CryEngine 2 VS Unreal Engine 3

[Edito]

Hi ppl i just want to hear ur opinions around this 2 giants (CryEngine2 n Unreal Engine3), i have have my preferences, i prefere UE3 and i think its more powerfull n beautifull, i've been playing crisis for about 30min and didn't impress me at all i tryed in my friends system (more powerfull than mine) but the feeling remains the same but when i played UT3 Demo damn... i feel amazed till to day, and every day a play UT3 Demo...

Im not good in english try to understand... lets make this tread good and helpfull...

Stay Cool

[Urbklr]

...Crysis OWNS UT3 in graphics......And Cryengine2 IMO is like the best engine due to ease of use and graphics and phyics quality.

[DanTheBanjoman]

Originally Posted by Urbklr911

...Crysis OWNS UT3 in graphics......And Cryengine2 IMO is like the best engine due to ease of use and graphics and phyics quality.

Ease of use? Have you tried it or did you read that somewhere?


Personally I'd vote Unreal, low requirements and nice graphics. Added to that that the demo didn't use full size textures and no AA, so it'll look better at release (if your computer handles it)

[EviLZeD]

both are really good but its going to be interesting how cryengine would compare to the dunia engine for far cry 2

[newconroer]

Unreal engine is showing promise, in that it's very smooth, and what not, but it's not really next-gen now is it?

Cry2 is only being represented by an old Crysis demo, so, that's not conclusive.


At this point the performance of Unreal engine is better, but if you look hard enough, you can see many instances where they 'short-cutted' on the visuals.

[Urbklr]

Originally Posted by DanTheBanjoman

Ease of use? Have you tried it or did you read that somewhere?


Personally I'd vote Unreal, low requirements and nice graphics. Added to that that the demo didn't use full size textures and no AA, so it'll look better at release (if your computer handles it)

It's been said quite a bit so I figure its true. And Cryengine's specs arent THAT bad.

[happita]

with what ive seen in the crysis demo, i think ut3 sports some nicer visuals. but physics-wise, i think crysis has it down pat

[Edito]

we must buy a high end pc to enjoy the real cryengine 2? This is wrong from my point of view, because i think they should work more on the engine in order to bring good graphics and good performance not only for the high end PC owners but for many as possible, like UE3 did...

[happita]

theres a reason why these games have high req...its just that some of us are still living in the past.
but i agree some of the req are a bit over the top for crysis

[DanTheBanjoman]

Originally Posted by happita

theres a reason why these games have high req...its just that some of us are still living in the past.
but i agree some of the req are a bit over the top for crysis

A 8800Ultra and 2900 pro struggling to run Crysis isn't "Living in the past". I do agree however that it doesn't have to run on the lowest end hardware available.

[francus_caetus]

See For your selfs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJHY0KYpc_8

[mandelore]

Originally Posted by francus_caetus

See For your selfs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJHY0KYpc_8

LOL LOL the render for unreal engine shown first was never used in the actual game, and render vs ingame graphics is just not the same.

even looking at the video its clear that crysis is far better. I have played both demos, both at 1920x1200, and crysis simply beats it. the visuals in Unreal is good, and look nifty to say the least, but crysis is just so much more realistic.

unreal still, maybe just to me, has slightly less "reality" to its looks, which doesnt matter for the game as its just like that, where as crysis appears to try to be as real as it can. Total user preference tho, i like both for different reasons

[DanTheBanjoman]

Originally Posted by mandelore

the visuals in Unreal is good, and look nifty to say the least, but crysis is just so much more realistic.

unreal still, maybe just to me, has slightly less "reality" to its looks, which doesnt matter for the game as its just like that, where as crysis appears to try to be as real as it can. Total user preference tho, i like both for different reasons

Aren't you mixing up the engines and the games here? ie why wouldn't the unreal3 engine be able to show lifelike images? I think we should wait for more games to utilize these engines before we can tell which is stronger graphically.

[AsRock]

Cry engine for sure BUT i like them both my self.

[JC316]

I would say that the UT3 engine is better. It seems to run and look better on lesser systems. It also looks better than the Cry engine 2, I was not that impressed with Crysis, but I am VERY impressed with Bioshock.

[happita]

Originally Posted by DanTheBanjoman

A 8800Ultra and 2900 pro struggling to run Crysis isn't "Living in the past". I do agree however that it doesn't have to run on the lowest end hardware available.

i was referring to people who run minimum requirement hardware.
like me, although i cant even run it, ive seen it in motion on my friend's computer who runs low-end hardware.
point is that you need a mid-range card to comfortably run these games and even with that, have some of the settings turned down with a moderate resolution

[mandelore]

nope not mixing up, unreal looks awesome, but i find crysis , albeit requiring a higher spec machine looks more realistic imo

oh, yeah i see what you mean. I was refering to the engines implementation in the unreal game, compared to cryengines implementation in crysis

[Edito]

For me cryengine2 its good but i still prefere unreal engine 3 it looks better, solid colors and im amazed with it i played BIOSHOCK and i feel impressed with the game graphics and that didn't happen with crisis, its about preferences at all (maybe)... but for me unreal engine surpass cryengine2...

[Airbrushkid]

UT3 looks fake, cartoon like. Not real looking at all. You feel that the game makers should hold back because you can not afford a better pc. What if they did and found a way to make games play and look better on cheaper pc's. Next the game itself may cost you $150.00 to say $250.00. Would you prefer that? If you cannot afford it stop wining. And get another job. Thats if your really have a job and not living with mommy and daddy. Sorry but tired of all that seem to wine and it seems that those that are wining are kids.

Originally Posted by Edito

we must buy a high end pc to enjoy the real cryengine 2? This is wrong from my point of view, because i think they should work more on the engine in order to bring good graphics and good performance not only for the high end PC owners but for many as possible, like UE3 did...

[Wile E]

I prefer the looks of CryEngine2. I prefer the more realistic images, but UE3 still looks spectacular.

I have noticed that UE3 scales better (so far, we'll see as CE2 progresses).

[W1zzard]

ut3 cant do proper AA on DX9 - very very very bad

[HiddenStupid]

Cry Engine:
super realistic..... beyond typical gaming visuals. LIFE-LIKE!

Unreal 3 Engine:
cartoonish-fantasy-unreal style but technically advance

What to choose? I cannot say.... both are different style of visuals and graphic.

[niko084]

Not a huge fan of UT3 for the engine side of it... Looks kinda cool, but nothing that makes me go "wow nice"... It's a lot nicer looking then it is truly advanced, good performance out of it though, wont complain.

Cry Engine.... Well that takes my key..

But I'm with HiddenStupid here and saying they are kinda 2 different worlds, one is meant to be more "Earthy" realistic, while the other is a bit more "futuristic" type.

[EviLZeD]

i would say cry engine because when i saw comrades with same suite i was so shocked at how real their faces and suits looked this was on high settings

but unreal 3 is still great imo