Widescreen Gaming Forum

CryTek's new CryENGINE 3 is catching lots of buzz. It appears to be far more advanced than CryENGINE 2 in efficiency. I decided to download the tech demo to view it in full HD vs the small viewer I first saw it on. It looks pretty decent.

http://www.fileplanet.com/197606/190000/fileinfo/CryEngine-3-Trailer

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/03/23/gdc09-crytek-announces-cryengine-3/

Just because Crytek has a time machine and steals computers from the future to display their engines doesn't mean I have to care.

:o

I think the outside areas still look the same, and the towns they show in the video... I think UT3 looks better.

This engine is basically CryEngine2 ported to work on consoles, with a few optimizations chucked in. No AA and better rendering logic on the shadows I believe I read.
I mean, it still looks awesome, but no more awesome, and possibly even less so, than CryEngine2. Just runs a bit better.

I'm always bitter when anything gets made for consoles though, rather than just for PC goodness! :twisted:

Just runs a bit better.

I would hardly call 800 vs 150 Van-Dammes a second "a bit" better, more like WAY faster. That level of optimization with the graphic quality they're showing is not easy to pull off.

[quote]Just runs a bit better.

I would hardly call 800 vs 150 Van-Dammes a second "a bit" better, more like WAY faster. That level of optimization with the graphic quality they're showing is not easy to pull off.

Thats alot of Van Dammes.

A direct comparison of areas in the video to the same areas in Crysis on PC shows a massive downgrade in detail and quality, but if it makes Cryengine 2 work on consoles then hey, more power to them.

As long as we get the higher quality offered anyway.

[quote][quote]Just runs a bit better.

I would hardly call 800 vs 150 Van-Dammes a second "a bit" better, more like WAY faster. That level of optimization with the graphic quality they're showing is not easy to pull off.

Thats alot of Van Dammes.

Haha, wtf, Van Dammes?! Actually I don't want to know what it means, the vision in my head is way better.

I had no idea Van Dammes are quantifiable? Scary thought...

Another DL source for those that hate waiting in line. Stinkin' Fileplanet.

http://www.gameupdates.org/details.php?id=3431


Well after watching it, i'm none too impressed. Looks pretty much the same to me. But i guess if they can get that one consoles, then good for them, i guess. But i sure noticed some bad glitches and innaccurate shading in that demo. All-in-all, a pretty lame demo.

Already I'm having visions of a dumb-down versions of cross-platform games that cheat us PC nerds of a better product. Being pulled down by console-itis is affecting us more and more :(

And a SMG that fires rockets? Spiffy!

A direct comparison of areas in the video to the same areas in Crysis on PC shows a massive downgrade in detail and quality...

"Direct comparison"? How tell me can you even manage anything close to a direct comparison when all you have to go on from a CryENGINE3 perspective is a compressed 57MB video?

Horrible textures.

[quote][quote][quote]Just runs a bit better.

I would hardly call 800 vs 150 Van-Dammes a second "a bit" better, more like WAY faster. That level of optimization with the graphic quality they're showing is not easy to pull off.

Thats alot of Van Dammes.

Haha, wtf, Van Dammes?! Actually I don't want to know what it means, the vision in my head is way better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyMBwEM4N1o

[quote]A direct comparison of areas in the video to the same areas in Crysis on PC shows a massive downgrade in detail and quality...

"Direct comparison"? How tell me can you even manage anything close to a direct comparison when all you have to go on from a CryENGINE3 perspective is a compressed 57MB video?

The same areas show geometry taken away, as well os LOD that is altered to contain less detail, and, while I agree hard to tell in that video, the textures seem much, much worse.

Here's a comparison someone at nvnews made: http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1965953&postcount=15

Obviously very gimped.

That said, I am not using this as a doom and gloom complaint. As I understand it, the point of CE3 is to be very scalable for all platforms, PC, current consoles and future consoles. If that is so, one would assume this video is to show it running on a current 360, but on PC one could make it look like the original Crysis, or better considering it is also for future consoles.

The same areas show geometry taken away, as well os LOD that is altered to contain less detail, and, while I agree hard to tell in that video, the textures seem much, much worse.

Seriously, I take any claimed comparison attempts with a very large grain of salt. As I said, this is merely a video that has undergone quite a bit of compression to be shown on the net. Yet here you have all these skeptics jumping out of the woodwork saying how much worse it looks already. It's nothing but a bit of an ad for those that have longed for the game to come to console.

I have no doubts they will be developing Crysis 2 on PC and saving the original high res files for various levels of compression on everything from the 360 to high end PCs. I think a lot of this pessimism is really more complaining about ended patch support on Crysis in disguise.

Did you read what I wrote at all? Really?

inb4 flame war

Thats alot of Van Dammes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyMBwEM4N1o

I expected this to be a video of the cryengine thing , i was... surprised...

[quote][quote][quote][quote]Just runs a bit better.

I would hardly call 800 vs 150 Van-Dammes a second "a bit" better, more like WAY faster. That level of optimization with the graphic quality they're showing is not easy to pull off.

Thats alot of Van Dammes.

Haha, wtf, Van Dammes?! Actually I don't want to know what it means, the vision in my head is way better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyMBwEM4N1o


wat.

Did you read what I wrote at all? Really?

Of course I did, including the part I didn't quote. I commented on the first part only for two reasons. A) This thread is already being ravaged by nay sayers before there's even any credible proof of how Crysis 2 PC will compare to Crysis 1 PC in video quality, and B), You DID make similar remarks yourself, despite what you said after. In fact MOST of your post was aimed at attempting to discredit the image quality of Crysis 2.

The "That said" part bears very little weight after adding fuel to the skepticism fire by saying the textures look much worse and showing a "comparison" video as if it's some kind of proof of that, further commenting it's been dumbed down graphically or "gimped" as you put it. Yet you think I somehow missed your point,...really now?

Bottom line, let's reel in the blatant skepticism here and not jump to conclusions. My intent of showing the video was not to prove or disprove any comparisons to Crysis. What part of 57MB video that may very well be merely a compressed example of 360 footage do people not get? :roll:

I know many have written off CryTek as PC game developers, but the rest of us know they're still very capable of creating advanced games for PC, even if they release them in multi platform fashion. Some actually listen to this kind of skepticism and it influences them to avoid the PC versions of games. That's not helping PC gaming at all.

The point is that my later comment clearly shows I was mocking the image quality on the 360/PS3, but not the engine or Crytek as a whole. If their engine lives up to their stated goals then it should look just as good or better than CE2 on PC and future consoles.

I just think the current-generation console footage looks pretty downgraded and "icky," yet I see console-only gamers talk about how amazing it looks, which I find amusing.

I agree all the "OMG Crysis 2 will look worse than Crysis" talk is reactionary and very premature.