@not at all , have you seen unreal tournament ??? plus that cryengine is created in 2008 , while unreal made his third engine in 2007 (since 1999 and 2003 )
yeah , its true that cryengine 3 has better graphics , but it can't reach the unreal engine performace , because in multiplayer , evry cryengine has bugs. Ut engine dosen't.
@nayboy321 You do realize that such a short outburst won't matter at all tords this discussion. We do not focus on engines because we have no life, we do that because we find iit interesting and fun.
@MrSouthvalley i think unreal engine 3 is the best cuz it works with almost any pc while frostbite 2 rarely reaches 60 fps on my pc. UE3 best performance/graphics
@assault514 No CryEngine 2 is because it had a better destruction and better physics and the grass, bush, tree moves when you move. In Battlefield 3 the Tree goes through the build when it falls down.
@Nikolaguitar in crysis you cant fit 64 people destructible environments lots of vehicles and amazing big scale maps whit an almost perfect audio of the environments and everything going around you not only that but the movement was very believable and smooth
@3234POKER I agree that Crysis 2 engine sucks (witch it does) and i dont want to side but my 5570 Radeon cant run that well with Frostbite 2 it can but medium graphics and its on 25 fps (tops) while on Crysis 1 i get almost everything the same with very high graphics on 20-30 fps so thats why i like Crysis engine just a lil more then frostbite
@Nikolaguitar this is why i said at the beginning that both have their own ups and downs and to tell you the truth i like these both engines but i prefer Unreal Engine better
@3234POKER True true :P to tell you the truith why do people argue witch engine is better cuz there is no bf3 engine in this video ... now im quite confused.. but nvm ... i totaly agree with ya :PP
@Nikolaguitar i actually choose the Unreal Engine not because i think it has better graphics or because i think its better than any engine in any way i just like it because it reminds me of the old days playing unreal tournament
@3234POKER Well i have UDK on my pc somewhere .. it is a really fun engine... espesaly when you know how to use it.. but yea it kinda reminds me of the "good ol days" :P
@tazss159 thats th only way i play. you can't compare unless you play it on the same map. (i have played them both on the same map too) ce3 wins. go download ce3 learn to use it render a map and then we'll talk.
@dragonxanimation I'm not talking about the art style, I'm talking about the graphical realisim, and in that, Crysis 1 is superior to Crysis 2. The textures, lighting, draw distance, water, physics and etc are all superior in Crysis 1.
@tazss159 yeah because where the game is set..... if you compare engines cry engine 3 wins hands down it does all that and more. but draw distance is equal lighting crysis 2 wins (come on look at it) water physics..... its not even real physics so i call it equal.
@dragonxanimation Crysis 2 is set in the city so that the buildings can hide the poor draw distance. Everything looks like some smudged, squashed up paper. The lighting is basic, and cartoony compared to Crysis 1. The physics are worse. The A.I is retarded. Everything about the game is inferior.
@tazss159 so you think that crytek made there engine worse? no way, go use cry engine 3 it is much better than any other engine out there. ai has always been retarded in crysis anyways lol. it was set in the city because of the story. everything just got better not worse. they game only showed like 75% of what the engine was capable of.
@dragonxanimation CryEngine 3 was desingned for the consoles, it was to set the benchmark of what the current generation of consoles can do. For the PC, yes, it is an inferior engine compared to CryEngine 2.
@tazss159 no it was designed to show what PC ps3 and xbox 360 were capable of and is still on top of all three. People think that because crytek said that when they released an sdk, it does not mean that it has console graphics or that cryengine 2 is better it just means they made it easier to port it to consoles. i have the sdk i have been using it for a few months now its much better than cryengine 2.
@dragonxanimation It's a consolized port to the PC. Go and watch Gamespot's video comparing Crysis 1 and Crysis 2. Crysis 2 is on the PC is an epic failure.
@tazss159 i don't have to watch that i have both on my PC.... again I AM COMPARING ENGINES. keep that in mind, crysis 2 has it better its not a console port its 3 different ports made for three different system. they said that to get dev's to use there engine. you can't just look at the game.
@dragonxanimation If you have both engines then you would know that Crysis 1 has better graphics then Crysis 2. Crysis 2 has inferior graphics in every possible way. On top of that, there is no way Crytek/EA would put the time, effort and money into creating three separate engine builds for each of the platforms.
@tazss159 again you talk about the game not the engine -.- crysis 2 is cryengine 2 upgraded NOTHING that i know of was brought down. veiw distance was a part of the game not the engine to lower lag.
@dragonxanimation Crysis 2 has an inferior draw distance, yes, that's why it was set in the city, so that the buildings could hide the poor draw distance. Everything in the game looks sort of like wet, smudged up paper, in other words, nothing close to realistic. The lighting resembles paint, poor draw distance, poor water quality, poor A.I, and poor physics.
@tazss159 compare engines not the game... draw distance can be brought up to the thousands easily in ce3 just a little scripting and texturing like they id in bf3.
@dragonxanimation Well, Crysis 2 is inferior to Crysis 1 in terms of graphics. But I'm not sure about CryEngine 2 compared to CryEngine 3 though, but I'm sure CryEngine 2 is superior to CryEngine 3, since Crysis 2 lacks many of the features then Crysis 1 had, unless Crytek only used a slight of their CryEngine 3 with Crysis 2.
@tazss159 *face palm* have you been reading what i have been saying? cryengine 3 is still the most advanced its more advanced that fb2 and ce2 use it. don't judge by the games look at all the videos people have been making showing off all the real time effect fb2 is all scripted meaning that all those cool stuff you see are not a part of the engine but apart of the game.
@dragonxanimation that's impossible. your talking to someone who has both ce2 and ce3 i have used both. i know which ones better they didnt downgrade anything only upgraded you can make crysis 2 look better than crysis 1 with just a few mods and maps.
@tazss159 ALL of that depends on the game(except physics and lighting which cry engine 3 has better)...... don't say anything if you don't know about engines. looks at the cry engine 3 renders all over youtube you cant say its better it does all the same things and more.
@dragonxanimation The lighting looks like paint in CryEngine 3. And the physics are nowhere near as good as they were in CryEngine 2. Unless I see a game running on CryEngine 3 that can beat Crysis 1, I'm not believeing.
@tazss159 how could lighting look like paint? /watch?v=N6AGrbw1ddY
/watch?v=yutsoL7CKoo do those look like paint? how about this /watch?v=ySWPxEYeNMg and about the physics they are far better in cryengine 3 they upgraded it so much. in cryengine 2 everything had rubber ball physics /watch?v=4zL87iCtUXI vs /watch?v=2bIL6Jh7R_M
Lol Unreal 3 is a shit engine. I mean it looks nice but there's so many fucking issues with it, IE, slow ass texture loading, something every Unreal engine game suffers from.
@DiegoAlanTorres The problem doesn't occur on my laptop, but anyone who's actually worked with the engine before knows about this problem. It appears in Gears, which also uses the unreal engine. It's not a platform specific issue.
Compare the Samaritan tech demo, made with UE3, with the video "True power of CryEngine 2". The texture quality on the Samaritan tech demo is worse, but there are so much more polygons.
@LaughinGarry yeah, i saw it. even though ue3 was used by a larger number of game, mostly is because of its compatibility and its low requirement while cryengine require a higher spec to run smoothly.
@CYEggs Do you have at least any idea what you're talking about? Compatibility? With what? And requirements? Are you kidding me. It could be said that EPIC always did better job with optimization, but still.
@CYEggs All you know are lies. The whole family of CryEngine is used by 27 (twenty-seven) games (including those that are yet to be released), while UnrealEngine 3 itself is used by 100+ (way over one hundred) games, counting in such well recognized titles as Bioshock, Batman, Mortal Kombat, Enslaved, Borderlands, and many others.
you got some fails, some of this are that you havent got the maximun graphics in the cryengine 2, but you dont put the images of crysis 2, you put images from crysis 1.
other fail are that some games that you put in this video are images from games that use unreal engine 2 (y promisee the unreal engne 3 are amazing)
finally, the cryengine 2 have got more quality than the unreal engine 3, but the unreal got more things
@HDxZelda your reasoning for cryengine being better is totally flawed. Look at how much power you computer needs to even RUN crysis on max settings. UE3 doesn't require anywhere near that :). Granted cryengine has gotten much better since Crysis came out, I still prefer UE3.
i know you were joung, but you compare MODELS which arent made in the editor, they are made in a programm like 3dsMax or Blender ....
Own real thing would be shader...
to the UDK vs Cry question:
if u ask me udk is better cuase its free as long as you dont earn so much money with it!!!
but Cry engine is very much easier in programming and scripting, and (because of the price) there are many better tutorials for scripting with the Cry engine!!!
Crysis is to love when you have the power to max it out. Unreal gives you appealing results with relatively low requirements. I love both engines so much that a comparison does not make e boycot either engine or become a fanboy of just one.
UE3 is much more advanced. The reason Crysis is so realistic is due to developers amazing gifts in modeling and texturing, as far as pure engine goes: UE3 is much more advanced, it supports DX10, DX11 and all new 2011 features, technology has to offer. Also, it consumes far lesser hardware juice than Cryengine 2 since Cryengine 2 wasn't very well optimized.
@jewpiles Well, UE3 is quite the beast among engines. No engine looks nice when you get too close and as far as long enviroments go... try playing Unreal Tournament 3 or some other games that are UE3-based and have large open environments. If it's aged it doesn't mean it's bad. UE3 is one of the most advanced engines of 2011. It has great support for 3rd party software. As far as anything goes, the game is only good as developers make it.
@lorin1996 UE3 is also from 2007, and they 've managed to keep an active community who helps and supports the developers and together they make new innovations with the engine. When it comes down to it all, UE3 is much more better for making games since you have full support from the developers and communities along with monthly patches and fixed whilst Crytek forgot about their CE2 in 3 years and started from scratch since it wasn't very well optimized.They 've learned from their mistakes.CE3
@Rican856 CryEngine graphics look real and pure. UE graphics don't but they do look extremely pretty (and dull). Not being a fanboy or anything. Plus Cryengine is faster.
@GOOB3000 and remember gears of war 3 is using an advanced version of the unreal engine 3.5 which looks better and the 360 can produce better graphics than the ps3 cause the 360 can do tessellation
Cryengine 3 runs better than 2 ( because its better optimized ) and has better graphics...cryengine 2 has pretty good graphics but not that good optimized but till its good. unrealengine 3 sucks hard everything looks like its made out of plastic
unreal engine has evolved since gears of war and unreal tournament. now the lightning is much better I dont say the engine itself is better then cry engine 2...but certainly is better than the crappy cry engine 3.I dont know what the hell crytec was thinking when made that...(actually know...consoles...)
Actually CryEngine 2 is a modification of the first CryEngine. And god, you cannot compare things like that. It depends on who use that. What it you had to compare Bioshock and Crysis ? Crysis wins. So, do we have to conclude that CryEngine is the best? No.
They don't have the same rendering, and Crysis uses biiiig textures. UT3 (over)uses Normal mapping everywhere to create details.
If you really want to compare, visit specialised forums before
Never ever, EVER compare the rendering power of a console to a gaming PC. You are just NOT going to win. It's like trying to compare a GameBoy to a PSP. Heck, I'm starting to see average PCs, around the $800 price tag, dish out console comparable graphics and still be able to run multiple programs simultaneously...
@HaloModder555 Maybe but still for that 800$ computer , I could have bought 2-3 ps3 or xbox360 or like 5 wii. But seriously . Yes the graphics will nearly always be better on computer , the only time console are about equal is when the console just came out . But I personnaly prefer having a bit lower graphics and pay for example 300 $ and the graphics are still pretty good . Like i have paid my pc 700 $ thinking i could play some pc games . Yet I need to run left for dead 2 on minimal wtf
What many don't realize is that they paid that overall for your consoles, games, network, DLC, repairs and accessesories. The gaming consoles are indeed a money hog. They charge extra for the unnecessary but with good reason. However, many things can be obtained freely on the PC.
I have all four and love them for their features and game titles but the fact that people complain on deals for gameplay value, the PC wins. If someone complains for usability, the PC wins. Exclusives... Console wins.
@HaloModder555 Stupid, you can't see it but we can. console grapics are by far less than pc but you can't see it cause they did a great job. but the difference is huge if you zoom in in full hd. playstation and xbox games are by far better optimized than pc cause there is no difference in 2 xbox's or 2 playstation's But a pc can be a nasa of 10.000 bucks or a budget of 500 bucks you see ?
Are you stating that consoles are limited to and cannot be upgraded past their manufacturer's specifications and PC's are limited to how much a person is willing to invest into their build?
Yes, that is true.
You failed to specify how consoles are better optimized.
According to a Steam survey, STEAM users that have
512 Mb to 999 MB RAM equal 0.58%. with 4 GB RAM at 29.30%. Xbox has 512 MB. That shows majority Steam users have more rendering power capabilities.
I should add that Valve's STEAM holds an estimated 70% share in the digital distribution market with over 35 million active user accounts, 3,000,000 peak of users online at once, and has a catalog of over 1,300 games.
I own a Wii, a PS3, and two Xbox 360's, and a personalized computer. I have favorites on all platforms but I prefer the PC as a gaming platform not just for its ability to achieve great visuals, but because of its vast and illustrious community.
Well known and respected gaming studios such as Bungie, Crytek, and DICE have mentioned how consoles have limited their creative and artistic capabilities.
I believe this is more than enough information to show the difference between a simplistic console and a computer itself while proving whichever point you were trying to make, false.
@HaloModder555 Yes, i know, I'm just pointing out the fact, that they'll gladly accept the limits consoles have in exchange for larger income. Also, those statements are more cries for the new generation rather than anything else. The only problem is, that consoles cannot be upgraded and their cycles are getting longer. With exponentially increasing HW capabilities, the differences between PC and consoles (which aren't cutting edge tech even at release) are growing at incredible rate.
Okay, now you are really going off topic. The topic was artistic capabilities and limitations, not monetary gains and potential investment opportunities.
@HaloModder555 My point = The limitations are in the hardware but money ties the devs to the older HW. Today's AAA titles can cost over 100M dollars (without the engine) just to develop. They can't offer to do it for fun.
One thing I don't like about the UT engine 3 is that everything looks...wet. For example, if a character is wearing cloth in the middle of the desert, then why does it fucking shine in the sunlight like metal would? IT'S FUCKING CLOTH! The CryEngine 2 is much more photo-realistic in the sense that it doesn't try to "wow!" the player with shiny effects, but instead tries to capture the real world. Plus the water effects are better.
You know what bothers me about videos like this? It's showing screen shots. The only thing it's showcasing is how pretty everything looks. What makes an engine truly beautiful is its flexibility and modibility- And in terms of a game, how fun it is. Graphics are just the icing on the cake. If the game is great, then it's nice it has good graphics. If it's crap, graphics aren't going to save it.
guys u didnt seen the new version of udk plus my tonemapping shader it owns cryengine3 ;) beliveme ue3.5 is the best engine for now cryengine 3 is second place
@BudzMcgr33n CryEngine 2 - Crysis. Crysis 2 levels are mini in comparison to the first Crysis. The reason why they aren't bigger is because consoles simply don't have the memory or resources to produce sandbox environments without severly impacting the graphical fidelity of a game. The ps3/360 is the issue with CryEngine 3 not the engine. Unreal Engine on the other hand is designed for smaller, linear environments.
A melhor que tem é o Unreal Development Kit 3!!!
Caio93245 4 hours ago
this is pointless, Unreal Enigne 3 is high efficiency and Cry Engine 2 is high spec visual, so they arent't comparable at all
GronkAkowA 3 days ago
@not at all , have you seen unreal tournament ??? plus that cryengine is created in 2008 , while unreal made his third engine in 2007 (since 1999 and 2003 )
MrMetallicafan123456 1 week ago
fuck you all
v6 Mercedes is the best engine!
xato909 2 weeks ago 11
This has been flagged as spam show
yeah , its true that cryengine 3 has better graphics , but it can't reach the unreal engine performace , because in multiplayer , evry cryengine has bugs. Ut engine dosen't.
MrMetallicafan123456 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
MrMetallicafan123456 3 weeks ago
@MrMetallicafan123456 ok but what about cryengine 3
thegger100 3 weeks ago
@thegger100 cryengine 3 is worse then cryengine 2 so...
bezoro2008 1 week ago
ut engine is way better ! . btw. the unreal engine is the fastest one sine 1999 .
MrMetallicafan123456 3 weeks ago
@MrMetallicafan123456 fastest meens worst graphics.
bezoro2008 1 week ago
@bezoro2008 no if the map is small it will run faster.
dragonxanimation 1 week ago
@dragonxanimation thats also true.
bezoro2008 1 week ago
Want best grap? Stop watching on the computer and start looking at real life. there you go Full hd and Bumpmap,dynamic,perfect destruction,
nayboy321 3 weeks ago
@nayboy321 You do realize that such a short outburst won't matter at all tords this discussion. We do not focus on engines because we have no life, we do that because we find iit interesting and fun.
TheMaskedBloke 2 weeks ago
unreal technology please.
1100010000 3 weeks ago
CE3 ftw, nobody makes good graphically games with UE3.
18T220 3 weeks ago
wow, you compared the game textures. but an engine is much more
inherited77 1 month ago
i think frostbite 2 is better cuz they look more real
MrSouthvalley 1 month ago
@MrSouthvalley i think unreal engine 3 is the best cuz it works with almost any pc while frostbite 2 rarely reaches 60 fps on my pc. UE3 best performance/graphics
DiegoAlanTorres 3 weeks ago
FROSTBITE 2 THE BEST! (Battlefield 3)
assault514 1 month ago
@assault514 No CryEngine 2 is because it had a better destruction and better physics and the grass, bush, tree moves when you move. In Battlefield 3 the Tree goes through the build when it falls down.
VegTutor 1 month ago
@VegTutor but you could not destroy things like in battlefield 3 plus both engines are good in their own ways
3234POKER 1 month ago
@3234POKER In that case play Crysis 1 and you will see that CryEngine is better
Nikolaguitar 3 weeks ago
@Nikolaguitar in crysis you cant fit 64 people destructible environments lots of vehicles and amazing big scale maps whit an almost perfect audio of the environments and everything going around you not only that but the movement was very believable and smooth
3234POKER 3 weeks ago
@3234POKER I agree that Crysis 2 engine sucks (witch it does) and i dont want to side but my 5570 Radeon cant run that well with Frostbite 2 it can but medium graphics and its on 25 fps (tops) while on Crysis 1 i get almost everything the same with very high graphics on 20-30 fps so thats why i like Crysis engine just a lil more then frostbite
Nikolaguitar 3 weeks ago
@Nikolaguitar this is why i said at the beginning that both have their own ups and downs and to tell you the truth i like these both engines but i prefer Unreal Engine better
3234POKER 3 weeks ago
@3234POKER True true :P to tell you the truith why do people argue witch engine is better cuz there is no bf3 engine in this video ... now im quite confused.. but nvm ... i totaly agree with ya :PP
Nikolaguitar 3 weeks ago
@Nikolaguitar i actually choose the Unreal Engine not because i think it has better graphics or because i think its better than any engine in any way i just like it because it reminds me of the old days playing unreal tournament
3234POKER 3 weeks ago
@3234POKER Well i have UDK on my pc somewhere .. it is a really fun engine... espesaly when you know how to use it.. but yea it kinda reminds me of the "good ol days" :P
Nikolaguitar 3 weeks ago
CryEngine 2 > Any engine out there (in terms of graphics).
tazss159 1 month ago 5
@tazss159 no... you obviously know nothing about game engines/graphics
dragonxanimation 1 week ago
@dragonxanimation Go play Crysis maxed and then we'll talk.
tazss159 1 week ago
@tazss159 thats th only way i play. you can't compare unless you play it on the same map. (i have played them both on the same map too) ce3 wins. go download ce3 learn to use it render a map and then we'll talk.
dragonxanimation 6 days ago
@dragonxanimation I'm not talking about the art style, I'm talking about the graphical realisim, and in that, Crysis 1 is superior to Crysis 2. The textures, lighting, draw distance, water, physics and etc are all superior in Crysis 1.
tazss159 6 days ago
@tazss159 yeah because where the game is set..... if you compare engines cry engine 3 wins hands down it does all that and more. but draw distance is equal lighting crysis 2 wins (come on look at it) water physics..... its not even real physics so i call it equal.
dragonxanimation 6 days ago
@dragonxanimation Crysis 2 is set in the city so that the buildings can hide the poor draw distance. Everything looks like some smudged, squashed up paper. The lighting is basic, and cartoony compared to Crysis 1. The physics are worse. The A.I is retarded. Everything about the game is inferior.
tazss159 6 days ago
@tazss159 so you think that crytek made there engine worse? no way, go use cry engine 3 it is much better than any other engine out there. ai has always been retarded in crysis anyways lol. it was set in the city because of the story. everything just got better not worse. they game only showed like 75% of what the engine was capable of.
dragonxanimation 5 days ago
@dragonxanimation CryEngine 3 was desingned for the consoles, it was to set the benchmark of what the current generation of consoles can do. For the PC, yes, it is an inferior engine compared to CryEngine 2.
tazss159 5 days ago
@tazss159 no it was designed to show what PC ps3 and xbox 360 were capable of and is still on top of all three. People think that because crytek said that when they released an sdk, it does not mean that it has console graphics or that cryengine 2 is better it just means they made it easier to port it to consoles. i have the sdk i have been using it for a few months now its much better than cryengine 2.
dragonxanimation 5 days ago
@dragonxanimation It's a consolized port to the PC. Go and watch Gamespot's video comparing Crysis 1 and Crysis 2. Crysis 2 is on the PC is an epic failure.
tazss159 5 days ago
@tazss159 i don't have to watch that i have both on my PC.... again I AM COMPARING ENGINES. keep that in mind, crysis 2 has it better its not a console port its 3 different ports made for three different system. they said that to get dev's to use there engine. you can't just look at the game.
dragonxanimation 5 days ago
@dragonxanimation If you have both engines then you would know that Crysis 1 has better graphics then Crysis 2. Crysis 2 has inferior graphics in every possible way. On top of that, there is no way Crytek/EA would put the time, effort and money into creating three separate engine builds for each of the platforms.
tazss159 5 days ago
@tazss159 again you talk about the game not the engine -.- crysis 2 is cryengine 2 upgraded NOTHING that i know of was brought down. veiw distance was a part of the game not the engine to lower lag.
dragonxanimation 5 days ago
@dragonxanimation Crysis 2 has an inferior draw distance, yes, that's why it was set in the city, so that the buildings could hide the poor draw distance. Everything in the game looks sort of like wet, smudged up paper, in other words, nothing close to realistic. The lighting resembles paint, poor draw distance, poor water quality, poor A.I, and poor physics.
tazss159 5 days ago
@tazss159 Have you heard of FrostBite 2?
VidFreak2006 5 days ago
@VidFreak2006 Yes.
tazss159 4 days ago
@tazss159 compare engines not the game... draw distance can be brought up to the thousands easily in ce3 just a little scripting and texturing like they id in bf3.
dragonxanimation 4 days ago
@dragonxanimation Well, Crysis 2 is inferior to Crysis 1 in terms of graphics. But I'm not sure about CryEngine 2 compared to CryEngine 3 though, but I'm sure CryEngine 2 is superior to CryEngine 3, since Crysis 2 lacks many of the features then Crysis 1 had, unless Crytek only used a slight of their CryEngine 3 with Crysis 2.
tazss159 4 days ago
@tazss159 they did that's why the difference between ow and high were so little that's how you can tell if a game was made for consoles.
dragonxanimation 4 days ago
@dragonxanimation Yes, Crysis 2 was desinged for the consoles in mind.
tazss159 4 days ago
@tazss159 but the engine is still the most advanced and the best out there.
dragonxanimation 4 days ago
@dragonxanimation Don't be to sure of that. I'm sure CryEngine 2 and Frostbite 2 are more graphically advanced then CryEngine 3.
tazss159 4 days ago
@tazss159 *face palm* have you been reading what i have been saying? cryengine 3 is still the most advanced its more advanced that fb2 and ce2 use it. don't judge by the games look at all the videos people have been making showing off all the real time effect fb2 is all scripted meaning that all those cool stuff you see are not a part of the engine but apart of the game.
dragonxanimation 4 days ago
@dragonxanimation that's impossible. your talking to someone who has both ce2 and ce3 i have used both. i know which ones better they didnt downgrade anything only upgraded you can make crysis 2 look better than crysis 1 with just a few mods and maps.
dragonxanimation 4 days ago
@dragonxanimation CrEngine 2 uses better textures, better lighting, larger draw distances and better physics then CryEngine 3, so how is it superior?
tazss159 4 days ago
@tazss159 ALL of that depends on the game(except physics and lighting which cry engine 3 has better)...... don't say anything if you don't know about engines. looks at the cry engine 3 renders all over youtube you cant say its better it does all the same things and more.
dragonxanimation 3 days ago
@dragonxanimation The lighting looks like paint in CryEngine 3. And the physics are nowhere near as good as they were in CryEngine 2. Unless I see a game running on CryEngine 3 that can beat Crysis 1, I'm not believeing.
tazss159 3 days ago
@tazss159 how could lighting look like paint? /watch?v=N6AGrbw1ddY
/watch?v=yutsoL7CKoo do those look like paint? how about this /watch?v=ySWPxEYeNMg and about the physics they are far better in cryengine 3 they upgraded it so much. in cryengine 2 everything had rubber ball physics /watch?v=4zL87iCtUXI vs /watch?v=2bIL6Jh7R_M
dragonxanimation 3 days ago
@VidFreak2006 its worse....
dragonxanimation 4 days ago
The Unreal 3 engine is way better, the characters looks real, the skin texture, the water effects, are the best
Mutahnt 1 month ago
@Mutahnt Characters look real in CryEngine as well
ImRoflmanxd 1 month ago
Lol Unreal 3 is a shit engine. I mean it looks nice but there's so many fucking issues with it, IE, slow ass texture loading, something every Unreal engine game suffers from.
BoydTheMilkmanX 1 month ago
@BoydTheMilkmanX ಠ_ಠ.... Check your PC
DiegoAlanTorres 1 month ago
@DiegoAlanTorres The problem doesn't occur on my laptop, but anyone who's actually worked with the engine before knows about this problem. It appears in Gears, which also uses the unreal engine. It's not a platform specific issue.
BoydTheMilkmanX 1 month ago
Unreal Engine is the best engine ever made (and of course source engine)
aallpp99 1 month ago
1:35 really good graphic :D
starwarsfarcryteamfr 1 month ago
Compare the Samaritan tech demo, made with UE3, with the video "True power of CryEngine 2". The texture quality on the Samaritan tech demo is worse, but there are so much more polygons.
QWERTYCommander 2 months ago
l
kn kjl
Neptutron 2 months ago
starting pic of crysis are of low settings. In High- Very high settings the game looks incredibly good than any unreal game till date.
Richdadful 2 months ago
CryEngine 2 win...Flawless victory...:D
Gangula1988 2 months ago
@nateislegend I still prefer Total War xDDDDD I love strategy
SuperMusicHero 2 months ago
UE3 all day.
BudzMcgr33n 3 months ago
all i know is, cryengine beat the shit out of unreal engine
CYEggs 3 months ago
Comment removed
LaughinGarry 3 months ago
@LaughinGarry lol, why did u delete your comment? scare of me?
CYEggs 3 months ago
@CYEggs Half of sentence accidentally erased. It's the same thing I said in the other comment.
LaughinGarry 3 months ago
@LaughinGarry yeah, i saw it. even though ue3 was used by a larger number of game, mostly is because of its compatibility and its low requirement while cryengine require a higher spec to run smoothly.
CYEggs 3 months ago
@CYEggs Do you have at least any idea what you're talking about? Compatibility? With what? And requirements? Are you kidding me. It could be said that EPIC always did better job with optimization, but still.
LaughinGarry 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CYEggs All you know are lies. The whole family of CryEngine is used by 27 (twenty-seven) games (including those that are yet to be released), while UnrealEngine 3 itself is used by 100+ (way over one hundred) games, counting in such well recognized titles as Bioshock, Batman, Mortal Kombat, Enslaved, Borderlands, and many others.
LaughinGarry 3 months ago
It's not the quality of the program, it's the skill of the developer!
MrDakotaWood 4 months ago
you got some fails, some of this are that you havent got the maximun graphics in the cryengine 2, but you dont put the images of crysis 2, you put images from crysis 1.
other fail are that some games that you put in this video are images from games that use unreal engine 2 (y promisee the unreal engne 3 are amazing)
finally, the cryengine 2 have got more quality than the unreal engine 3, but the unreal got more things
apart of this I like the 2 motor graphic
matapros69 4 months ago
@HDxZelda your reasoning for cryengine being better is totally flawed. Look at how much power you computer needs to even RUN crysis on max settings. UE3 doesn't require anywhere near that :). Granted cryengine has gotten much better since Crysis came out, I still prefer UE3.
TehSeint 4 months ago
I suppose back in 2007 Unreal wouldl have looked alright...
xSpringfieldx 4 months ago
Unreal Engine is total shit.
ElJuzgado 5 months ago
@ElJuzgado No it's not.It's one of the best engines ever actually.
MoterCrozz 4 months ago
@MoterCrozz Not if you're a PC gamer, as I am. The engine is rather...meh..
ElJuzgado 4 months ago
@ElJuzgado Wait,are you talking about the Uengine 3 or the old ones?
MoterCrozz 4 months ago
i know you were joung, but you compare MODELS which arent made in the editor, they are made in a programm like 3dsMax or Blender ....
Own real thing would be shader...
to the UDK vs Cry question:
if u ask me udk is better cuase its free as long as you dont earn so much money with it!!!
but Cry engine is very much easier in programming and scripting, and (because of the price) there are many better tutorials for scripting with the Cry engine!!!
THIS IS ONLY WHAT I THINK OF THIS QUESTION
Schnabetier 5 months ago
UE3 is far away better then CE2 imo
rimiko86 5 months ago
@HDxZelda lol fucking idiot idk what ur gay lil computer has. i tried both engines and watched plenty of videos. Unreal Engine is WAY better
FlameBite658 5 months ago
@HDxZelda Unreal Engine is Better haha
FlameBite658 5 months ago
UNREAL ENGINE 3 IS BETTER!!!
FlameBite658 5 months ago
UNREAL!!
TheMrGA777 5 months ago
udk 3.5 shits all over crysis 1 and 2. inb4rage
onlycicala 5 months ago
SHITTY.. U.U
FireHawKING 5 months ago
good song by the devil wears prada... of their only good album
mygodDYLAN1 5 months ago
Nice video! I think Cryengine 2 is better :P
TScorporations 6 months ago
fuck the unreal engine too many pop ups with texture not to mention it's out dated to hell
Hurtu247 6 months ago
@Hurtu247 It does it's job. Everything it produces looks nice, and runs nicer. I can run Mass Effect 2 on a shitty laptop.
oloompop 6 months ago
same picture 2:37-2:58
roky148 6 months ago
AMM 1:43 Far Cry
roky148 6 months ago
unreal engine 3 looks nice but gameplay sucks
podmizje 6 months ago
keep in mind you used the worst possible pictures and beta pictures for crysis.
godsaber21 6 months ago 27
@godsaber21 keep in mind I was like 12, this was my first video, and I didn't know shit.
nateislegend 6 months ago 37
@nateislegend nice vid.
igotapk 6 months ago
@nateislegend keep in mind that you should take this video down and make a new one...shit
iZenic 5 months ago
@nateislegend from what ive read, it looks like every youtube video msker with terrible videos was aged less than 13 in 2007. Unusual huh?
misterMusicify 5 months ago
@nateislegend keep in mind you can still get this video from youtube
sisisspore 5 months ago
@nateislegend Maybe a good time for a remake? :)
Basssiiie 5 months ago
@nateislegend then you should delete it so theres no evidence of your lack of knowledge haha
survivorevil 4 months ago
@nateislegend awww how cute fuck me
DivineVevo666 4 months ago
@nateislegend ham you were 12 so now u are between 14-16 so what you think your alot smarter go back to school
Boryspitzanzx 1 month ago
@godsaber21 No. He could have shown Crysis running everything low settings and focused on one shitty texture.
BudzMcgr33n 5 months ago
@godsaber21 Check the date that this video was posted you dipshit.
LokizarroX 2 months ago
@LokizarroX yeah, but this is Game art for some of the pictures. there was better things than this.
godsaber21 2 months ago
@godsaber21 keep in mind that the pictures of unreal engine 3 are from 2006 and from crysis 2007
medihollow 1 month ago
OMG GRAPH QUALITY... at 360p -.-
sbk180tr 7 months ago
Crysis is to love when you have the power to max it out. Unreal gives you appealing results with relatively low requirements. I love both engines so much that a comparison does not make e boycot either engine or become a fanboy of just one.
MaskeDemon 7 months ago
UE3 is much more advanced. The reason Crysis is so realistic is due to developers amazing gifts in modeling and texturing, as far as pure engine goes: UE3 is much more advanced, it supports DX10, DX11 and all new 2011 features, technology has to offer. Also, it consumes far lesser hardware juice than Cryengine 2 since Cryengine 2 wasn't very well optimized.
Nightmare1066 7 months ago
@Nightmare1066 Except Unreal 3 doesn;t do high-res textures very well, has wacky widescreen support, and doesn;t do large environments well.
But, it looks nicem so long as you don;t get too close, and runs VERY well on slower hardware.
It's also aged fairly well.
jewpiles 7 months ago
@jewpiles Well, UE3 is quite the beast among engines. No engine looks nice when you get too close and as far as long enviroments go... try playing Unreal Tournament 3 or some other games that are UE3-based and have large open environments. If it's aged it doesn't mean it's bad. UE3 is one of the most advanced engines of 2011. It has great support for 3rd party software. As far as anything goes, the game is only good as developers make it.
Nightmare1066 7 months ago
@Nightmare1066 do you really comply cause Cryengine 2 doesn't dupport 2011 graphic features?
note: cryengine is from 2007 (the finished one at least) not from 2011
lorin1996 7 months ago
@lorin1996 UE3 is also from 2007, and they 've managed to keep an active community who helps and supports the developers and together they make new innovations with the engine. When it comes down to it all, UE3 is much more better for making games since you have full support from the developers and communities along with monthly patches and fixed whilst Crytek forgot about their CE2 in 3 years and started from scratch since it wasn't very well optimized.They 've learned from their mistakes.CE3
Nightmare1066 7 months ago
@Nightmare1066 ok didn't knew that sorry
yeah always wondered why didn't optimize ce2 from time to time :(
lorin1996 7 months ago
@Rican856 Naa.
GOOB3000 7 months ago
@GOOB3000 yes it does. the cryengine 2 looks great and so does the unreal engine 3 but unreal engine 3.5 looks far better than both .
Rican856 7 months ago
@Rican856 CryEngine graphics look real and pure. UE graphics don't but they do look extremely pretty (and dull). Not being a fanboy or anything. Plus Cryengine is faster.
GOOB3000 7 months ago
@GOOB3000 well if you think that then Im gonna send you a link to prove how the unreal engine is far better.
Rican856 7 months ago
@Rican856 I've played Gears of War, and I've played Crysis. I've used UDK and I've used Sandbox2. I came to a conclusion.
GOOB3000 7 months ago
@GOOB3000 and remember gears of war 3 is using an advanced version of the unreal engine 3.5 which looks better and the 360 can produce better graphics than the ps3 cause the 360 can do tessellation
Rican856 7 months ago
unreal engine looks too brown. cryengine looks much better
nintendofreak776 7 months ago
Cryengine 3 runs better than 2 ( because its better optimized ) and has better graphics...cryengine 2 has pretty good graphics but not that good optimized but till its good. unrealengine 3 sucks hard everything looks like its made out of plastic
razekery 7 months ago
unreal engine has evolved since gears of war and unreal tournament. now the lightning is much better I dont say the engine itself is better then cry engine 2...but certainly is better than the crappy cry engine 3.I dont know what the hell crytec was thinking when made that...(actually know...consoles...)
blackbonexxx 7 months ago
And frostbite 2 has best light and best destruction
13snigoog 7 months ago
CryEngine = Reality .. UnrealEngine = Epiccc !! XD
oDevilx 8 months ago
unreal all the way!
Loganiz1337 8 months ago
Unreal Cooooool!!!!
Twistgodmaster 8 months ago
Why Cryengine 2 is so great: "When a tree falls, it will make a sound, even if nobody is there to see it." Period
RicHimself 8 months ago
Frostbite 2 is better: watch?v=2zw8SmsovJc
renixxx 8 months ago
Actually CryEngine 2 is a modification of the first CryEngine. And god, you cannot compare things like that. It depends on who use that. What it you had to compare Bioshock and Crysis ? Crysis wins. So, do we have to conclude that CryEngine is the best? No.
They don't have the same rendering, and Crysis uses biiiig textures. UT3 (over)uses Normal mapping everywhere to create details.
If you really want to compare, visit specialised forums before
pandator40 8 months ago
at 1:04, the first unreal guy has been stomped down to a resolution of about 200x200 LOL
Fromology 8 months ago
Never ever, EVER compare the rendering power of a console to a gaming PC. You are just NOT going to win. It's like trying to compare a GameBoy to a PSP. Heck, I'm starting to see average PCs, around the $800 price tag, dish out console comparable graphics and still be able to run multiple programs simultaneously...
HaloModder555 8 months ago 20
@HaloModder555 Maybe but still for that 800$ computer , I could have bought 2-3 ps3 or xbox360 or like 5 wii. But seriously . Yes the graphics will nearly always be better on computer , the only time console are about equal is when the console just came out . But I personnaly prefer having a bit lower graphics and pay for example 300 $ and the graphics are still pretty good . Like i have paid my pc 700 $ thinking i could play some pc games . Yet I need to run left for dead 2 on minimal wtf
Kevfate 7 months ago
What many don't realize is that they paid that overall for your consoles, games, network, DLC, repairs and accessesories. The gaming consoles are indeed a money hog. They charge extra for the unnecessary but with good reason. However, many things can be obtained freely on the PC.
I have all four and love them for their features and game titles but the fact that people complain on deals for gameplay value, the PC wins. If someone complains for usability, the PC wins. Exclusives... Console wins.
HaloModder555 7 months ago
@HaloModder555 at 2.5x the cost
9taledbeast 5 months ago
@HaloModder555 Stupid, you can't see it but we can. console grapics are by far less than pc but you can't see it cause they did a great job. but the difference is huge if you zoom in in full hd. playstation and xbox games are by far better optimized than pc cause there is no difference in 2 xbox's or 2 playstation's But a pc can be a nasa of 10.000 bucks or a budget of 500 bucks you see ?
juultje2000 3 months ago
I don't follow. What's your point?
Are you stating that consoles are limited to and cannot be upgraded past their manufacturer's specifications and PC's are limited to how much a person is willing to invest into their build?
Yes, that is true.
You failed to specify how consoles are better optimized.
According to a Steam survey, STEAM users that have
512 Mb to 999 MB RAM equal 0.58%. with 4 GB RAM at 29.30%. Xbox has 512 MB. That shows majority Steam users have more rendering power capabilities.
HaloModder555 3 months ago
I should add that Valve's STEAM holds an estimated 70% share in the digital distribution market with over 35 million active user accounts, 3,000,000 peak of users online at once, and has a catalog of over 1,300 games.
I own a Wii, a PS3, and two Xbox 360's, and a personalized computer. I have favorites on all platforms but I prefer the PC as a gaming platform not just for its ability to achieve great visuals, but because of its vast and illustrious community.
HaloModder555 3 months ago
Well known and respected gaming studios such as Bungie, Crytek, and DICE have mentioned how consoles have limited their creative and artistic capabilities.
I believe this is more than enough information to show the difference between a simplistic console and a computer itself while proving whichever point you were trying to make, false.
HaloModder555 3 months ago
@HaloModder555 They, however, forgot to mention how PC limits their income.
LaughinGarry 3 months ago
That's going onto a whole other point and topic from which I was debating.
HaloModder555 3 months ago
@HaloModder555 Yes, i know, I'm just pointing out the fact, that they'll gladly accept the limits consoles have in exchange for larger income. Also, those statements are more cries for the new generation rather than anything else. The only problem is, that consoles cannot be upgraded and their cycles are getting longer. With exponentially increasing HW capabilities, the differences between PC and consoles (which aren't cutting edge tech even at release) are growing at incredible rate.
LaughinGarry 3 months ago
Okay, now you are really going off topic. The topic was artistic capabilities and limitations, not monetary gains and potential investment opportunities.
HaloModder555 3 months ago
@HaloModder555 My point = The limitations are in the hardware but money ties the devs to the older HW. Today's AAA titles can cost over 100M dollars (without the engine) just to develop. They can't offer to do it for fun.
LaughinGarry 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That's great but I'm not debating that.
HaloModder555 3 months ago
try to campare cryengine 3
AQWlaurekas2544 9 months ago
One thing I don't like about the UT engine 3 is that everything looks...wet. For example, if a character is wearing cloth in the middle of the desert, then why does it fucking shine in the sunlight like metal would? IT'S FUCKING CLOTH! The CryEngine 2 is much more photo-realistic in the sense that it doesn't try to "wow!" the player with shiny effects, but instead tries to capture the real world. Plus the water effects are better.
TheRecklessVoice 9 months ago
You know what bothers me about videos like this? It's showing screen shots. The only thing it's showcasing is how pretty everything looks. What makes an engine truly beautiful is its flexibility and modibility- And in terms of a game, how fun it is. Graphics are just the icing on the cake. If the game is great, then it's nice it has good graphics. If it's crap, graphics aren't going to save it.
MetalGearXM 9 months ago
Unreal Engine 3 VS CryEngine 3 no ?
xxXmegaXxx60 9 months ago
@xxXmegaXxx60 dude look when he made this video...there was no cryengine 3 at that time..
vaibhav402 9 months ago
they are both good it a competition but not for us
FREEZERQC 9 months ago
I dont want to spam but
Frostbite 2.0 will beat all engines :)
Frostbite
CryEngine
Unreal
JohnasenFranks 9 months ago
@JohnasenFranks But whatever the engine, in the end, it will depend on the artist and the user.
joshetham 9 months ago
la that son of a bitch. Look look watch and kahrol piç
this is cryengine 2's real power
/watch?v=shZzYkpl5Nk
and not : crysis using cryengine 2's power %20
deejayALiGaToR 9 months ago
and with the new landscape feature of ue3.5 u can make huuuuuuuuge maps
marko060496 9 months ago
guys u didnt seen the new version of udk plus my tonemapping shader it owns cryengine3 ;) beliveme ue3.5 is the best engine for now cryengine 3 is second place
marko060496 9 months ago
why you dont hawe cry engine 3 there.
konoko1002k 9 months ago
@konoko1002k dont you look at the dates the video was uploaded? 2007. cryengine 3 wasnt invented yet.
DanielMosey 9 months ago
UE3 wins. Especially the updated version 3.5
BudzMcgr33n 9 months ago
@BudzMcgr33n lol is 3.5 capable of massive sandbox environments with the amount of detail in CryEngine 2/3?. . .er. . .no.
liveswired 9 months ago
@liveswired Nobody knows yet seeing that no games using the updated UE have been released ;)
BudzMcgr33n 9 months ago 2
@BudzMcgr33n I know, and the answer is no!
liveswired 9 months ago
@liveswired And there are no massive sandbox environments on the CryEngine 3 yet either.
BudzMcgr33n 9 months ago 7
@BudzMcgr33n CryEngine 2 - Crysis. Crysis 2 levels are mini in comparison to the first Crysis. The reason why they aren't bigger is because consoles simply don't have the memory or resources to produce sandbox environments without severly impacting the graphical fidelity of a game. The ps3/360 is the issue with CryEngine 3 not the engine. Unreal Engine on the other hand is designed for smaller, linear environments.
liveswired 9 months ago
Frostbite engine FTW
LayZburger 10 months ago
Lighting and shadows have still so much problem in Unreal but Unreal is more supported and easier for entry devs!
Wiilovewii 10 months ago
CryEngine = For Graphics
Unreal Engine = For making games.
MrOrangeReal 10 months ago