEngine; I've had bad experiences with spazzing/black holing/over all dumb crap that happens when working with physics in Source.
Crysis has better physics on a large scale.
[QUOTE=Shogoll;16251846]but as far as I know Source physics aren't as good as those in Source; [/QUOTE]
Excuse me?
I vote for source as well. This thread is now about source.
[img]http://developer.valvesoftware.com/w/images/2/23/SourceLogo.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=Suicide Requiem;16244654]*sigh*
Idiot, go check Wiki or something.
P.S. "Take away Shaders", *facepalm* then you would stare at completely black screen.[/QUOTE]
Go learn what shaders are before you call someone an idiot.
[QUOTE=Chunk3ym4n;16252848]I vote for source as well. This thread is now about source.
[img]http://developer.valvesoftware.com/w/images/2/23/SourceLogo.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
This is a form of shitposting.
See how the topic is a discussion about Cryengine2 and UE3? Sure, you can say "I like both of these mentioned in the topic, but Source better", or something to that extent, but NOT "HURR HURR SOURCE IS BESTSTSTSTSSTER!"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
