I noticed that the shadows in CE3 have a slow update time, but anyway it looks good for console standards. ( 17 FPS on PS3 :meh: )
your now officially a graphic whore.
Look. HL is my favorite game. I won’t say the graphics suck, because they have this style that’s unmistakeably epic, but they’re clearly dated.
Just to defend the Source engine real quick I don’t think there’s another engine on Moddb that is being used as extensively as the Source engine (correct me if I’m wrong), nevermind that the types of mods being created with it range from RPG’s to 3rd Person Action games to of course FPS’.
QFT. There are more licensed Unreal3 games (plus a crapload of 2/2.5), but way more Source mods.
Speaking of the Unreal3 engine, did they ever solve the rendering issues? I’m behind the times when it comes to the newer games (for the most part).
What rendering issues?
Unreal 2.5 still has em with newer graphics cards and Bump mapping.
Well, when opening to the main in-game screen Unreal Engine 3 had a tendency to continue rendering models and textures that should have been covered in the loading time. You’ll see this most prominently in Vegas 2 and GoW2 (for the more recent Unreal3 licensed games).
I read that as of earlier this year (IIRC) they had been trying to resolve this issue with the engine.
Wow dude, your standards are really low ;/
CryEngine 2 (not Crytek engine or whatever you guys called it, visit Cryteks site or check the presentation videos) is by far the most advanced engine to date supporting many technology’s that I have not yet seen in other games.
Ofcourse the engine requires quite a nasty PC considering the advanced dynamic lighting, soft shadows and stuff like parallax occlusion.
As mentioned before though, it is not very well moddable because you are heavily depended on the tools rather then editting the rawfiles directly themselves.
I like the engine used in the CoD games (duh) made by ID Software, ID tech engine.
The games are very moddable because the tools etc. are low-level however the engine does have its limitations.
The things I hate most about it is the extremely poor physics and the primitive lighting (making dynamic lights with proper shading for example is next to impossible) or creating multiple dynamic lights on a single surface = not possible.
Even things like flickering lights require extensive scripting and even then they don’t work if the player doesn’t have certain graphics turned on.
Even if an engine would have photorealism,
the fun by playing a game is the only thing that counts in my eyes. And Crysis wasn’t that fun than other games (my opinion).
@Topic: Best is always relative. I would say Source, even it hasn’t the graphics standards of Crysis, but it has the best (modular) code base and has much potential.
Only the first one used id tech (Quake 3 team arena). The newer ones use a proprietary engine.
Fixed.
who cares if it for consols, still looks like shit, im not gonna say a gameboy game looks fucking amezing just because its on a gameboy. Shit is shit …
Adding my two cents, I am continually impressed by the power of the Source engine. It can be pushed far beyond what we’re all used to seeing in Valve’s games.
Curse, for example, achieves much crisper visuals than usual source games by doubling the typical texture resolution, while mods like City 17 and Raindrop are actually adding quite a bit to the engine itself. Case in point: compare Raindrop’s media (especially the video on the front page) to anything you’ve seen in a Valve game.
I think any modern fps could be redone in the source engine with enough effort.
https://www.crytek.com/technology/cryengine-3/specifications/
CryEngine 2 has the best graphics, thats for sure. It’s “modability” is another story i guess.
The truth is you can’t deside which engine is the best.
-Cryengine 2 has the best graphics.
-Source has the best “modability” apparently
I don’t know. I’ve never tried to mod.
Best graphics?
Well, I’m not sure of the technical specifications of the CryEngine, but I’m pretty sure games with terrible graphics can be made on it too.
I’m also not technically proficient when it comes to game engines, but I’m pretty sure CryEngine would only be really impressive if it could render so many (poly’s triangles) more than what is considered the best in the industry currently, as well as what it can do in the texture resolutions department. (this is my understanding of game engines and would love to be corrected if I’m wrong).
Just because a game with amazing graphics was made with a certain engine, doesn’t mean it’s automatically entitled to be called “best engine”.
The standards that people have for graphics nowadays are stupidly high. I was watching the E3 trailer for NFS: Shift and one of the comments was ‘graphics are bad, gameplay looks boring’.
The fuck.
It’s much more than polygon counts and texture resolution. Just take a look at the rendering features of any engine (e.g. Unreal Engine, C4, Unigine). CryEngine had an impressive features list: semi-real time ambient lighting for moving light sources, the ability to render a huge number of trees simultaneously with pretty smooth transitions between levels-of-detail, huge draw distance, gorgeous water shaders with caustics and god rays, volumetric clouds, atmospheric scattering and so on. Of course, all these have to work with high polygon counts.