The GrandFather Unreal Engine vs CryEngine 3 Teen!

VG247 Forum » The VG247 forum

The GrandFather Unreal Engine vs CryEngine 3 Teen!

(12 posts)

Started 2 years ago by frostquake
Latest reply from spiderLAW

frostquake
Moderator

Ok, When Games start up and say, "Powered by the Unreal Engine" it used to carry weight with me, but that seems like decades ago.

I started off by playing the Crysis 2 MP Demo on my 360. The game looks amazingly gorgeous and during game play there was no tearing, the graphics were crisp and bright, there were no jaggies, and frame-rate never got sluggish or had a hiccup and remained smooth through the whole game-play, and the Environment and Characters just Popped out at you. For the 360, which in its self is a Grand Father, I was amazed how well the game looked, played, and handled.

Then I moved on to BulletStorm. Though I enjoyed the Style and Gameplay of the game itself, Wow was I disappointed in how washed out the colors were, on the verge of Xbox 1, and how Flat the Graphics were. Everything Seemed Flat and Dull! There were a few frame-rate Hiccups and some tearing.

I was left wishing BulletStorm was using the CryEngine 3, instead of the Unreal Engine. Until something better comes along, I think the Unreal Engine should be put out to pasture, and CryEngine 3 should be the new standard. I know they constantly Update and Tweak the Unreal Engine, but until we see a totally new Unreal Engine, Maybe Unreal Extreme Engine, games touting the CryEngine 3 will get my attention.

I am sure the Unreal Engine is probably quite a bit cheaper to license than the CryEngine 3, but developers really need to start looking at it, instead of rinse and repeating the Unreal Engine!

http://mycryengine.com/?conid=43
http://mycryengine.com/index.php?conid=2

Posted 2 years ago #
Gadzooks!
Member

Personally I found almost the complete opposite.

Crysis I thought looked nice enough, seemed to have a stable framerate, etc, etc, but I thought it basically looked like COD. There were tonnes of jaggies and I really didnt see any characters 'popping out' at me, just some bland identikit maps and environments with bland identikit military types stoating about on them.

That's not to say its a bad engine, it seems adequate. I just dont see any particular improvement over UE or the COD engine.

Bulletstorm on the other hand, looks wonderful IMO. The late-afternoon-y lighting combined with the distinctive chunky environments look great.

I didnt notice any slowdown or tearing either. Maybe because I was having too much fun.

Unreal still powers some of my favourite games so I'm in no hurry to see it go. Batman, ME2, Gears, Bulletstorm. All awesome looking games. Cryengine has a lot to prove, and so far I havent seen anything special from it.

Posted 2 years ago #
freedoms_stain
Moderator

The Unreal Development Kit is actually free to use, anyone can right now download the UDK and start building a game (assuming they have the ability) without paying Epic a penny. You only start paying Epic if you actually release a product for profit. This means smaller or indie developers can really save on development costs as they're not paying license fees to produce a game which might never see the light of day or which may not be particularly successful.

IMO that's a big feature in UE3's favour.

And I actually thought the Crysis 2 beta was entirely underwhelming in the visuals department.

Posted 2 years ago #
xino
Member

Unreal Engine is old and outdate but I'm dead surprise that devs could still pull off graphic graphics with the engine O_o

Cryengine is the future man, much better and easier! But the price is expensive that is why devs are investing in Unreal Engine 3.

I want more devs to use Cryengine man :(

Posted 2 years ago #
Callum
Member

Don't forget documentation and customisation. People that have been using Unreal with have thousands of hours of re-usable unreal script at their disposal, and the team will be highly experienced with the engine and very productive. Learning a new engine inside out could take years.

Also, I think a lot of places still teach Unreal as a lesson, especially design orientated courses.

But I get what you mean, it shouldn't be the GOTO engine just because it's easier to use. It should be about what engine will allow you to make the best game. Unfortunately, money is a highly important consideration.

Posted 2 years ago #
frostquake
Moderator

@Callum

Yeah, I totally get what you are saying! Several people I know, their firm is using the Unreal Engine, because they have 1000's of man hours invested in code, and as you said it is very, VERY familiar to them.

I went back and played both games, and I still think Crysis 2 looks better. I would say, that it is the Xbox 360 getting long in the tooth, but Crysis 2 looked smoother in character models, not the jerky, triangles you get on the Character models in BulletStorm, also the Collision Detection was better in Crysis 2 then BulletStorm. In BulletStorm, I was able to run through a Piece of Rock. Okay, also, BulletStorm, is a Demo, and a old Demo, in Industry Standards.

I will be getting Both, and I love the Leaderboard with Friends on BulletStorm, Waiting for OlderGamer to jump on the Leaderboard and put us all to shame, like he did us on Pinball FX 2.

Posted 2 years ago #
bpcgos
Member

why no one ever mention about X-ray engine (STALKER series), there is so much other engine that will be able to compete with cry or unreal.I hate unreal because its "over bloom and over shiny".While Cry (especially 2) was resource eater.

From its accessibility, X ray are very easy to mod, so im sure a lot of people familiar with it. It even able

But, I think we talk about console,right? sorry for that!

Posted 2 years ago #
spiderLAW
Member

Once Valve releases Source2 engine or whatever their next egine will be called, everything else can eat shit.
Valve will once again bring Superior Graphics to all PC gamers without being such a resource hungry bastard like Unreal, Cry, and Xray (Cry being the worst of course while the others are decent)

Posted 2 years ago #
Erthazus
Member

@spiderLAW, i disagree entirely.

Compared to Unreal and Cryengine, Source engine is not developer friendly at all. It's actually a disaster to program for. thats why you see not a lot of games from that engine considering how much effort they did with Source.

Best engines are always going to be ID tech, Cryengine and Unreal.

Posted 2 years ago #
spiderLAW
Member

ERTH
i disagree

I dont care if other developers can use it or not.
all I care is what Valve can make with it.
Hal-Life2, EP1, EP2, Team Fortress 2, Portal, Portal2, Left4Dead, Left4Dead2 all use the Source engine and are all among the best games this gen...Half-Life 2 being the most amazing FPS this gen.

When Half-Life 3 comes out, nothing else will matter. Then whatever Valve makes using the Source2 engine will surely be great as well. Counter Strike 2 maybe???

Posted 2 years ago #
Erthazus
Member

But they are amazing not because of graphics.

Half-Life 2 looked fantastic and it was graphically in some parts at it's time better then Doom 3, but everything else look good not because of the engine, but because of the Valve level designers.

Source is old, after Counter-Trike: Source it's OK engine.

You can make amazing game on any engine, but better engine better possibilities ofc.

Posted 2 years ago #
spiderLAW
Member

in 2004 the source Engine was THEE best engine out in terms of everything. Not to mention that Source and Valve were the first to utilize HAVOK and is still the best at using it. Graphics were amazing and not just because the designers were great at making an immersive map and detailed characters. Source was an amazing engine and has kept up for quite some time. It was a last gen enigne that has kept up and out performed countless "current gen" engines. Look at what they did with Lost Coast..its still beautiful.

In terms of accessibility and opportunities for other developers...yes there are better engines.

Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.