I kinda think this clearly proves how much better CryEngine look than Unreal Engine 3. Even really big developers still, after all those years, struggles to get things right in Unreal Engine 3. But a "random" developer can obviously make a quite nice looking game on their first attempt with CryEngine 3 - even though it hasn't been out on the market even half so long.
I really wish Unreal Engine didn't got the negative impact on this generation as it did...
To campare to a Unreal Engine powered FPS with not to different outdoor environments (with the difference that UE3 have developed during several years and should be more optimized and better to get nice results with).
Could be true, have no clue. But that's not a good excuse for Unreal Engine 3 to have been causing so much trouble over the years it's been in use. I have lost the count on games suffering of framerate issues, odd looking shadows, horribly uneven textures (where some looks almost unnaturally sharp while others reminds you of something from the PS2 era), poor hazy-looking post processing effects, sloppy cutscenes, and texture pop-in. I just can't believe that such a well known and often used engine can suffer from so many problems and not getting the critic it should..
UE3 is not a bad engine, it's old what do you expect ? It came out before this gen of consoles and no matter how many times they update it it's still old in it's core, but it runs uber fast if used right and it can look pretty damn amazing also (look at gears 3). But yes Cryengine 3 looks better.
Unreal Engine is an constantly developing platform and the truth is that the latest version doesn't have very much in common with the one fuelled the first generation of UE3 games (Gears 1, Vegas, Army of Two, Blacksite and so on). So I don't really buy that argument.
And again, that's not an excuse for all the ISSUES the engine have been causing - is it? If it only looked a bit dated, that's one thing - but its fram from the only problem really.
Commented on 2012-03-22 19:29:56 In reply to nepton
Posted by King_Grunt
What issues exactly are you talking about ?
Posted by nepton
I have lost the count on games suffering of framerate issues, odd looking shadows, horribly uneven textures (where some looks almost unnaturally sharp while others reminds you of something from the PS2 era), poor hazy-looking post processing effects, sloppy cutscenes, and texture pop-in.
Arkham Asylum and City used it, so does Bioshock (including Infinite)? Heavily modified, sure, but the fundamentals of it are based on UE3. An engine is always what you make of it; it won't work wonders for you.
Also, it's easy to look negatively towards an engine which is used by several games compared to one which has only been used by a couple (with one of them being the founding company). A lot easier to pick out the bad examples from a big bunch then from, you know, a small one.
Commented on 2012-03-22 20:32:00 In reply to blmbox
Sure, but the fact still remains that the studio behind Sniper: Ghost Warrior is your kind of avarage developer (the original was pretty mediocre and didn't really impress alot visually either, which was based on Techlands graphics engine). And yet it, from what we've seen so far, definitely looks better than your avarage Unreal Engine 3-powered game - even though Epics technology have had the time to develop and improve over the years and probably also is easier to work with (from what I've heard). So in that case UE3 obviously has some advantages, and still Ghost Warrior 2 seems better looking visually at
But we're yet to see it in motion when we play it for ourselves though - of course... So I should not say too much regarding this particular game. But you get my point, hopefully.
No, BioShock weren't built on Unreal Engine 3. It was actually powered by an modified version of Unreal Engine 2.5 - which is originally built on much older tech, obviously. Still it managed to look better graphically than pretty much any Unreal Engine 3 game at the time, which is rather ironic.
For Infinite they've upgraded to Unreal Engine 3 but modified it alot.
Commented on 2012-03-22 20:33:25 In reply to nepton
Posted by nepton
No, BioShock weren't built on Unreal Engine 3. It was actually powered by an modified version of Unreal Engine 2.5 - which is originally built on much older tech, obviously. Still it managed to look better graphically than pretty much any Unreal Engine 3 game at the time, which is rather ironic.
Driftwood
Download is now functional again on Gamersyde. Sorry for the past 53 days or so when it wasn't. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
Another (French) livestream today at 2:30 CEST but you're welcome to drop by and speak English. I will gladly answer in English when I get a chance to catch a breath. :) (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
GSY is getting some nice content at 3 pm CEST with our July podcast and some videos of the Deus Ex Mankind Divided preview build. :) (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
For once we'll be live at 4:30 pm CEST. Blim should not even be tired! (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
More Quantum Break coverage coming in a few hours, 9:00 a.m CEST. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
We'll have a full review up for Firewatch at 7 pm CET. Videos will only be tomorrow though. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
Tonight's livestream will be at 9:15 GMT+1, not GMT+2 as first stated. (> 3 Months ago)
Patreon
All comments (18)
Commented on 2012-03-22 16:17:22
Commented on 2012-03-22 17:09:12
Commented on 2012-03-22 17:16:12
Commented on 2012-03-22 17:40:01Use this engine for a space sci fi game like Halo or Mass Effect, would be awesome.
Commented on 2012-03-22 18:39:45I really wish Unreal Engine didn't got the negative impact on this generation as it did...
Commented on 2012-03-22 18:44:15
Commented on 2012-03-22 18:54:50http://image.jeuxvideo.com/images/x3/s/e/section-8...
http://image.jeuxvideo.com/images/x3/s/e/section-8...
And it usually looks even worse in motion with all jaggies and issues the engine got..
Commented on 2012-03-22 19:02:14
Commented on 2012-03-22 19:05:12
Commented on 2012-03-22 19:08:09
Commented on 2012-03-22 19:12:42And again, that's not an excuse for all the ISSUES the engine have been causing - is it? If it only looked a bit dated, that's one thing - but its fram from the only problem really.
Commented on 2012-03-22 19:19:03
Commented on 2012-03-22 19:29:56 In reply to nepton
Commented on 2012-03-22 19:43:25Blacksite Area 51 (just looks horrible overall):
http://image.jeuxvideo.com/images/x3/b/l/blsix3045...
The Last Remnant (poor outdoor environments):
http://image.jeuxvideo.com/images/x3/t/l/tlrtx3333...
Enslaved (horrible textures):
http://www.gamereactor.se/media/58/enslaved_225853...
Gears of War (poor-looking terrain, and this is even made by the engine creator):
http://image.jeuxvideo.com/images/x3/g/o/gow2x3221...
Etc, etc. The list can go on forever.
Commented on 2012-03-22 19:57:54
Commented on 2012-03-22 20:02:21Also, it's easy to look negatively towards an engine which is used by several games compared to one which has only been used by a couple (with one of them being the founding company). A lot easier to pick out the bad examples from a big bunch then from, you know, a small one.
Commented on 2012-03-22 20:32:00 In reply to blmboxBut we're yet to see it in motion when we play it for ourselves though - of course... So I should not say too much regarding this particular game. But you get my point, hopefully.
Ghost Warrior 2:
http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/...
http://media2.shopto.net/screenshots/PS3SN03/2.jpg
For Infinite they've upgraded to Unreal Engine 3 but modified it alot.
Commented on 2012-03-22 20:33:25 In reply to nepton