New CryEngine vid shows next-gen vision Comments by Richard Leadbetter

Looks awesome. Hopefully will this and the rage engine somewhat destroy the monopoly that the UE3 has.

This will hopefully compete against UE4, being a PS3 owner I'm sick of that damn thing (UE3). And the fact that Epic and MS have such a close relationship means UE4 will most likely run best on MS platforms (if the hardware power was same between the competing platforms).

And hopefully tech 5 and RAD can provide some much needed variety.

Very pretty. It would be nice if CryTek could make a game that wasn't set in a jungle, though. How about the urban jungle, guys, let us use a super-suit to jump around on buildings in a big open city.

Wow, that looks awesome! Forgive my ignorance as I've been in consoleland a while but I take it this is the engine for Crysis 2 then?

Damn! I've only just built a nice little PC to play Crysis 1 at a high level, I'm not even on ultra high yet!

/ start saving, curses his coming back to PC gaming, thinks of excuses for the Mrs..

And so they've completely abandoned the CE2? Great.

Yeah, but Unreal Engine 3 has powered some of the best games of the past few years. Batman AA, Mass Effect 1&2, Gears of War 1&2, BioShock 1&2, Rainbow Six Vegas 1&2 and the upcoming Borderlands... That's some achievement for one engine!

I'm doubtful that this can overturn that much market-share, but any competition is better than no competition....

I'm only interested if it can render more shades of brown than the UE3 engine.

The console bits did seem choppy. 20 fps? *shudders* Hopefully they can get it higher than that.

Dear console game devs,

Please can you leave out some of the unnecessary visual clutter in your games and get them all running at a flawless 60fps.

Please can you leave the visual showcases to the PC as that's the platform that does that kind of thing best. ALL console games should prioritise fluid gameplay above every other consideration.


Yours sincerely,

A gamer who is not interested in slideshows and unresponsive controls.

Thank god, please no more UE3.

Ooohh... something new to test my PC's metal :)

Looks pretty good on the consoles too, but as others have said 20fps sounds worrying.

What's with all the UE3 hate? As Cianchristopher mentioned, some of the best (and best looking) games of recent years use it.

Please now release crysis and crysis warhead for the consoles!

@des : actually crysis and warhead ARE game. Not only showcasing cryEngine 2 power, and actual game, with a cool gameplay.

Those two games are REALLY worth the play. Stop saying crystek only make engine, their games are great.

And i've no doupt crysis 2 will be awesome, just like far cry and crysis were

Who cares about the graphs if the game is just going to be another 'roam around a pretty island/engine showcase killing people and blowing stuff up' affair?
Hopefully some dev somewhere has a more original application for the tech.

Competition has been sorely needed in the graphics-engine field for the last few years, especially for console games. Unreal Engine has provided some stunners but this looks on par / exceeding the capabilities of that software in parts!

All this means neither of them can rest on their laurels and we should see some stunning tech in the years to come, even from current-gen harware. :)

Advanced character animation.

* Man blinks unrealistically *
* Woman runs woodenly *

They do good shrubbery though. I'll give them that.

This is where the longer console generations will start to show, grahically crysis 2 will be a different game on PC vs the consoles and this gap will keep growing.

I am just hoping that nothing is gimped in the PC version to accomodate the consoles.

Next Gen Ready? WOW!

...

...

What does that mean again?

In this case, the real next generation.

Or current generation PC hardware. Take your pick.

Amazing video, though it doesn't show off global illumination as much as I'd want to. That's an amazing feature.

I don't understand the hate for the UE3 engine either.
Sure, it get's used a lot, but that is only because it is a very good engine.
the thing that people need to remember though is that the engine is just another tool for development, it's still up to the developer themselves to make the game stand out and shine - I think Borderlands is the perfect example of just how different games can look in UE3 when the developers make the effort.

LOL @ People looking at the streaming video and judging frame rate from it

@FACTIMUS MAXIMUS " Please can you leave out some of the unnecessary visual clutter in your games and get them all running at a flawless 60fps. " A good point but why cant console gamers have 60fps and great graphics. COD4MW has some of the best multi plat visuals this gen yet retains its 60fps gameplay,same with burnout paradise.

I cant hide it. Im a graphics whore myself and a sucker for great visuals. I guess this will be a reason to upgrade before UE3 then? we shall see but the thing is I also have to admit this thing looks awesome and as much as UE3 will show the difference again between PCs and consoles cause if they are next-gen ready as claimed way too many features and capabilities wont be applied on the consoles even though I dont doupt they will look stunning as well. Just will show sooner the fact that graphically they will start showing poor as those new graphic engines are getting to good use.

I will enjoy them myself on the console though till I decide to upgrate since both ATI and Nvidia are gonna come out very soon with new lines of their beasts. Aka Fermi from Nvidia. Simply amazing upgrades.

@donnie

"A good point but why cant console gamers have 60fps and great graphics. COD4MW has some of the best multi plat visuals this gen yet retains its 60fps gameplay,same with burnout paradise."

Both very good examples of gorgeous looking 60fps games.

Thing is though, they both run on bespoke engines being used in the environment they were designed to be used in, allowing the developers to take shortcuts where necessary. An all-purpose engine like UE3 may have to calculate objects that might not be necessary to a bespoke engine, even if they never get rendered. That produces memory and processor overheads.

The burnout engine takes memory shortcuts by using streaming technology which limits it's application in other genres (inability to do any kind of splitscreen for example), and clever use of the COD engine focuses your attention very carefully so you don't notice the deficiencies like sub-HD resolution and very limited physics.

My main point though, is that given a choice between:

a) a game which is a visual showcase that plays like chilled treacle

and

b) a game that plays silky smooth but is slightly underwhelming visually

I would choose b every time. Unfortunately gaming has become like fashion, and an industry that used to be all about providing the most addictive, compelling game experiences has now become a rather boring competition to see who can put the most polygons on the screen with the most bluster and attitude.

Developers should be using good art direction as their visual muscle, not falling back on the incorrect assumption that technical ability makes a game better looking.

Most importantly though, is this stupid stupid trend of developing games for the screenshots. Develop games that look good in motion for christ sakes!

It's a social trend, of course. Everything in society is becoming shallow, superficial, instant-on and instant-off.

Christ I feel old.

I'm fan of Crytek and their technology, but have to admit that they have no chance in current generation's competition with UE3. All developers either released at least one game for X360/PS3 or are in the final development stage for such. Many released more than one title. It means everyone had either licensed some engine (e.g. UE3) or developed one in house. People are used to these licensed or in-house engines and trained with them - it's stupid and very expensive (in time and money) to change at the end of console cycle. Nobody will do that.

CryEngine's chance is to become internal engine for EA's titles, but even this is questionable - DICE has Frostbite, Visceral has some Dead Space/Godfather tech, Criterion has its own tech for sure, EA Sports will use theirs like forever (nobody cares for football sims' graphics anyway), guys behind The Sims/Spore will definitely won't use demanding high-end solution for their causal "games" and so on. Maybe just MoH developers, but I don't know if they still exist.

2 donnie080208
A good point but why cant console gamers have 60fps and great graphics. COD4MW has some of the best multi plat visuals this gen yet retains its 60fps gameplay And yet CoD4 runs in 640p or something like that - with AWFUL jaggies and not quite the best textures on my 1080p TV. So of course "60fps" is never free, and picture quality have to be sacrificed. The question is do this game really requires 60 frames per second or just needs shorter response time? For some games and/or genres I readily except 30 fps (say DreamFall).

Very impressive, hopefully a company that can make a fun game will make something with it. Sorry to be so bitchy but the only fun part of Crysis 2 was knocking buildings down. It had all the same old problems of Far Cry, with enemies being able to see you from miles away through foliage and wimpy weapons that didn't feel like they were doing anything.

2 farticusmaximus
The burnout engine takes memory shortcuts by using streaming technology which limits it's application in other genres

Criterion created one of the best looking shooters on PS2/Xbox with their engine - Black. Yeah, destruction was scripted, but looked cool and ran on extremely weak hardware. Optimisation and clever design can create beautiful things. But you're right - it's highly unlikely GTA4 could be built on Criterion's current gen engine at all, or retain 60fps at least.

2 photoboy
wimpy weapons that didn't feel like they were doing anything.
If by "Crysis 2" you mean Crysis and Crysis Warhead, then I don't agree - both games were great, not just looked fantastic (and fantastic they look!). As for the weapons - try gauss rifle in Crysis - it's the best gauss rifle I ever touched in videogame! (well, maybe the one if Fallout 2 was better - but just because of "spagetti with ketchup" sound and sadistic comments on enemy damage) Just shoot from it for christ's sake! SCAR rifle is nothing spectacular, but good nonetheless.

Nice article, Richard. Would've appreciated more detail on perceived differences - what kinds of changes are we talking about when you say the lighting model's different in the PS3 version?

Of course, I appreciate we can't do a fair comparison here given those are all completely different PC/PS3/X360 scenes, but a more technical breakdown in the video like the other tech commentaries would be nice.

I wonder.. The team at Crytek are obviously very talented, but are they able to utilize the PS3's SPU's properly? They ought to be the ones managing it, if anyone.

Well there was the GC presentation where Cevat Yerli said "I would argue nobody's running on PS3 as good as we do, I can put my hand on fire on this, nobody." Video link.

I'd suppose they're rather proud of that then.

He even goes so far as to say that the PS3 version's the one running at the top end, which I'd take with a grain of salt if he's including the PC in that comparison. The plan is still to get both console versions just about the same, at the end of the day.

@farticusmaximus:

You can play at 60 fps x 1080p in good loking games as GT 5 (P), Wip3Out HD Fury and Ridge Racer 7. Or you can simply buy a good graphic card (5850 is around 220 €) and obtain superb graphics and 120 fps in a lot of games.

@aemonSpawn:

Crytek isn't aiming to displace UE3 in popularity this gen, but to do the same thing that Epic in the next gen launching a more flexible and powerfull middleware soon enought. The main reason of the vast UE3 adoptation was that Epic engine was ready in 2006, when most developers did to confront the choice of start a own engine from 0 or hire the Epic license.

I highly doubt CE3 is going to run better on PS3. Let us remind ourselves that Crytek is a PC dev and the 360 tech is closest to a PC. Also, there's been a few cases when multiplat devs boasted the PS3 version as being superior when it actually wasn't (ghostbusters anyone?). They are just saying that so shrewd PS3 owners won't be discouraged from buying Crysis 2 for fear of it being a crappy port like most multiplat games.

No multiplat dev will ever get more out of the PS3 than Sony's own first party studios.

@Buran

"You can play at 60 fps x 1080p in good loking games as GT 5 (P), Wip3Out HD Fury and Ridge Racer 7."

True, but there are only a handful of games that run at 60fps on both the HD consoles. The Wii comes off far better in terms of number of 60fps titles though, ironically.

My preference would be ALL games locked at 60fps with no tearing, mandated by the console manufacturer. It would force developers to up their game with respect to art direction instead of lazily relying on poly counts and effects to get their vision across to the gamer.


"Or you can simply buy a good graphic card (5850 is around 220 €) and obtain superb graphics and 120 fps in a lot of games."

Personally I'm not into PC gaming. I don't agree with chasing framerates through upgrades. Again, I think it's a lazy way of developing.

"Well there was the GC presentation where Cevat Yerli said "I would argue nobody's running on PS3 as good as we do, I can put my hand on fire on this, nobody." Video link.

I'd suppose they're rather proud of that then.

He even goes so far as to say that the PS3 version's the one running at the top end, which I'd take with a grain of salt if he's including the PC in that comparison. The plan is still to get both console versions just about the same, at the end of the day."

That looks like a phenomenal achievement for consoles. O_O

When I see something like Crisis in all it's glory running without major cuts on PS3/360 then I'll believe what this engine is capable offor consoles. Any demo can show a lot...with all processing power focused on a short demo afor it's capabilities rather then a full game that uses alot more graphic techs, ai, area, interactive environments etc; and then all need to run smoothly - a tech demo is will always look better but the game will using the engine will never live up to the demo.

Sweet! This will most likely change the graphics in gaming a lot.

I hope they also ditch UE3.

First of I dont get why the hate for UE3. If it wasnt for it way too many of the best looking games out in this gen would have never existed in their current state. So wtf is up with that? And just like CryEngine3 is basically aiming for nextgen even more than the current one also Epic has been working on UE4 for a long while now and that will be based on the next gen hardware ( GPUs ). So also I dont see a point being against Epic when we havent seen even if their next engine will be or not any better or by how far. Since when was there wars other than consoles also with Graphics engines? What happened to the gamers and instead of being supportive for those that do something for gaming are instead craptalking? :S

Problem is some people actually think the graphics are good and cant see the flat bumpmap graphics of UEIII. Look how many people 'think' Gears has good graphics...

I think it looks like B&W cardboard cut outs (nice bitmaps), if we constantly point it out maybe developers will switch to better engines and we get still the good games, ideas but nicer looking - win win except for EPIC games ...

"What's with all the UE3 hate? As Cianchristopher mentioned, some of the best (and best looking) games of recent years use it."

I think it's mostly from PS3 fanboys who've seen sub-par UE3-based ports for their console.

The hate is completely unjustified. Any engine that can produce results as diverse as Gears of War, Bioshock and Mirror's Edge has a lot going for it.

@ Womble

Don't forget Shadow Complex.

@geordiemp:

"Problem is some people actually think the graphics are good and cant see the flat bumpmap graphics of UEIII. Look how many people 'think' Gears has good graphics... I think it looks like B&W cardboard cut outs (nice bitmaps)"

That's what makes the InterTubes great -- everybody is allowed to have their own opinion, and it's perfectly valid.

For example, I think you are a complete idiot. Or a bald-faced liar. Or suffering from cognitive issues, like a claw hammer wedged inside your cranium. And I can just post those opinions in the great big tubes, where it's just as valid as your nonsense.

It's a great time to be alive, I tell you.

@farticusmaximus
"My preference would be ALL games locked at 60fps with no tearing, mandated by the console manufacturer."

I see your point and I generally agree, but OTOH there should be some room for exceptions. Some games benefit more from 30fps and more detailed visuals than 60fps for example.

hmmm

I want to see what it would look like running at 60 fps

what

Well glad I'm single so I can blow my wad of cash inside my pc rather than my man wad inside my Mrs.

How about making an engine that looks amazing runs at a smooth 60 fps at a high resolution but doesn't require a google server with 8 gfx cards attached to it to stand a chance?

anyone hazard a guess as to what the specs of the PC would be for the next gen viewings?

poop