Simple enough question ^. Also, do you think CryEngine3 will have a similar impact on console gaming as UnrealEngine3 has had to date?.

I think many games which use Unreal Engine 3 have a habit of looking very samey for whatever reason, I know I'm not the only one.  From what I know of the CryEngine2 engine, and my basic experience of it, I really don't think that will be the case if it's used heavily on consoles. It seems to be a better creative tool in my eyes, one that allows greater freedom for developers to utilize in games of all types.



CryEngine3 Demo

None whatsoever. Just another engine to use. If it wasn't that, they'd use another to make the same games. If it wasn't for UT3, they'd use another also. It's just another middleware for devs to use. I suppose it may spawn a few clones while more decent developers get to grips with it but other than that... Nothing. If the games look samey it's the developers' fault. Bioshock sure doesn't look like other Unreal Engine 2.5 games, nor do the Splinter Cell titles. Quake Wars sure doesn't look like other Doom 3 engine games (ie Prey looks just like Doom 3). Etc. Tons of examples.

None at all?, on paper it's clearly the most advanced, as Unreal3 was, once upon a time.

Yeah, it's entirely the developers fault if games using UE3 look samey. A few games aside from the two you mention certainly do look very similar.  Sometimes I get the impression that this is almost encouraged by the engines limitations, and the game that showcased the engine, GoW.  We were told back in the day that we would see all manner of  games using Unreal3, and while that may be true, the vast majority of developers utilizing it are doing so for FPS. And I don't think it's down to the genre being popular solely.

CryEngine seems like it could be a much more creative platform for all developers to use in all types of games on console.

Unreal Engine can do pretty much anything, it's the developers' fault for not utilising it for anything creative. I'd guess Mass Effect is the more different of the various efforts. I don't think that will change. As for  Cry Engine being the most advanced, well, I'm sure Unreal Engine will keep being updated to stay up to par, by Epic themselves or the various licence holders alone (like the heavy updates done to UE2.5 for Bioshock). It's not like all that money they spent for UE3 will go down the drain as they're eager to licence a new engine. Moreover, how many games have matched Mass Effect's best areas (yeah some planets looked quite bland and crap, that's not the engine's fault, and at times it's a gorgeous game) in order for them to need a better engine to do a better or different game? I think nowadays games are more limited by the budgets, skill and effort than the hardware and middleware.

"I think nowadays games are more limited by the budgets, skill and effort than the hardware and middleware."

None? It just doesn't seem very impressive.

There also are many upcoming UE3 games, I don't think any would benefit by a hypothetical switch to Cry Engine. Ie, see Borderlands for example, great outdoors in that. The engine really can do anything as long as the proper effort is put behind it. Here, this list is quite an eye opener, even Mirror's Edge is UE3 apparently.

I don't think the engine has been as successful as UE2.5 was but oh well, it's a good engine still, and will keep being updated.

And let's not forget all the other in-house engines that are up to par. Another middleware really isn't gonna have any huge impact, unless we see a shitton of clones crop up, which is negative impact, but ultimately not of great importance, those devs wouldn't do anything great anyway.

It does look really pretty, but I doubt it will have an "impact" on console gaming...

Less original games, both artistically and content-wise. More bleh.

what does the engine do that no other engine has?

It will have an impact so long as it brings TimeSplitters 4 along with it ;]

Some fair points, but the thing that gets me is CryTek seem to advance things to a state that, let's face it, the mainstream isn't going to get to for quite some time -- the next generation of consoles might be able to keep up with it but as for this current gen? I'm not so sure. It might have an impact on PC gaming but at the end of the day, Crysis is still seen as a peak for PC and a target for those building a machine to this day.

And while many people think U3E has very much aged, part of me would disagree. GeOW2 looks utterly fantastic and miles away from Stranglehold and Rainbow 6 games. I think the engine is only ever going to be as good as the developers that utilise it; Epic can use the Unreal engine for fantastic things, CryTek will be able to show off CryEngine 3 at its peak, but I would say don't expect it to always live up to that benchmark.

Meh, can probably retrofit streaming in UE3 if needed, UT3 was initially going to include that to have huge warfare maps that actually streamed across multiple maps or something, but they canned that. How does Borderlands work, it seems to have vast expanses. As for physics, there's a ton of physics engines around that devs can use, like PhysX. I don't see what's so much better about the physics seen in Crysis. I really don't see anything that's so beyond what UE3 can do, whether we're talking PC or console. And again there are many other less known engines that match up to anything the popular middleware can do, look @ what CAPCOM achieves in Bionic Commando using the diesel engine. It also looks pretty sandboxy (but may not be, still a vast amount of stuff in huge maps are on screen). Yet you wouldn't expect a game that good to show up when other games using that engine are Flatout and GRAW. Though I'm sure it's been updated since, it just goes to show how the budget, skill, talent and effort is what matters more than any middleware.