IMO (keep in mind i said its my opinion) the U3 Engine is a bit overrated in its capabilities. So far the most I've seen it do is display an over usage of bump mapping, simply making most of their games look way too glossy or shiny. Also, if you were to look at games like Rainbow Six: Vegas or GRAW 2, that also use the engine, they don't look amazing. It also seems very slow with its texture streaming at times like in Gears, Graw2 and so one. The bump mapping in the games aren't bad, but I'd like to see something other than that used, not just a shiny rock on the ground that sticks out just a bit. I've noticed the engine makes up for its lower than most games poly counts by using the mapping techniques. I myself don't find that impressive, because of how different things would look if they were higher poly and less mapped. Idk if its just because U3E is just easier to program for or what, but I think other engines should be used. I think we need some variety on how games look. Here's just a small list of games that look great without U3E Haze, Halo 3, KZ 2, GT 5, FF13 and so on. I think devs need to get off this Epic train that to me seems like will be falling behind the newcomers. Note: I do think UT 3 will be an awesome game, and it looks great, BUT like I said, it has its places where they can improve a lot.
No whats overrated is that piece of crap infinity ward made for CoD4, seriously, CoD 4 has :lol: laughable graphics yet many praise it. The only thing that was great about it's E3 showing was the amount of action going on, visually it's a rather ugly game. Your can really see how ugly it is in the day time images especially.
It's only as good as the people who are using it. The best thing about it is that it's felxable and easy to use. Well, at least the older versions were.
No whats overrated is that piece of crap infinity ward made for CoD4, seriously, CoD 4 has :lol: laughable graphics yet many praise it. The only thing that was great about it's E3 showing was the amount of action going on, visually it's a rather ugly game. Your can really see how ugly it is in the day time images especially.zipozal
After playing the Bioshock demo today on the PC, I'd say it's a pretty impressive engine. A lot of thing were shiny but then again most of the world is supposed to be wet so it fits well with Bioshock's theme. I mean it's not like games turn out being ugly. It's not the engine's fault that textures end up being super glossy or have over usage of bumpmaps, the devs are the ones who make the textures, they're the ones who choose to makethem like that. The engine just gives them the ability to do that.
funny thing i was just talking about this in another forum. Its easy to use, but i HATE the fact that everythign that comes out of the damn engine looks so shiney. It looks good, but its so unrealistic with the shine. Sortta like source engine at some parts
[QUOTE="zipozal"]No whats overrated is that piece of crap infinity ward made for CoD4, seriously, CoD 4 has :lol: laughable graphics yet many praise it. The only thing that was great about it's E3 showing was the amount of action going on, visually it's a rather ugly game. Your can really see how ugly it is in the day time images especially.lupinelope
hmm... looked pretty good to me :?
I have to agree with zipozal, I wasnt impressed with the graphics that much. Considering they have been known for great graphics with constant fps for years. I think they just hurried to make a new game.
funny thing i was just talking about this in another forum. Its easy to use, but i HATE the fact that everythign that comes out of the damn engine looks so shiney. It looks good, but its so unrealistic with the shine. Sortta like source engine at some partsSully28
Well source has better physics and its not as shiny because it uses normal mapping. So things get a gloss like at an angle, or from light,..not just bein in the dark lol. (i make source mods...well..try to lol).
Its very well optimised and easy to use... I see that as somewhat of a godsend to the industry. In terms of technical capabilities it is overrated... but then again, we haven't seen what it does in DX10 yet, so that could be all just DX9 problems.
Irecall reading where they said the UE (not sure if it meant UE3) is great at graphics in Close quarters and things not moving too fast. But in other environments, the UE is not there yet. Is that correct? I am not adeveloper.
Maybe that is why crysis looks so good in out door environment cause it was build for it. But in close quarters, crysis is still good but outdoor is a lot better.
Irecall reading where they said the UE (not sure if it meant UE3) is great at graphics in Close quarters and things not moving too fast. But in other environments, the UE is not there yet. Is that correct? I am not adeveloper.
Maybe that is why crysis looks so good in out door environment cause it was build for it. But in close quarters, crysis is still good but outdoor is a lot better.
gamenux
Thats what it seems like so far, BUT in UT3, there is supposed to be VERY large games. From playing the previous UT's I'm pretty sure it will be very fast paced.
[QUOTE="zipozal"]No whats overrated is that piece of crap infinity ward made for CoD4, seriously, CoD 4 has :lol: laughable graphics yet many praise it. The only thing that was great about it's E3 showing was the amount of action going on, visually it's a rather ugly game. Your can really see how ugly it is in the day time images especially.zero_snake99
hmm... looked pretty good to me :?
I have to agree with zipozal, I wasnt impressed with the graphics that much. Considering they have been known for great graphics with constant fps for years. I think they just hurried to make a new game.
Teh crappy graphics!! http://www.charlieoscardelta.com/sitrep.php?uid=2&b_id=MTE0NA==&req=view
It's a great engine, both powerful and compatible. But I've personally often wondered why Cryengine1 (and now 2) and the Source engine never got nearly as much love as Unreal Engine 3.
Well it seems the engine is very user friendly, and the graphics are amazing. But I don't see why the CryEngine(..?) doesn't get as much attention.Perception1
Oops, didn't even see this before I posted. It's true though, where's the love for Cryengine? It seems immensely capable, both technologically and in terms of ease-of-use.
[QUOTE="zipozal"]No whats overrated is that piece of crap infinity ward made for CoD4, seriously, CoD 4 has :lol: laughable graphics yet many praise it. The only thing that was great about it's E3 showing was the amount of action going on, visually it's a rather ugly game. Your can really see how ugly it is in the day time images especially.terdoo
hmm... looked pretty good to me :?
I have to agree with zipozal, I wasnt impressed with the graphics that much. Considering they have been known for great graphics with constant fps for years. I think they just hurried to make a new game.
Teh crappy graphics!! http://www.charlieoscardelta.com/sitrep.php?uid=2&b_id=MTE0NA==&req=view
[QUOTE="zipozal"]No whats overrated is that piece of crap infinity ward made for CoD4, seriously, CoD 4 has :lol: laughable graphics yet many praise it. The only thing that was great about it's E3 showing was the amount of action going on, visually it's a rather ugly game. Your can really see how ugly it is in the day time images especially.zero_snake99
hmm... looked pretty good to me :?
I have to agree with zipozal, I wasnt impressed with the graphics that much. Considering they have been known for great graphics with constant fps for years. I think they just hurried to make a new game.
whats worst is that they compare COD4 with Halo and KZ2
i like the halo 3 engine. It is different from the style of gears (personally, i want some colour back in my games. Gears, COD, killzone 2 all looks so grey, the engine is overused). Bungie also knows how to use the engine to the fullest (since they created it).
i like the halo 3 engine. It is different from the style of gears (personally, i want some colour back in my games. Gears, COD, killzone 2 all looks so grey, the engine is overused). Bungie also knows how to use the engine to the fullest (since they created it).elite_ferns1
Yeah, I agree that the Halo engine is "easy" for bungie. It really isn't THAT efficiant though. I learned how hard it is to program at my planned college (IUPUI). They have a Virtual reality room in their IT building and is working on a virtual doom 3. They orginally wanted to do halo, but the programming was "geometricly based". So it wasn't possible for their size of a team.
Anyways, Gears looked really gritty mainly because of the color of the textures while KZ2 looked dark and grey in the trailer because of the light diffusing of the objects (walls, ground, broody clouds). It is part of the engine they are working on. So if lets say a map took place on a tropical beach (which i doubt..lol) it would look alot more bright from the light shining off the water, and reflecting off the foilage. Yeah...I know a lot about the KZ2 engine..well all thats known about it so far..lol
Overall it seems to be a pretty good engine. The textures do seem to come out rediculously shiny but R6:Vegas and GRAW 2 (although I don't think the GRAW games use UE3) seem to have it more or less under control. I'm not too sure about this "easy to use" tag thats been slapped on it, Because while most of the games that use it have been extremely good (Vegas, Bioshock and Gears are all AAA)after the Silicon Knights and Digital Extremes comments I'm not entirely convinced.
Log in to comment