Crytek demos its next-gen CryEngine

P

polonyc2

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
25,859
The new version will replace CryEngine 3 and be scalable for PlayStation 3 and 4, Xbox 360 and Xbox One, Wii U and PC...Advanced lighting, physics, time of day and weather effects are among the latest tweaks and upgrades shown off in the footage below...one impressive detail is the fact that puddles left by rain are now slowly dried up in sunshine

Watch the engine in action below demoing Ryse and Crysis 3, amongst other things...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF1zjDSqPoo
 
Nothing in that video was really new to the Cryengine other than the rain drying up effect.
They even showed Crysis 3 in that
 
ya doesnt look all that much different.
i still dont understand why more developers arent using the cry engine.
 
xnikx said:
i still dont understand why more developers arent using the cry engine.
Click to expand...

I've been wondering that for years...ever since CryEngine 1

I notice an improvement with the facial details with the new engine...plus people can't expect evolutionary leaps from 1 generation to another...the differences are subtle
 
xnikx said:
ya doesnt look all that much different.
i still dont understand why more developers arent using the cry engine.
Click to expand...
'

UE3 can cost 350k-750k to license. Cryengine 3 cost 1.2Mil to license.
You see what most games have been developed with?
 
xnikx said:
ya doesnt look all that much different.
Click to expand...
There's more to an engine than what it can render. Quite a significant bit more, even: upwards of 90% of a game engine's code base can be completely unrelated to graphics.
 
xnikx said:
ya doesnt look all that much different.
i still dont understand why more developers arent using the cry engine.
Click to expand...

What's weird is the games that do use it - outside of Crytek - look like crap in comparison. I'm wondering if there's limitations on who can use what features. IE Crytek gets exclusivity until X amount of months.

I was surprised to see Sniper Ghost Warrior was built on it. With how powerful the engine is, I'd figure the game would at least look somewhat decent.


The same goes for Frostbite. That's a hell of an engine, but no-one wants to pay the licensing fees associated with it. Hence why Unreal/Source have been so popular. No cost to get in and cheaper licensing fees.
 
It's probably to do with how user friendly the SDK is to work with. The UT guys have spent YEARS perfecting their UT SDK making it very intuitive and very practical for devs.

It's proven to be very robust and versatile.
 
Domini said:
'

UE3 can cost 350k-750k to license. Cryengine 3 cost 1.2Mil to license.
You see what most games have been developed with?
Click to expand...

I really doubt there's a fixed price, but it's likely negotiable (and expensive for big name developers). There may not even be flat prices for smaller studios, maybe the license will just end up royalty based.

Spidey329 said:
What's weird is the games that do use it - outside of Crytek - look like crap in comparison. I'm wondering if there's limitations on who can use what features. IE Crytek gets exclusivity until X amount of months.

I was surprised to see Sniper Ghost Warrior was built on it. With how powerful the engine is, I'd figure the game would at least look somewhat decent.


The same goes for Frostbite. That's a hell of an engine, but no-one wants to pay the licensing fees associated with it. Hence why Unreal/Source have been so popular. No cost to get in and cheaper licensing fees.
Click to expand...

You get everything with the license, Crytek just has the advantage of being Crytek.

As for Frostbite, it's EA exclusive tech afaik. EA studios only get to use it.
 
Spidey329 said:
What's weird is the games that do use it - outside of Crytek - look like crap in comparison. I'm wondering if there's limitations on who can use what features. IE Crytek gets exclusivity until X amount of months.

I was surprised to see Sniper Ghost Warrior was built on it. With how powerful the engine is, I'd figure the game would at least look somewhat decent.


The same goes for Frostbite. That's a hell of an engine, but no-one wants to pay the licensing fees associated with it. Hence why Unreal/Source have been so popular. No cost to get in and cheaper licensing fees.
Click to expand...

Price is the main reason. UE3 is cheaper (has been for sale longer, UE4 coming). UE3 has some better tech support at the moment, though Crytek is obviously improving now that they are licensing the engine out. Many people have developed on past UE's as well. Leaning new programs = longer and more costly development time and reworking stuff from the ground up.

As for Frostbite, that is an EA only engine if I am not mistaken. So don't expect to see any studio that is not wholly owned by EA (like Bioware and DICE) using it.

Cryengine 3 looks great, but if the developers don't put effort into the graphics then it will look ugly. Just like all engines. Or if you have incompetent developers. As someone else said an engine is more than just graphics.
 
KazeoHin said:
Two letters: EA.
Click to expand...

From what I understand Crysis 3 was the last Crytek game to be published by EA. EA doesn't own Cryengine.

Flopper said:
Frostbite 3 looks better IMO.
Click to expand...

Comparing BF3 and Crysis 3, each seem to be extremely good looking. With BF4 coming out soon it seems to be improving upon the graphical shortcomings of BF3 like the extremely flat water and 2D missile smoke.

Luckily, at least Cryengine will be used outside of EA based games. Wish the same could be said for Frostbite as it looks to be an impressive engine.
 
I watched the video and I too am not impressed.

The marble stuff in the beginning looked like typical bump/parallax mapping with maybe some tessellation (and?) while everything else is shit that was already in Crysis 3.

The puddle shit is unimpressive. I'm happy they're using GPGPU but other than that who cares? Why couldn't this be done on any other engine using standard animation? Who is going to stand there in game for an hour just to watch a puddle dry up? Who here wants to bet that the puddles are going to dry up too quickly and thus be unrealistic simply as a way to show it off?

I mean...call me cynical but I just don't see anything in this video that makes me excited. The FIRST Cryengine 3 tech-demo was much more impressive and even THEN half that shit didn't make it into Crysis 3.

Which leads me to this...why is Crytek making all this stuff if not even THEY ARE USING IT IN THEIR OWN GAMES?!
 
JoeUser said:
Which leads me to this...why is Crytek making all this stuff if not even THEY ARE USING IT IN THEIR OWN GAMES?!
Click to expand...

Wonder no more, I have the answer: the want to impress the kiddies. Tech demos suck. They mean nothing when it comes to games. NOTHING.
 
xnikx said:
ya doesnt look all that much different.
i still dont understand why more developers arent using the cry engine.
Click to expand...

The Unreal Engine has dominated the engine scene since the Quake 3 engine faded away.

The main reason is UE3 is cheaper, easier to use, and has a lot more support available. UE3 also has a lot better graphics/performance ratio. UE3 has insanely good licensing deals for indie developers too.

However, Cryengine is catching up in all of these areas and more developers are starting to use it. They also now allow developers to use cryengine for free for non-commercial purposes which is a pretty big deal.

UE will probably still be the most used engine for years coming, but cryengine is becoming more popular and might eventually catch up in use.
 
I thought it had some nice things in it. Weather, rain, textures. Sadly, I don't see too much of the tech demo stuff being used in games. Even for older Crytek engines, I was very impressed and still am not seeing as good as stuff that was in the tech demo.
 
sharknice said:
The Unreal Engine has dominated the engine scene since the Quake 3 engine faded away.

The main reason is UE3 is cheaper, easier to use, and has a lot more support available. UE3 also has a lot better graphics/performance ratio. UE3 has insanely good licensing deals for indie developers too.

However, Cryengine is catching up in all of these areas and more developers are starting to use it. They also now allow developers to use cryengine for free for non-commercial purposes which is a pretty big deal.

UE will probably still be the most used engine for years coming, but cryengine is becoming more popular and might eventually catch up in use.
Click to expand...

This. Expect more games to use Cryengine 3 (or 3.5, or 4) in the future. Now that UE3's main development is probably coming to an end you might see more developers look into alternative engines.
 
JoeUser said:
The marble stuff in the beginning looked like typical bump/parallax mapping with maybe some tessellation (and?) while everything else is shit that was already in Crysis 3.
Click to expand...
The point is that the shading is physically based, i.e. the developer can specify some material properties and let the engine take care of the rest, rather than having to add their own shaders for each object under all lighting conditions. The end result is nothing you couldn't produce by hand, but it's a lot less work.

JoeUser said:
The puddle shit is unimpressive. I'm happy they're using GPGPU but other than that who cares? Why couldn't this be done on any other engine using standard animation?
Click to expand...
Again, there's no reason you couldn't manually animate and place your own individual puddles, but doing it procedurally gives you a better result with less development effort.

JoeUser said:
I mean...call me cynical but I just don't see anything in this video that makes me excited.
Click to expand...
Because it's not targeted at you. They're not trying to show off the graphics, they're trying to show off the development tools. I mean, more than half of the video is footage of the SDK. Looks to me like they're hoping to take on Epic next generation.

(Here's hoping they succeed. I'm sick to death of looking at UE3...)
 
LuminaryJanitor said:
The point is that the shading is physically based, i.e. the developer can specify some material properties and let the engine take care of the rest, rather than having to add their own shaders for each object under all lighting conditions. The end result is nothing you couldn't produce by hand, but it's a lot less work.


Again, there's no reason you couldn't manually animate and place your own individual puddles, but doing it procedurally gives you a better result with less development effort.


Because it's not targeted at you. They're not trying to show off the graphics, they're trying to show off the development tools. I mean, more than half of the video is footage of the SDK. Looks to me like they're hoping to take on Epic next generation.

(Here's hoping they succeed. I'm sick to death of looking at UE3...)
Click to expand...

Yup, they obviously want to flex nuts and grab a bit of the middleware market slice this time around.

And yes, a major point isn't just to make things prettier, it's to help you get to that result faster. They don't want to have to run through shit with a fine comb for each scene to try and get it looking as close to plausible as possible, they want predictable results that work as you expect them to. Less scenarios like "well it looks alright here, but change the lighting and it looks like it's made out of fucking plastic"

Why the fuck would you want to be placing thousands of puddles and shit in a large world when it could just automagically happen for you and probably look better? Or worry about making more textures when a shader can give something a worn / dirty look for you? They used this in Crysis 2, for the chipped paint on bricks. http://cdn.overclock.net/d/dd/900x900px-LL-ddd1c777_bandicam2012-10-1220-32-07-468.jpeg
 
LuminaryJanitor said:
Because it's not targeted at you. They're not trying to show off the graphics, they're trying to show off the development tools. I mean, more than half of the video is footage of the SDK. Looks to me like they're hoping to take on Epic next generation.

(Here's hoping they succeed. I'm sick to death of looking at UE3...)
Click to expand...

Aaaand we have a winner!!! :D

Yeap, Luminary Janitor is right, what they were mostly showing off were the much much improved development tools that are finally looking polished.


Btw i am also sick of UE3 because the pop in of the assets being streamed pisses me off no matter how fast it happens.
 
JoeUser said:
The marble stuff in the beginning looked like typical bump/parallax mapping with maybe some tessellation (and?) while everything else is shit that was already in Crysis 3.
Click to expand...
It isn't really designed to look 'different'. It's designed to produce results based on more accurate modeling of material attributes The industry has been shifting toward more accurate simulation of materials and light transport for a number of years now, and this is a part of that.

JoeUser said:
The puddle shit is unimpressive. Who is going to stand there in game for an hour just to watch a puddle dry up?
Click to expand...
No one. The point is to enable more dynamic environments.
 
Domini said:
UE3 can cost 350k-750k to license. Cryengine 3 cost 1.2Mil to license.
You see what most games have been developed with?
Click to expand...

is it all about cost or is CryEngine more difficult to scale with mid to lower end systems...all the Crysis games have been beastly in terms of performance
 
polonyc2 said:
is it all about cost or is CryEngine more difficult to scale with mid to lower end systems...all the Crysis games have been beastly in terms of performance
Click to expand...

I think that was something they addressed in CryEngine 3 .. To ease the development time for porting. UE4 is supposed to feature that too, iirc. But we haven't seen much since the lava monster like demo.
 
Spidey329 said:
I think that was something they addressed in CryEngine 3 .. To ease the development time for porting. UE4 is supposed to feature that too, iirc. But we haven't seen much since the lava monster like demo.
Click to expand...

The cryengine scales very well on many systems low-highend if you tweak the settings correctlly. This has nothing to do with the ease of porting over the game to consoles...

DPI said:
Hopefully Crysis 4 will be able to meet your standard of excellence.
Click to expand...

I dont quite see how a Crysis 4 could happen based on the ending of Crysis 3. I hope they move on to other areas and go back to the days of Farcry 1. I was blown away by Cryengine 1!
 
The problem I have with removing the number is, how are you going to tell was version a game is running? For example, if a game had CryEngine 2, you knew what you were getting. Now how will you tell?
 
bigdogchris said:
The problem I have with removing the number is, how are you going to tell was version a game is running? For example, if a game had CryEngine 2, you knew what you were getting. Now how will you tell?
Click to expand...

Build numbers are usually only fixes to the game. You wouldnt notice any major graphical changes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top