Source’s real problem is that it’s still based on an ancient map format. Unreal and Crysis have map editors that let you build maps and see lighting and other stuff in real time within the engine, while Source requires a lot of guesswork and trial and error, since the editor is external to the engine.
I personally like source because its easy to map for, but as far as quality of Engine its probably Unreal. It just has that blend of utility, accessibility, and graphical ability. That said, if Valve comes out with Source 2 with the same mod support, I’d get behind that 100%.
/thread
I’ve heard (and have yet to confirm) that CryEngine 3 was created to be insanely easy to port from console to console, so it’s probably the best engine for companies looking to make a multiplatform game, if that’s true. Who knows what the PC dev kit will be like, but CE2 was actually pretty nice to mod – if not run (on average hardware, anyway).
Source is a fine engine, but it’s starting to show its age, and it really wasn’t designed to be a licensed-out developer toolset type thing like Unreal 3 and CE3. It was more of an investment by Valve to consolidate their development costs throughout a 10-year+ run of games (or that’s what I’ve extrapolated from things Newell has said, anyway). It gets the job done regardless.
Unreal 3 is probably the best choice for most devs right now, since that’s what it’s really designed for and it’s a known entity, but I wouldn’t count out CE3, considering how ridiculously smart the Crytek people are.
Also, just to add, IIRC CryEngine 3 is supposed to be less demanding than CryEngine 2 while delivering equally impressive or even better graphics. Can’t link to a source just yet, but its a little early to speculate on an engine that has no games for it yet.
I’d like to point out that unless you have modeling software, UE and Cryengine are pretty much useless as far as making something new goes. Sure, there’s terrain in Cryengine, but everything else is model-based.
Also, imo, subtractive-space geometry is shit.
Oh if only it was as easy to create in Source SDK as it is with Unreal Editor 3.
Gibbelin, yeah, I’ve seen an interview with some guy from Crytek and he said that CE3 was built in a certain way so that if you create a game for PC users you “simultainously” create it for X360/PS3. How accurate this statement is - we’ll know in a couple of months…
JeffMOD, blender, wings3D…
the main difference and the reason for the better performance between CE2 and CE3 is the deffered shading/lighting technique CE3 makes use of.
Yeah but teh sorze haz teh freemanz!!!11!!!11!!!
but seriously, this discussion needs to wait until portal 2 is out
Or, more usefully, the Portal 2 SDK. That will give us the full picture of useability, though I doubt much will change.
I like source engine and Unreal engine. They have their own good.
Does CryEngine not have any good? Does it have all the bad?
no, it still hast the best gfx in a PC game, but it also has the worst performance and the most hardware hunger.
CryEngine has always been a great engine up until the day that it’s released on PC. I don’t believe a word of Cevat’s bragging until it’s running on my own computer - he has outright lied once before.
If CE3 is anything like CE2, it’ll undoubtedly be a much better engine, and could actually be a contender to UE3. CE2 was nice, but it was only good for outdoors, and If you didn’t have sunlight on everything, it looked like shit. Unreal Engine was better overall if you wanted everything, but CE3 looks like it could be great for both now.
I still think the first Unreal Engine behind the original Unreal is the best 
Unreal 98’ FTW :rolleyes:
No.
Lighten up, bro. If you don’t find the Unreal engine to your liking you can always go with the other major engine, Quake 2.