GDC - Unreal + CryTek

[Hunter]

Asif no one has posted these yet, watch these. The graphics and lighting is just amazing.
I have also herd some rumours that new consoles might come out this year.

6npDVa7pjpQ
F7inlXj2oWQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6npDVa7pjpQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7inlXj2oWQ

Just amazing stuff coming

[annihilation]

I knew Cryengine 3 was amazing, but damn.
I can't imagine Cryengine 4.

[Warsaw]

UE3.975 Demo: He say you Brade Runnah! Saw the pictures for this one over the weekend, but in motion it's even more impressive.

CryEngine 3 for Cinema: Looks very good, I love the tool set. However, I still think that CE's visuals look too plastic.

[=sw=warlord]

I knew Cryengine 3 was amazing, but damn.
I can't imagine Cryengine 4.
I just hope Developer studios take to Cryengine 3 like they did to UE3.

[Amit]

Uh, Hunter, only include the characters after the equal sign in the youtube link when using the youtube tags.

This was created in CryEngine 2:

4No43o7zkDQ&hd=1

Just imagine what they can do with CryEngine3 For Cinema.

[Kornman00]

@Unreal, whoop dee doo. Cinematic "demos" can kiss my ass. These commercial game engines get so fucking hung up on having the most realistic rendering that don't stop and think about what else needs tuning in their engine. In Unreal's case, that'd be everything else. In cinematics, artists have full control of the camera and what gets rendered. Let's see that same bullshit in a real-time game.

At least Cry actually showed off some tech in a breakdown and not just a single bullshit cinematic.

[hobojoe]

^ This

[Warsaw]

Amit: that demo is still far more impressive than anything I've seen come out of CryEngine 3. I don't know if they just aren't pushing it hard enough or that in an effort to get it scaled down to consoles, they had to sacrifice quality.

[Amit]

Amit: that demo is still far more impressive than anything I've seen come out of CryEngine 3. I don't know if they just aren't pushing it hard enough or that in an effort to get it scaled down to consoles, they had to sacrifice quality.

That's exactly what I'm wondering. Is the CryEngine 3 actually superior to the CE2. From what we've seen, CE2 is the better one, but I just think they aren't pushing it to its full potential, at least they haven't when showing it to the public. They have to be developing new tech for CE3 that isn't tied to consoles or even made to run on them. I just can't help but have the feeling that CE3 will be a bigger disappointment than we were expecting. CryEngine 2 is still a very capable and promising engine, even if poorly optimized.

[Roostervier]

With all its new features, CE3 is a much more versatile engine. Deferred lighting, a lot of optimization, a lot of bugs fixed, and SSGI (to name a few things) are all things that make CE3 superior to CE2; however, I feel all those fixes and changes should have been made to CE2 and shouldn't warrant their own version of the engine. CE3 should be CE2.5, like Unreal did with UE3 and UE3.5.

[Warsaw]

^This. So much this.

I feel that they made CE3 a much more usable engine, but it feels like they cut some corners to shoehorn the functionality you mentioned in there.

With some creative use of portals, CE2 might be made to run a bit better than it does. I feel like CE2 hasn't been around long enough to be all of a sudden cast by the wayside.

[PenGuin1362]

While I've never worked on the programming end of Unreal Korn, having dealt with the art, rendering, shader, and lighting pipeline it seemed pretty good to me. Minus the evil fucking seems it likes to generate on modular pieces

[Cortexian]

seams?

[PenGuin1362]

whoops...yeah that