CryTek has released a video of their new engine, Cry Engine 3. Its also a platform for Xbox 360 and PS3 and if you watch the video you can easily tell due to it looking less impressive then crysis/Crysis Warhead in many aspects.
PC
Platform »
The PC (Personal Computer) is a highly configurable and upgradable gaming platform that, among home systems, sports the widest variety of control methods, largest library of games, and cutting edge graphics and sound capabilities.
CryEngine 3
Warhead had a few less impressive elements than Crysis too. They're sorting performance I imagine and that's a good thing, whether it's done just because it's going to be a multi platform engine or not. Optimising it further hopefully enables them to have a less ridiculous draw distance for detail elements. I'd almost prefer to have none of those elements than to have them pop up 5 metres ahead of me completely breaking immersion in the process. And yes that's on max settings on PC, in both Crysis and Warhead. My PC isn't the greatest but since I only run games @ 1680x1050 since that's my monitor's native res, they run with no hicups @ max settings.
Edit: Having watched the video, it looks more polished than the Crysis games to me. The urban areas are incredible and having those in Crysis would probably make it drop the fps flat. Great work. Lighting on surfaces seems better too. I'm not sure what you found so worse than Crysis but I haven't fired it up in a while.
Yeeeah. Now check out this vid made on Cryengine2 by some dude using Fraps and his own rig
This makes the Cryengine3 tech demo look like shit and it's a big shame that no one is fully supporting the PC anymore.
[edit] I said "shit" I just downloaded the cry3 vid in hd and it looks a lot better, but the tech demos fro cry2 still looked better.
Port Crysis over to the consoles, then we will see how powerful it showcases itself to be.
Seeing is believing.
You can see some framerate issue even with this watered down cryengine 3 especialy when they shoot the house and make it explode. I don't console have the power for physix and great graphics. I'm sure the next gen console will be able to run crysis but right now I don't really see it happening unless they turn practicly everything down.
I think this is running on PC mr elitist. And that kind of urban areas would lag any PC if they hadn't optimised the engine further like they seem to have done for this version, which is the main advancement in this engine and one that should please console and pc users alike considering the flaws of the first engine versions. Crysis never had crowded areas like the urban areas seen in this video for a reason. It looks like they manage to have architecture of the Unreal Engine 3 level in this one, and that's a good thing for an engine that wants to be diverse and not only do terrain based environments.
Doesn't look nearly as good as the older engine. Of course that's why it was designed for consoles. I would be very careful about the framerate dips in the bigger environments, and this was just a tech demo. Add explosions, more physics, AI, and you have a ton of more problems to deal with.
Steampunk is up to the art, can fit in any engine (and I'm not really seeing it here tbh). Deus Ex wasn't steam punk either... Cyber punk maybe. I'd want Deus Ex in UE3 myself, it performs better and looks bettter and far more detailed in artificial environments (not terrain water etc for example). In the aspects it lacks in, it's probably just because they didn't have to focus on those aspects for the games that use it so far. If someone wanted to make scenes that are more open looking, of course he'd probably want to improve areas like foliage rendering, god rays, water etc. They wanted those in Crysis so got them better in it, when in UT3 they're minor elements. Alas, Deus Ex 3 will probably suck anyway, at least if we judge it by its prequel and how they still don't consider it a dud. Anachronox studio should have never closed and instead taken up Deus Ex under its belt, they'd have done a much better job at it imo. Far more creative bunch, wonder what companies each of them are in atm.
"I think this is running on PC mr elitist. And that kind of urban areas would lag any PC if they hadn't optimised the engine further like they seem to have done for this version, which is the main advancement in this engine and one that should please console and pc users alike considering the flaws of the first engine versions. Crysis never had crowded areas like the urban areas seen in this video for a reason. It looks like they manage to have architecture of the Unreal Engine 3 level in this one, and that's a good thing for an engine that wants to be diverse and not only do terrain based environments."I don't know why you think cryengine 2 was badly optimized, I have an 8800GT and it runs great on high settings, better then a lot of other games that don't even look half as good. The main advancement in Cryengine 3 is that its developed with consoles in mind, if that was running on a PC then its a bad way to show off your new engine, looking worse and running at a low framerate...
You never had scenes as complex as the urban area in that video (and as someone said, watch it in HD). It was all terrain, trees, terrain trees, empty flat base with copy pasted buildings, etc. Mostly looked good thanks to lighting, great textures and pixel shaders (ice snow etc) than actually having very busy scenes. Also, the pop in I mentioned. Eye sore 100% of the time except when the ground was busy looking and you didn't notice it, like in the darker foresty areas. The much hyped foliage didn't even look that realistic being blown to smitherens with your weapons.
Optimising it to fix those things, give them the ability to have busier scenes, less nasty pop in, and all that, than trying to push visuals further in other ways, is the best course of action, whether they do it just because they'll also put it on consoles or not.
Also, boring and extremely linear games, so much for the engine's hyped ability to have huge streaming maps, hope they make the next one good >_>
I don't know why you think cryengine 2 was badly optimized, I have an 8800GT and it runs great on high settings, better then a lot of other games that don't even look half as good.As a general rule, PC games were never very optimized. That's one thing that happens to developers when they've only made PC games and they start to develop for consoles. They learn a lot about efficiency. I don't think the 8800GT gets anything near great performance in Crysis, but it's not very inefficient like the GTA4 port to PC. Why anyone liked the graphics in Crysis is because Crytek exceeded the boundaries of game graphics. Lots of people bring up Cryengine 2, but it was really how the engine was leveraged towards bringing higher end graphics. It's one of those things where people won't see how well or badly the engine really performs until future better looking games come along.
I don't think it looks anywhere near as impressive as people are making it out to be. In honesty I think Killzone 2 looks far superior.
Looks pretty good. Nothing spectacular, but I'd be totally thrilled to sit down and play that on my TV instead of on my computer. [Implying I like the idea of the engine being built for consoles. . .]
Also, I think Alexander said "urban areas" enough times for me to make a drinking game out of it. It could be because I was busy chuckling about that, but I had a hell of a time trying to find the point he was attempting to make in those blocks of text. Something about elitism, optimization, and PC's.
<3
Not much fun in just having 4 shots. I only repeated because people clearly ignored it in the video as there were no areas like that whatsoever in Crysis, and if there were the frame rate would have dropped flat on any PC as the engine couldn't support it like this revision can. Seeing those scenes here, you might as well be looking @ a tweaked Unreal Engine 3 whcih was built for that kind of artificial environments, unlike Cry Engine which was previously mostly for natural environments. Now it can do everything.
"[. . .] But I don't really see the point in naming it CE3 other than to gather hype."Missed this comment earlier, I apologize for being late, but you hit the nail right on the head. To gather hype !
As good a reason as any, I think. I wouldn't have even clicked the link if they had a new name for it, heh.
Agree that crysis biggest problems have always been buildings, the game is fine in open environments.
I want to see the engine running on a PC...if all their "new" engine is, ends up being a less than impressive version of Cryengine 2(the way it looks when shown on the 360/PS3) and looks exactly the same on the PC with barely any improvements I'm gonna be kinda pissed. They have no reason to even call it a new engine at that point.
It's really a shame crysis is the last of the great pc games, casual crysis warhead can't match it's graphics on very high and now they downgraded their engine to console levels.
It would be very sad if true, yes, because it's really not great at all. Good riddance CryTek, I'll stick with my Blizzard, Valve, Stardock, and the multitude of creative indie devs. And if you make a good multi platform game, maybe I'll buy it too, but that's highly unlikely >_>
PS: It goes both ways, ya know, formerly console-only devs have started doing decent ports, ie CAPCOM.
"It's really a shame crysis is the last of the great pc games, casual crysis warhead can't match it's graphics on very high and now they downgraded their engine to console levels."The only great thing about Crysis were the graphics, other than that it was an average shooter, there are plenty of better games on PC and a lot more to come. Also that was a console demonstration, it has nothing to do with how CE3 will look on PC....
"You never had scenes as complex as the urban area in that video (and as someone said, watch it in HD). It was all terrain, trees, terrain trees, empty flat base with copy pasted buildings, etc. Mostly looked good thanks to lighting, great textures and pixel shaders (ice snow etc) than actually having very busy scenes. Also, the pop in I mentioned. Eye sore 100% of the time except when the ground was busy looking and you didn't notice it, like in the darker foresty areas. The much hyped foliage didn't even look that realistic being blown to smitherens with your weapons.Optimising it to fix those things, give them the ability to have busier scenes, less nasty pop in, and all that, than trying to push visuals further in other ways, is the best course of action, whether they do it just because they'll also put it on consoles or not.Also, boring and extremely linear games, so much for the engine's hyped ability to have huge streaming maps, hope they make the next one good >_>"jesus, ask developers what hits the framerate of a engine more and they will tell you its NOT urban areas rendering FLAT Un dynamic walls is piss easy for any engine to render, forest on the otherhand have wavy uneven ground and tons of trees to render the more shape somthing has the more polys.
before talking again please read up on deveopment.
Yes, except the areas seen in the video are totally not just flat, unlike the bases I crticise in the original game as being empty and flat. Please read up on posts before commenting. Maybe your development 101 comes from when people did make buildings just flat (Half-Life?), whereas ever since 2004 or so (UT2004 was a good start), some developers have had the ability to go for extremely detailed architecture and artificial environments rivaling any great outdoor. Some still do it flat, like CryTek did in the first games, and appear to be fixing it here. UT3's a good example of modern artificial detail, it sure doesn't run much better than Crysis for a place full of "flat" does it? And it's not even trying to render real urban areas for the most part, only enclosed arena spaces which may include some elements of that.
"Yes, except the areas seen in the video are totally not just flat, unlike the bases I crticise in the original game as being empty and flat. Please read up on posts before commenting. Maybe your development 101 comes from when people did make buildings just flat (Half-Life?), whereas ever since 2004 or so (UT2004 was a good start), some developers have had the ability to go for extremely detailed architecture and artificial environments rivaling any great outdoor. Some still do it flat, like CryTek did in the first games, and appear to be fixing it here. UT3's a good example of modern artificial detail, it sure doesn't run much better than Crysis for a place full of "flat" does it? And it's not even trying to render real urban areas for the most part, only enclosed arena spaces which may include some elements of that."They may not be totally flat but its still simple geometry and much less complex then pretty much every level in crysis with its realistic terrain and hundreds of highly detailed trees. You don't honestly think that anything running on a console could compare TECHNICALLY to Crysis on PC
Levels in Crysis were pretty bland, and the buildings in it were even blander, so if they could afford more detailed buildings, why didn't they make them so? And uh, hundreds of trees? Even the busiest scenes didn't have that many. And what's a tree? A few cylinders and sprites for the leaves, and with lod trees further away may as well be flat and you'd never notice it. Heck, many of the small breakable trees (not palm trees or the other stuff) were very flat even up close. They tried to make stuff busier with detail elements like fallen branches and what not but wherever the ground was a bit bright (so not in foresty areas) you could see those pop up like 10ft ahead of you totally breaking immersion.
did you guys see how poor it ran on the PS3 and xbox 360 in the videos of this? maybe it was a lot different in person at the show but i thought it ran very slow and jerky in a lot of the scenes that was shown for the consoles, especially with the jungle area's.
"HitmanAgent47 said:I don't belive that, I meant the game is still over 90% on gamerankings (I belive in the gameranking and metacritic system alot because it's like a compass towards what the score should be from all reviewers) so it has gameplay and graphics. Warhead was different, the levels were smaller and it's more of an action game because the game is more linear, so the score was lower. The console version will be downgraded even more terrain wise and probally gameplay, which is going to be more linear. Crytek forgot what made them so great in the first place or how to create crysis level graphics."It's really a shame crysis is the last of the great pc games, casual crysis warhead can't match it's graphics on very high and now they downgraded their engine to console levels."The only great thing about Crysis were the graphics, other than that it was an average shooter, there are plenty of better games on PC and a lot more to come. Also that was a console demonstration, it has nothing to do with how CE3 will look on PC...."
Yeah, can't have sandbox games in consoles, they're gonna dumb it down lols, it's not like they dumbed down warhead which is a pc exclusive also. And Crysis wasn't smart to begin with. And, Game critics aren't always right, scores mean little more than hype, otherwise you should worship consoles for all their top raters.
Please Log In to post.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment