I don't think it's beyond the Unreal 3 engine, fact is this engine wont be used for hardly any games if any but Crysis. Unreal 3 engine has alreayd been used for hundreds and while they don't look that great it's becompanies are rushing games outta the doors. UT07 does look fantastic and can compare to Crysis, wouldn't suprise me if future games on Unreal 3 look better then Crysis.
To me it all depends what you do with your Artwork to how good a game looks. EQ2 for example was on a POWERFUL engine but didn't look great compared to WOW which was on a very dated looking engine but the Artwork just made it look lightyears ahead.
Terrorantula
Are you talking about the same Source engine that stops to loading every 30 steps? Are you talking about the same Unreal Egine 3 which in UT III gives us enviroment interactivity close to ZERO? UT III looks fantastic compared to Halo 3 -which isn't difficult- or even Gears, but has the same phisics that we have in UT 99 eight years ago.
I don't care about how many games are supported by the UE3 -which in my opinion is a fantastic engine- because I probably will not play a lot of them, and in the same Way, Source and the Doom 3 engine were used in a small number of games, and this don't turn HL2 or Quake 3 into crap. So, even if Crysis is the only Cry Engine 2 supported game -which at the moment just isn't the fact- I'll very happy playing this game in both single and multiplayer and seeng how pwns the competition.
And about the criticism with the art...To do photorrealistic enviroments, in huge landscapes and with credible physics is much harder and demanding than unreal enviroments. This don't means that I do not apreciate Doom 3 or WoW, but definitively I prefer the freedom of marauding in Far Cry, ARMA or Crysis than the straight-line corridors from F.E.A.R., Prey or COD.
Log in to comment