Best graphics ENGINE discussion.

Ill vote Naughtys engine for Uncharted 2 for a single reason.

Because i strongly beleive the BEST engine is the one that gives awesome results in graphics WITH just FEW RESOURCES over other "heavier" games.

What i mean is , that Uncharted runs extremely good on a 7+1 core CPU where it runs only on 3.

GPU chipset is a low end ( for todays PC standards aka 5870!! ) though with that engine it seems like it can rival 5770!! Though it cant , its the engine that is that good!

LOW RAM requirements!! I mean a system with 512MB ram runs a game with so much of details and action?!! Way to go for this light though extremely well done ENGINE from NAUGHTY!...

And no im not even a PS3 owner , im a PC gamer.

the UE3 is the most flexible. lhughey

[QUOTE="skektek"]

I'm a gamer not a stockholder, I don't care about Valve's costs or expenses. I am tired of Valve Apologists whining about what can't be done when companies like Crytek, ID, Epic, and others are out there creating great platform agnostic engines.

AnnoyedDragon

I am not a Valve apologist...

Yes, you are. You just spent several paragraphs defending their method of reducing costs while dumping on everyone elses.

'Gamers' like yourself have complained about the lack of exclusive games utilizing their platform of choice;

AnnoyedDragon

On the contrary, as a predominantly PS3 gamer I have enjoyed an abundance of exclusive high quality titles this generation with many more on the horizon.

Ill vote Naughtys engine for Uncharted 2 for a single reason.

Because i strongly beleive the BEST engine is the one that gives awesome results in graphics WITH just FEW RESOURCES over other "heavier" games.

What i mean is , that Uncharted runs extremely good on a 7+1 core CPU where it runs only on 3.

GPU chipset is a low end ( for todays PC standards aka 5870!! ) though with that engine it seems like it can rival 5770!! Though it cant , its the engine that is that good!

LOW RAM requirements!! I mean a system with 512MB ram runs a game with so much of details and action?!! Way to go for this light though extremely well done ENGINE from NAUGHTY!...

And no im not even a PS3 owner , im a PC gamer.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="skektek"]

I am not a Valve apologist... skektek

Yes, you are. You just spent several paragraphs defending their method of reducing costs while dumping on everyone elses.

'Gamers' like yourself have complained about the lack of exclusive games utilizing their platform of choice;

AnnoyedDragon

On the contrary, as a predominantly PS3 gamer I have enjoyed an abundance of exclusive high quality titles this generation with many more on the horizon.

Lol that's all you got out of that post? Damn....good for you.

For overall graphics CryEngine 2. For animation/3rd-person games Naughty Dog Engine 2.

That's the weak point of most FPS engines. The animations aren't great. They look stiff and not at all very realistic. The Naughty Dog Engine and the Euphoria engine (used in the Force unleashed) have been the most impressive displays of animation.

I think that's going to be the most important graphical revolution in the next generation. In-game models may look as good as CGI in blockbuster movies but they don't animate that well, the animations in most games are the same canned animations used since the first 3D games on the PSone.

For overall graphics CryEngine 2. For animation/3rd-person games Naughty Dog Engine 2.

That's the weak point of most FPS engines. The animations aren't great. They look stiff and not at all very realistic. The Naughty Dog Engine and the Euphoria engine (used in the Force unleashed) have been the most impressive displays of animation.

I think that's going to be the most important graphical revolution in the next generation. In-game models may look as good as CGI in blockbuster movies but they don't animate that well, the animations in most games are the same canned animations used since the first 3D games on the PSone.

LoserMike

For overall graphics CryEngine 2. For animation/3rd-person games Naughty Dog Engine 2.

That's the weak point of most FPS engines. The animations aren't great. They look stiff and not at all very realistic. The Naughty Dog Engine and the Euphoria engine (used in the Force unleashed) have been the most impressive displays of animation.

LoserMike

Destructive environment includes animation btw.

I think that's going to be the most important graphical revolution in the next generation. In-game models may look as good as CGI in blockbuster movies but they don't animate that well, the animations in most games are the same canned animations used since the first 3D games on the PSone.

LoserMike

Character's movements animationissue relates toif they have useda body motion capture device.

Ill vote Naughtys engine for Uncharted 2 for a single reason.

Because i strongly beleive the BEST engine is the one that gives awesome results in graphics WITH just FEW RESOURCES over other "heavier" games.

What i mean is , that Uncharted runs extremely good on a 7+1 core CPU where it runs only on 3.

GPU chipset is a low end ( for todays PC standards aka 5870!! ) though with that engine it seems like it can rival 5770!! Though it cant , its the engine that is that good!

LOW RAM requirements!! I mean a system with 512MB ram runs a game with so much of details and action?!! Way to go for this light though extremely well done ENGINE from NAUGHTY!...

And no im not even a PS3 owner , im a PC gamer.

I wish there were more games using the CryEngine 2. I'd love to play an open world RPG made with CryEngine 2.

Very nice forum, you have done your research very well. I actually read it all! But for me Cryengine 2 and Unreal. CryEngine 2 needs no explanation but I think Unreal engine is awesome because of its flexiblility unlike the other engines

Yes, you are. You just spent several paragraphs defending their method of reducing costs while dumping on everyone elses.

skektek

I just spent paragraphs explaining the problem with cost trends in the industry, Valve is simply an example on how to avoid the problem. By all means, explain these other cost reduction methods everyone else is using. Because all I see is developers struggling to cope with their ballooning development costs, resulting in cross platform orientation. That's a means of increasing income to compensate for increasing costs, not a cost reduction method.

Their means of accommodating these costs is why we don't have a PS2 this generation, everything is being made one size fits all. Seeing how you like platform utilizing exclusives; I would have thought you would care when there is a vast reduction in them. All our platforms are after thoughts to these developers, it's about what works for everyone; not what each platform can do.

On the contrary, as a predominantly PS3 gamer I have enjoyed an abundance of exclusive high quality titles this generation with many more on the horizon.

skektek

Perhaps you may have skimmed over the part were I said this was unsustainable?

Developers are going cross platform to accommodate rising development costs, Sony is under the same conditions; only it is in their interests to differentiate their platform rather than maximize their income. Uncharted 2 cost what? $20 million; not including the marketing budget or distribution costs? With a budget like that any developer with sense would spread themselves out across multiple platforms, Sony didn't. Sony took a big budget game and kept it exclusive to one audience, increasing their risks and reducing their potential income considerably.

The "many more on the horizon" are for the most part titles being funded and kept exclusive by Sony. As costs continue to rise; Sony is making narrower profit margins. Today they can endure it, but what about next generation? Or the gen after that? How would they fair if Uncharted 2 cost $40 or $60 million to make? Consoles need exclusives to set themselves apart, as costs continue to rise they will be less able to self fund these exclusives.

Console companies recognise this problem, which is why they are trying to differentiate themselves outside of the typical big budget title, whether it be with Facebook integration or motion sensor control. I'm sure you are quite happy to ignore why you have these exclusives as long as you get them, no one cares if the company is losing billions and it is taking years for them to become profitable as long as they get the next God of War. The console business model is due for a overhaul and it is going to happen sooner or later, just don't complain when it does because clearly you are part of the problem.

For sheer graphics it will easily be Cry2, but Cry3 is coming so that's going to take the crown. UE3 is good for it's usefullness. I love Capcoms engine for just it's variety of games. ND2EG is pretty and THAT'S IT. Look at the walls and you'll see what i mean, it can't pump out a whole bunch of AI, simple and linear gamplay, and not wideopen world, but king on consoles stil :P.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

Yes, you are. You just spent several paragraphs defending their method of reducing costs while dumping on everyone elses.

AnnoyedDragon

I just spent paragraphs explaining the problem with cost trends in the industry, Valve is simply an example on how to avoid the problem. By all means, explain these other cost reduction methods everyone else is using. Because all I see is developers struggling to cope with their ballooning development costs, resulting in cross platform orientation. That's a means of increasing income to compensate for increasing costs, not a cost reduction method.

Their means of accommodating these costs is why we don't have a PS2 this generation, everything is being made one size fits all. Seeing how you like platform utilizing exclusives; I would have thought you would care when there is a vast reduction in them. All our platforms are after thoughts to these developers, it's about what works for everyone; not what each platform can do.

On the contrary, as a predominantly PS3 gamer I have enjoyed an abundance of exclusive high quality titles this generation with many more on the horizon.

skektek

Perhaps you may have skimmed over the part were I said this was unsustainable?

Developers are going cross platform to accommodate rising development costs, Sony is under the same conditions; only it is in their interests to differentiate their platform rather than maximize their income. Uncharted 2 cost what? $20 million; not including the marketing budget or distribution costs? With a budget like that any developer with sense would spread themselves out across multiple platforms, Sony didn't. Sony took a big budget game and kept it exclusive to one audience, increasing their risks and reducing their potential income considerably.

The "many more on the horizon" are for the most part titles being funded and kept exclusive by Sony. As costs continue to rise; Sony is making narrower profit margins. Today they can endure it, but what about next generation? Or the gen after that? How would they fair if Uncharted 2 cost $40 or $60 million to make? Consoles need exclusives to set themselves apart, as costs continue to rise they will be less able to self fund these exclusives.

Console companies recognise this problem, which is why they are trying to differentiate themselves outside of the typical big budget title, whether it be with Facebook integration or motion sensor control. I'm sure you are quite happy to ignore why you have these exclusives as long as you get them, no one cares if the company is losing billions and it is taking years for them to become profitable as long as they get the next God of War. The console business model is due for a overhaul and it is going to happen sooner or later, just don't complain when it does because clearly you are part of the problem.

Which side of the fence are you playing? Valve's for skimping on costs or everyone else's for maximizing profits?

While you champion mediocracy I applaud companies like Sony that are willing to risk their bottom line and go against the grain to make stand out games that push technology. If that is a problem then I don't want to be part of the solution.

Which side of the fence are you playing? Valve's for skimping on costs or everyone else's for maximizing profits?

While you champion mediocracy I applaud companies like Sony that are willing to risk their bottom line and go against the grain to make stand out games that push technology. If that is a problem then I don't want to be part of the solution.

skektek

You're too focused on Valve to pay attention to anything I am saying aren't you? Even though the issue I am highlighting will eventually impact Sony's ability to provide the games you seem to value so much.

Well I said it earlier and I'll say it again, I hope you like motion sensors.

Cryengine2 followed by Dunia(far cry 2) and X-Ray 1.5(stalker: clear sky)

with_teeth26

I've always been extremely fond of the Unreal Engine 3.0. It is extremely optimized no matter what hardware you're running and there have been so many different types of games that have been using it. EXLINK

[QUOTE="EXLINK"]I've always been extremely fond of the Unreal Engine 3.0. It is extremely optimized no matter what hardware you're running and there have been so many different types of games that have been using it. imprezawrx500

Mirrior's edge? Also the gears don't look plasticy.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

Which side of the fence are you playing? Valve's for skimping on costs or everyone else's for maximizing profits?

While you champion mediocracy I applaud companies like Sony that are willing to risk their bottom line and go against the grain to make stand out games that push technology. If that is a problem then I don't want to be part of the solution.

AnnoyedDragon

You're too focused on Valve to pay attention to anything I am saying aren't you? Even though the issue I am highlighting will eventually impact Sony's ability to provide the games you seem to value so much.

Well I said it earlier and I'll say it again, I hope you like motion sensors.

This conversation began about Valve, if you have issues with staying on topic then don't reply to my posts.

This conversation began about Valve, if you have issues with staying on topic then don't reply to my posts.

skektek

Likewise if you have no interest in actually addressing the issues I am highlighting then don't reply to mine.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

Meh, the Source engine hasn't mattered in years (if it ever did), the only reason it projects even the illusion of longevity is that Valve is too lazy to develop a successor.

AnnoyedDragon

I have to leave the house in a bit, so I don't really have the time to go into a lengthy debate.

However, surely you recognise that continuing to use Source engine has allowed Valve to keep their development costs down? Why should they produce a new engine when using the existing one has not hurt the appeal of their games? Developing a modern engine only results in them being forced to focus more on cross platform development to accommodate the costs.

Valve are primarily a PC company, their audience is on PC. But if their development costs blew up they would have no choice but to cater to a one size fits all model like other developers, hurting their main audiences experience.

yeah not to mention they want to appeal to the people to the lower end pc's to maximize profits if they upgrade the engine alienating potential customers my friend can run all the games in the orange box with a 8400gs P4 3ghz and 1G of ram if valve completely over hauled it people with pc like him could no longer run there games so they wouldn't buy them. I mean do you really think WoW would be so popular if its minimum requirements where alot higher?DJ_Headshot

Basically PC gaming technology is driven by hardware install base, when tech is released you have to wait for a suitable install base to form before you can justify utilizing the technology on a large scale. This gives developers time to develop new techniques to take advantage of technology, in the meantime the scalability of games allows them to test new techniques on the higher settings without alienating older hardware.

HDAO for example is a performance hog, but the later released compute shader makes it run allot faster. Parallax occlusion mapping is also a performance hog, but tessellation allows better image quality at much better performance.

Source

Advanced effects become more accessible over time as better techniques are developed. Future mid range hardware will be able to run effects we have come to associate with the upper end, not just because of sheer hardware power; but because more efficient methods were developed over time. If you rush to get advanced effects to the market then only the upper end will be able to run them, as you are relying on early and less efficient means of producing those visuals.

Valve will overhaul their engine one day, but not at the cost of alienating their audience. They advance little by little, encouraging customers to adopt better hardware over time while not preventing access to those on earlier hardware. When Valve releases a new engine I don't expect it to produce the next graphics king, I expect it to be a highly optimized and accessible engine that looks and runs well on a very broad range of hardware.

The affect of all this is development costs increase much slower on PC than they do on consoles. Consoles will throw hardware onto the market and expect developers to make games for it on day one, causing a sudden jump in development costs as opposed to a gradual increase. Fixed hardware brings with it utilization expectations, alienating those who cannot meet those expectation. There are likely more 3rd party developers on PC than console because you can be successful as a full game without spending $10+ million in development costs alone.

Always been a big fan of the Team ICO art direction and how their games come together graphically.

[QUOTE="EXLINK"]I've always been extremely fond of the Unreal Engine 3.0. It is extremely optimized no matter what hardware you're running and there have been so many different types of games that have been using it. imprezawrx500

Crystal Tools.Drakes_Fortune

I know you have recently become a huge FF fan, but this is going too far. :P Crystal Tools does not belong in this thread.

EDIT: I'm going with Unreal Engine 3 for it's amazing 3rd party support.

I will go with source because of how expandable and scalable it is. To think that a 2004 engine could pump out something like L4D2 is just amazing.

I think the best upcoming engine will be id tech 5.

I will go with source because of how expandable and scalable it is. To think that a 2004 engine could pump out something like L4D2 is just amazing.

I think the best upcoming engine will be id tech 5.

shakmaster13

I agree with you about Source. And it can run on a huge amount of hardware yet still look awesome.

Is id tech 5 being used in RAGE? Because if it is then it easily wins

[QUOTE="shakmaster13"]

I will go with source because of how expandable and scalable it is. To think that a 2004 engine could pump out something like L4D2 is just amazing.

I think the best upcoming engine will be id tech 5.

OB-47

I agree with you about Source. And it can run on a huge amount of hardware yet still look awesome.

Is id tech 5 being used in RAGE? Because if it is then it easily wins

[QUOTE="OB-47"]

[QUOTE="shakmaster13"]

I will go with source because of how expandable and scalable it is. To think that a 2004 engine could pump out something like L4D2 is just amazing.

I think the best upcoming engine will be id tech 5.

Timbury

I agree with you about Source. And it can run on a huge amount of hardware yet still look awesome.

Is id tech 5 being used in RAGE? Because if it is then it easily wins

And I thought RAGE was showing it at its best. Can't wait to see DOOM 4!

Reading through this, it would seem that most people who vote or comment know little or nothing about programing or working on an actual game. Just looking at still screenshots captured at graphics settings that would be unplayable are not good ways to judge the entirety of an engine. Honestly, if you want to look at what an engine is capable of, look at what has been done on it. CryEngine has only been used for the Crysis games, and one MMO, and all the time is very system entensive, while UE3 has been used on a LOT of games that have been successes, and is more compaitable with 3rd party utilities (like Beast lighting engine, used in Uncharted 2/Mirrors edge), and has produced well optimized results in the right hands. Just judging an engine on still pictures is a terrible way to judge the over-all engine.

I do like CryEngine's possible real-time graphics and streaming systems, but its very system heavy, while UE3 has shown its capable of great graphics in a multitude of genres, but usually in more linear ways, and usually using pre-baked lighting. Talking about engines that have yet to be released, based on tech demo's is just silly. Often, graphics have more to do with the efforts put forth by the maker of the game, than the engine's "abilities" themselves.

Reading through this, it would seem that most people who vote or comment know little or nothing about programing or working on an actual game. Just looking at still screenshots captured at graphics settings that would be unplayable are not good ways to judge the entirety of an engine. Honestly, if you want to look at what an engine is capable of, look at what has been done on it. CryEngine has only been used for the Crysis games, and one MMO, and all the time is very system entensive, while UE3 has been used on a LOT of games that have been successes, and is more compaitable with 3rd party utilities (like Beast lighting engine, used in Uncharted 2/Mirrors edge), and has produced well optimized results in the right hands. Just judging an engine on still pictures is a terrible way to judge the over-all engine.

I do like CryEngine's possible real-time graphics and streaming systems, but its very system heavy, while UE3 has shown its capable of great graphics in a multitude of genres, but usually in more linear ways, and usually using pre-baked lighting. Talking about engines that have yet to be released, based on tech demo's is just silly. Often, graphics have more to do with the efforts put forth by the maker of the game, than the engine's "abilities" themselves.

dragontech22

I hate saying crysis (or anything related) but hey... gotta give credit where credit is due...

CryEngine 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW3hlYFiRmk&hd=1
I'll be damned if anything else looks better.

Alan Wake pure awesome

I dunno why people dig the MT Framework so much. Yeah, stuff looks pretty, but the beauty is almost literally skin deep. The lack of physics and environmental interaction really turn me off the MT Framework.

Cryengine 3. it does everything teh cryengine 2 does, and more. Do not bring up Crysis 2. Thats a game, not the engine itself. Cryengine 3 has RLY RLY improved Global illumination (cryengine 2 barely made any use of it if not at all), and improved SSAO, and improved upon normal map rendering (most due to improvements in lighting).

watch this video and ull see in better detail what Cryengine 3 improves on. To say the that teh cryengine 3 is worse than the cryengine 2 is is rediculous. Just because Crysis 2 seems dumbed down in comparison to Crysis 1 doesnt mean the the engine has suffered cryengine 3. (on a side note, im surprised by the lack of fanboys compared to the other threads.) Also apparently Crytek is planning to release a free version of the Cryengine 3 SDK with no limitations just like Unreal did with the UDK. You get all the development tools for free as long as u make ur game non commercial, but if u do then u are required to pay a license fee, just like unreal. i personally am looking forward to this.

I hate saying crysis (or anything related) but hey... gotta give credit where credit is due...

CryEngine 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW3hlYFiRmk&hd=1
I'll be damned if anything else looks better.

Mystic-G

When has this thread appeared? Anyways, i would say Cryenigne 2, though since PC specs are extremely variable it cant be too optimized for said hardware, and therefore, requires high specs to run the game on max settings, which isnt very impressive as Hermits claim to be(By the way, the only way Crysis can look substantially better than KZ2, U2, or GOW3 is if its on Max settings)...All i see are the Hermits using Crysis mods which make the game have a substantially higher graphical fidelity than if you were to compare to retail Crysis on Max settings (Yes Hermits i know Crysis is the graphics king :roll: ).

It is definately not the MT framework engine, as it produces very low environmental texture quality in every single game that it was used upon...The Source engine is a modified last gen engine so definately not (Besides, every game that has utilized the source engine this generation has had only average-pretty good graphical fidelity)...The X-Ray engine architexture was developed during last gen, resulting in poor architexture choice when it ended up being pushed all the way to 2007, as PC's were using a different form of architexture that created a problem for the engines possibility to optimize efficiently, resulting in very high specs to max the game out...The Unreal engine 3 is a middle-ware engine, and while it is a good one, its far from the best graphics engine

So it ends up being the NDGE2, as it is the most optimized, efficient, and visually impressive (Excluding Cryengine 2 obviously)...U2 itself looks mind-blowing in every aspect, and has a very impressive physics engine as well...The set piecesequences that are in U2 are of the most impressive technical feats i have ever seen, as it loads very high resolution textures in the large, constantly changing back ground, while rendering the set piece itself without a hint of slow down.