CryEngine 2 Vs Source 07 Engine Vs Unreal 3 Engine

Which Engine is better?

  • Crysis's CryEngine 2.

    Votes: 160 46.4%

  • Half Life 2's Source 07 Engine.

    Votes: 93 27.0%

  • Unreal Tournament 3's Unreal 3 Engine.

    Votes: 49 14.2%

  • I dont really care.

    Votes: 43 12.5%
  • Total voters
    345
T

The Null

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
500
which is the better engine?

discuss.

-EDIT- almost forgot to cast my own vote: i vote Source, why? great engine, looks good, great physics, great net code, perfectly optimised, it is the end result of a lot people people who share the same thought about gaming.
 
What exactly do you mean by "better"? If it was "what engine has the best graphics", then I would pick CryEngine2, but if it was best all around engine I might consider source 2007: Good net code, pretty good graphics (but not as good as Crysis imo), scales on old hardware very well.

I'm not liking the UE3 engine very much so far. UE3 based games tent to look washed out and some maybe have laggy mouse issues? UT3 will still be an awesome game though.
 
I voted crysis.

BUT BUT but.....source engine is prolly the best optimized engine ever. EP2 looked amazing, honestly the forest scenes blew me away. And it run smooth as warm butter on max setting at 1920x1200
 
I thought ut3 engine as the best until i saw crysis with the cryengine 2. Ut3 doesn't even have any physics barely from what i have played in the beta demo. Idk if i can judge it completely just yet though because the beta demo has low resolution textures. I think for the best looking engine its got to be Cryengine 2. UT3 i noticed caters more to consoles it seems like. Thats why ut3 only requires 512mb. Battlefield 1942 probably uses more ram than ut3 lol. It doesn't allow you to use antialiasing at all natively in the options which makes me think console engine since consoles don't use antialiasing at all these days anymore. Ut3 engine i think is good but its not the best anymore. I think epic didn't want to make the console version look too inferior because it would probably get micro$oft and sony upset. I think the unreal3 will be a really good game even after the facts ;). Cryengine2 is the top dog though of graphics/physics from what i have played so far in the demo:)
 
The souce engine so far would annihilate any of the other 2 in most of the categories so far, but we really have limited experience with UE3 and even more so CryEnine2, waaaaay too early to even try to compare the 3.
 
I'm amazed at the amount of people who voted Source engine...
Anyway, CryEngine 2 is without a doubt, the winner. Remember that this is a next-gen engine, so it's expected that it doesn't run amazingly smooth, even with a high-end system. But still, it scales back to systems like mine, very well and I can play with acceptable framerate and quality options. Crytek really outdid themselves.
 
They all have their place. Just because one is driving technology forward it does not automatically make it the best.

I went for Source because, as others have pointed out, it checks so many boxes if you had to draw up a list. Valve continue to innovate technically whilst still understanding the market and providing a solid engine for gamers.

(speaking of awesome tech, I'm browsing this board and typed this up on an iPod touch !!!)
 
Source engine no questions asked. Its heavily optimized. The graphics can be just as good as Crysis because Art > Fancy Engines. The Net Code is extremely good. And it runs on every system, great. (even if the game looks bad).
 
Graphically I think the Cryengine is best, it's got forwards compatability for DX10.1 already, U3 is not far behind however, and waaaaaaaay behind that is the source engine which is targeted at low end PC's

Content creation, hard to say, again source is probably worst by all accounts hammer is crap, Ued always was the best mapping tool to come with an engine, but Cryengines sandbox is probably on par if not better.

I think the Cryengine can do everything U3 can do but has better outdoor rendering options and scaleability so would say probably Cryengine is the best out of the lot, it seems stable, can do widescreen correctly which is something every U3 based game has lacked on launch day.
 
I just think it's funny how long time people were talking about the Doom3 engine and that pretty much disappeared.

Unreal is pretty but doesn't seem to currently feel...natural? physics? like Stones and pillars truly feel fixed. You cann't jump, destroy, or interact as much (mostly due the games that are using it) Crysis is more natural feeling and destructive.

Crysis takes my first pic. Unreal 3 impressive but not as impressive.
 
Well Quake4 and ETQW both used modified versions of the Doom3 engine...

Unreal 3 engine doesn't seem to support destoryable environments as well as either source or Cryengine straight out the box, although Im sure the components are there to tag that on, you can do a lot even with just uscript, thats why Unreal based mods like mods for UT2004, are so versatile.
 
biohazard_nz said:
What exactly do you mean by "better"? If it was "what engine has the best graphics", then I would pick CryEngine2, but if it was best all around engine I might consider source 2007: Good net code, pretty good graphics (but not as good as Crysis imo), scales on old hardware very well.
Click to expand...

I couldn't have said it better myself. CryEngine2 definitely looks the best, the source engine is SO dang smooth and can run on a huge amount of machines.

For the record, I voted for CryEngine2, though. For looks.
 
Dion said:
Source engine no questions asked. Its heavily optimized. The graphics can be just as good as Crysis because Art > Fancy Engines. The Net Code is extremely good. And it runs on every system, great. (even if the game looks bad).
Click to expand...

The engine is old. Why wouldn't it run well, on older systems ?
And the graphics can be as good as Crysis ? LOL, that actually made me laugh. Art direction in Crysis, is as good or better, than anything done for any Valve game, using Source. Source engine is miles away from the graphics fidelity, that the CryEngine 2 provides. Source was awesome when Half Life 2 was released, but it's showing its age and Valve should really think of creating something new. UE3 engine is actually the big loser, since even the Source engine, which is quite old, can keep up with it, in terms of graphics.
 
Netrat33 said:
I just think it's funny how long time people were talking about the Doom3 engine and that pretty much disappeared.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't it disappear ? Doom 3 engine was awesome at the time it was released. Just like Source engine, when HL2 was released. But they're old and outdated now and really need either a face lift or a new engine. The Doom 3 engine actually received that face lift, in Quake Wars, but it still doesn't hold a candle, when compared to CryEngine 2. Same goes for Source Engine.
 
We've only seen finalized product with one of these three engines, the other two games haven't even been released yet (only demos).

Don't think it's fair to judge until we get our hands on the real finished product.
 
Silus said:
The engine is old. Why wouldn't it run well, on older systems ?
And the graphics can be as good as Crysis ? LOL, that actually made me laugh. Art direction in Crysis, is as good or better, than anything done for any Valve game, using Source. Source engine is miles away from the graphics fidelity, that the CryEngine 2 provides. Source was awesome when Half Life 2 was released, but it's showing its age and Valve should really think of creating something new. UE3 engine is actually the big loser, since even the Source engine, which is quite old, can keep up with it, in terms of graphics.
Click to expand...

Ouch, source looking as good as UT3? What are you smoking?

The Unreal engine is well optimised IMO, UT3 demo runs all max settings in 2560x1600 for me with a decent frame rate, it's visuals might not match Crysis in certain terms but what it does display, it does very quickly.

This balance between technology and playability is a difficult one to weigh up, I mean TF2 looks OK, but it's nothing visually too impressive (although the art style is very attractive), but my PC has no problem with that in 2560x1600 with max settings, and 8xCSAA/16xAF.
 
Frosteh said:
Ouch, source looking as good as UT3? What are you smoking?

The Unreal engine is well optimised IMO, UT3 demo runs all max settings in 2560x1600 for me with a decent frame rate, it's visuals might not match Crysis in certain terms but what it does display, it does very quickly.

This balance between technology and playability is a difficult one to weigh up, I mean TF2 looks OK, but it's nothing visually too impressive (although the art style is very attractive), but my PC has no problem with that in 2560x1600 with max settings, and 8xCSAA/16xAF.
Click to expand...

I stand by it all the way. I wasn't too impressed with UE3. Source Engine at least doesn't look washed out and can look as good. So IMO, UE3 is definitely the loser, when compared to Source Engine (which is old) and especially CryEngine 2.
 
JaYp146 said:
We've only seen finalized product with one of these three engines, the other two games haven't even been released yet (only demos).

Don't think it's fair to judge until we get our hands on the real finished product.
Click to expand...

I guess that's fair. But when answering the poll, I answered with what I was given this far and this far, CryEngine 2 holds the crown quite high IMO.
 
Silus said:
Why wouldn't it disappear ? Doom 3 engine was awesome at the time it was released. Just like Source engine, when HL2 was released. But they're old and outdated now and really need either a face lift or a new engine. The Doom 3 engine actually received that face lift, in Quake Wars, but it still doesn't hold a candle, when compared to CryEngine 2. Same goes for Source Engine.
Click to expand...

No no no. You're not getting me.

Doom 3 engine pretty much powered games made by ID while everyone else's engines are actually being used accross the board. Doom3 engine is pretty much gone already while the new Rage engine from ID is being introduced. Source engine is still powering some new games (Left 4 Dead...ironic!) and UT3 engine is everywhere. And it's not like Doom3's engine is horrible. It's actually quite good, even close in quality to UE3 but I think since it's attached to Doom 3 (dark all the time) it suffered.

Doom3 engine vs Source: Which one survived time? Source because it's still being licensed out. With Cry2 be licensed out? I think so.
 
Silus said:
I stand by it all the way. I wasn't too impressed with UE3. Source Engine at least doesn't look washed out and can look as good. So IMO, UE3 is definitely the loser, when compared to Source Engine (which is old) and especially CryEngine 2.
Click to expand...
QFT
 
Silus said:
I stand by it all the way. I wasn't too impressed with UE3. Source Engine at least doesn't look washed out and can look as good. So IMO, UE3 is definitely the loser, when compared to Source Engine (which is old) and especially CryEngine 2.
Click to expand...

I would argue the point further but you're being really vague...:confused:
 
Netrat33 said:
No no no. You're not getting me.

Doom 3 engine pretty much powered games made by ID while everyone else's engines are actually being used accross the board. Doom3 engine is pretty much gone already while the new Rage engine from ID is being introduced. Source engine is still powering some new games (Left 4 Dead...ironic!) and UT3 engine is everywhere. And it's not like Doom3's engine is horrible. It's actually quite good, even close in quality to UE3 but I think since it's attached to Doom 3 (dark all the time) it suffered.

Doom3 engine vs Source: Which one survived time? Source because it's still being licensed out. With Cry2 be licensed out? I think so.
Click to expand...

As I recall Source Engine was only licensed for Dark Messiah and Left 4 Dead, which is hardly a large number of licenses...Doom 3 engine was used in Prey, Quake 4 and Quake Wars.
And besides, licenses cost money and sometimes it's better to spend less money on an "old" engine, than to pay a lot for a "new" one.

And for the record, CryEngine 2 was already licensed, by at least half a dozen other companies. Just check Crytek's site for that info.
 
Frosteh said:
I would argue the point further but you're being really vague...:confused:
Click to expand...

Well, my biggest gripe with UE3 really is related to graphics. They are not next-gen at all and UT3 was supposed to be a next-gen title. They look washed out, blurred out really and I doubt that, even if they include high res textures, in the full demo or full game, anything will change. Games that use UE3 already suffered from this, so it really seems to be an engine specific problem, that no textures will fix.

Source however, even though old and outdated, looks sharp and still looks good in today's standards. Standards which were raised quite high with CryEngine 2, which blows any engine, in terms of graphics.

So IMO and in terms of graphics CryEngine 2 > UE3 >= Source Engine

Physics is also something CryEngine 2 excels. I haven't seen any game that uses UE3, where physics take a major role (UT3 is definitely not it), so I can't really comment much about physics, except for CryEngine 2 and Source Engine, which right now is CryEngine 2 >> Source Engine.

As for performance, well Source engine obviously runs better than any game based on CryEngine 2 or UT3. Why ? Because it's old. Any old engine, will run smoothly on new hardware. And that is probably the only saving grace I can see for UE3. It does run very smooth, even on old hardware.
This is probably the weak spot of CryEngine 2. Even though it scales back to old hardware, it doesn't run as smooth as UT3 and Source, but CryEngine 2 IS a next-gen engine and it looks like one, so it is expected that hardware needs to do some catch-up, in order to be able to run Crysis, with everything set to Very High @ extremely high resolutions.
 
I think by washed out you're referring to the motion blur, and depth of field effects which alter the clarity of the textures you're looking at?

I'm not exactly sure what you're seeing, maybe you could screenshot it for us? I was playing UT3 the other night in 2560x1600 with max settings (which will be higher in the final game) and it looked stunning, I've never seen anything from the source engine come even close to how good it looks...

I do however consider UT3 to have a certain level of "visual noise", there's almost too much to look at sometimes, with quite strong motion blur and depth of field being applied, along with lots of shader effects, it's almost too much to take in. I think that's a lot to do with complexity of the scenes being high, but also the speed of the game being so damn fast.
 
I'd have to pick Unreal 3. I think most of the complaints about it are because of the art direction and not what the engine is capable of.

Professional developers have overwhelmingly picked the Unreal 3 engine for their next games.
 
i voted cryengine 2 as i think it is the most foward looking engine, and definitely the best looking of the bunch (best graphics I've ever seen IMO). But Source: 2007 definitely gets my nod for best optimized engine ever...
 
UT3 engine is optimized all right...for consoles. Cryengine 2 looks just awesome, and probably has the most potential for 3rd party developers but the system requirements are brutal right now.

Source however, seems to have struck the best balance between performance and image quality. It just has the sharpest, cleanest look--in part because it allows for high levels of anti-aliasing.

I think a lot of people are confused about what "optimized" means. Optimizations are under the hood enhancements to the code, right? It has to do with efficiency. But, there is a difference between a game that is optimized and one that simply doesn't push the hardware.

If Crytek eliminated 50% of the foliage in Crysis to boost frame rates, has it been optimized? No. Yet when Epic Games ommits things like trees and foliage and destructibility from its game we seem to think it is "more optimized."

The UT3 demo just doesn't push the hardware. There just isn't that much on the screen. It isn't "optimized," it is dumbed down for consoles, in my opinion.
 
You know what I find funny about all this is that the Source engine was developed by Valve which learned how to code based on... Quake!

The source engine has it's origins off of Quake and even sometimes as I play it, some parts of gameplay "feel" like the old quake at times...

UT was a new engine for Epic and they really had to develop that over time, even now regardless of what UT era we're in, the feel of the engine and the look remain distinctly Unreal.

The Crytek engine also has it's own feel and quirks. I think it's great benefit is the large areas it can render while still looking good. Crytek 2 adds a lot more physics into the mix, refined the draw distance, increased the poly count while adding more shaders.

Playing crysis feels like you are in the "far cry" world.
 
Frosteh said:
I think by washed out you're referring to the motion blur, and depth of field effects which alter the clarity of the textures you're looking at?

I'm not exactly sure what you're seeing, maybe you could screenshot it for us? I was playing UT3 the other night in 2560x1600 with max settings (which will be higher in the final game) and it looked stunning, I've never seen anything from the source engine come even close to how good it looks...

I do however consider UT3 to have a certain level of "visual noise", there's almost too much to look at sometimes, with quite strong motion blur and depth of field being applied, along with lots of shader effects, it's almost too much to take in. I think that's a lot to do with complexity of the scenes being high, but also the speed of the game being so damn fast.
Click to expand...

It's definitely not motion blur, because even when I'm not moving, it looks washed out...
And I'm talking about up close too, not just far way. So depth of field is also not the problem. I guess I can take a few screenshots, when I install the game again, but there were a few posted in some early UT3 threads (when the Beta Demo was released to the public) that illustrated what I'm saying quite well.
 
Silus said:
It's definitely not motion blur, because even when I'm not moving, it looks washed out...
And I'm talking about up close too, not just far way. So depth of field is also not the problem. I guess I can take a few screenshots, when I install the game again, but there were a few posted in some early UT3 threads (when the Beta Demo was released to the public) that illustrated what I'm saying quite well.
Click to expand...

Can you link me to 1-2 specific shots which describe what you mean? I'd like to see what you're talking about, it could be an error of some sort, a graphical glitch or something similar.

Depth of field effect can kick in close range as well, ideally you have 1 focal point set a certain distance away from you, anything too far away or too close, relative to that point, will be out of focus, for example crysis blurs out the gun when in iron sight mode, as well as other much greater distances, leaving only whats inbetween in focus.

Also with motion blur you have to be careful that screenshots are taken when pefectly still.

UT3 engine is optimized all right...for consoles. Cryengine 2 looks just awesome, and probably has the most potential for 3rd party developers but the system requirements are brutal right now.
Click to expand...

UT3 has close to the quality of graphics we see in Crysis, but the rendering speed of the source engine. To make a table it woud look like this:

------------------looks------------runs
Source-------medium---------fast
U3---------------good------------fast
Crytek2--------good-----------slow

I consider U3 and Crytek to have similar levels of graphic fidelity but U3 runs a lot better, in fact nearly as well as the source engine, which looks pretty average. No game on the source engine carries anywhere near as much detail as the UT3 or Crysis demo's, they're on another level when it comes to geometric detail and effects.
 
Silus said:
As I recall Source Engine was only licensed for Dark Messiah and Left 4 Dead, which is hardly a large number of licenses...Doom 3 engine was used in Prey, Quake 4 and Quake Wars.
And besides, licenses cost money and sometimes it's better to spend less money on an "old" engine, than to pay a lot for a "new" one.

And for the record, CryEngine 2 was already licensed, by at least half a dozen other companies. Just check Crytek's site for that info.
Click to expand...

Dark Messiah
Left 4 Dead
SiN
The Ship
Vampire: Bloodlines
Postal 3
The Crossing

Since you included Quake 4 and Quake wars (ID property)
Counterstrike
Day of Defeat
Team Fortress 2
Portal
HL 2 episodes of course

Prey was the only one outside of ID using the engine
 
Silus said:
Physics is also something CryEngine 2 excels. I haven't seen any game that uses UE3, where physics take a major role (UT3 is definitely not it), so I can't really comment much about physics, except for CryEngine 2 and Source Engine, which right now is CryEngine 2 >> Source Engine.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think that's my problem with UE3 games right now. Although not a fan of it Stranglehold does make me see some hope for UE3 based games with more destruction.
 
For those that don't like Unreal 3's washed out look change your post processing setting from Intense to Vivid.
 
Crysis impresses me the most graphically, but I'd rather play/input/interact with a source-engined game. To me, Crytek has work to do in terms of sluggish movement and user input, as was evident in the original CryEngine.

UE3 doesn't really impress me.
 
Cryengine for looks / physics.

Source for performance. (and still looks good)

UT3 is deceiving so far... lack of AA kills it for me.
 
The Null said:
which is the better engine?

discuss.

-EDIT- almost forgot to cast my own vote: i vote Source, why? great engine, looks good, great physics, great net code, perfectly optimised, it is the end result of a lot people people who share the same thought about gaming.
Click to expand...



source netcode is crap... Best netcode valve had was the pre-cs 6.5(whatever HL patch that was) netcode. Since then it has been shit.

I haven't decided on the other two engines but all I know is that source sucks.
 
This is truly a bizarre question. I haven't developed on any of these engines, so how would I know which is better?

I don't understand why some of you define an engine by the content that's being produced on top of it. If you're talking about off-the-shelf features, then all three engines are somewhat similar. UE3 is a bit more forward thinking with its asset management and on-the-fly loading system. There are no specific reasons why Source cannot achieve Crysis levels of detail, and the same goes for UE3.

Netrat33 said:
Doom3 engine vs Source: Which one survived time? Source because it's still being licensed out. With Cry2 be licensed out? I think so.
Click to expand...
Source 2007 is an extended form of the original source, while id's engines tend to be complete rebuilds every generation, even though it isn't specifically necessary for that to be the case (John's just a fucking workaholic to the extreme). It's not quite an accurate comparison.

Additionally, id's talked about how they are much more restrictive with licensing than Epic is, and I suppose they're also more restrictive than Valve. They don't just go handing out licenses to everyone who asks -- they want their engines to be properly represented by the content other developers create for it. I suppose id isn't looking for a Vampire: The Masquerade.

Off-the-shelf, Tech 4 wasn't appropriate for a lot of titles that were made on competing platforms, which is why it's seen so little adoption. Primarily, id makes engines based for the titles that they ship out, with few extraneous features (no form of water in Doom 3, for instance). Tech 4 with MegaTexture might see some adoption, but UE3 might be too competitive feature-wise and price-wise for that to happen. id hasn't begun Tech 5 licensing at the moment.
 
biohazard_nz said:
Good net code, pretty good graphics (but not as good as Crysis imo)
Click to expand...

Let's get one thing straight, there is no "IMO" on the CryEngine2 graphics being better than the Source engine. You just need to open your fucking eyes and stop making statements based on your desire not to piss anybody off. Crysis' graphics are so much better in every way, shape and form than the Source engine that it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. The Source engine still doesn't do decent shadows for chrissakes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top