Crytek better than source?

F

freddythefrog

Newbie
Joined
Jul 8, 2003
Messages
185
Reaction score
0
Well, I now you guys are kinda tired of x vs y threads. But since we're not talking about doom3 here, I'll give it a try anyway.

As thread title says, I'd like to know your opinion on the crytek engine, on which the game Far Cry is based on. Unfortunatly, it seems that this great engine is a bit unknown. It surely diservs much more attention. IMHO its at least going to be equal to source, and I even tend to say that far cry is going to be better than hl2 just regarding the technical aspect. Mind the "regarding", I'm saying that far cry is going to be better than hl2 as a game. We dont that yet since none of the games are out.

here the aspects of the game:

Free roaming
Probably the highest view-distance ever featured in an action game, the probably densest and most detailed forests ever in a game
real-time terrain deforming
per-pixel physics and hit detection
drivable and flyable vehicles (paragliders, buggys and boats)
real-time and dynamic lightning system (like in doom3, but actually even looks better)
adavanced physics
a totally new AI-system
and my favorite: An ingame-editor which allows you to edit every single thing in the game, without any compiling times at all. You press a button during the game, enter editing mode, change terrain, add enemies etc, press the button again and you continue where you were before, only with a new environment etc.


If you dont believe it, here are movies:

the engine tech demo that shows the editor, http://www.gamershell.com/download_1523.shtml

and heres two links to trailers/gameplay movies
http://www.gamershell.com/download_2936.shtml
http://www.gamershell.com/download_2156.shtml

Look at them, they're worth it!

Far cry is out in november btw.
 
It looks good but theres something about the game I don't like.I can't really figure out what but I just don't like the look of the graphics I guess.I will admit tho that engine is as good as Source.But it doesn't have the expandablity(spelled right?) as Source does.But I don't know so we just have to wait for the game to come out.
 
If there is one thing I'd criticise about the game its it very bright textures it has. But that was intended. They wanted you to really want to spend vacations there. But the engine is moddable, so brightness can be easily scaled. You'll get all modding tools delivered with the game, such as plugins for 3d programs (max etc), texture converters and animations editor. Mentioned on farcry forum once by devs.
 
Originally posted by Tr0n
It looks good but theres something about the game I don't like.I can't really figure out what but I just don't like the look of the graphics I guess.I will admit tho that engine is as good as Source.But it doesn't have the expandablity(spelled right?) as Source does.But I don't know so we just have to wait for the game to come out.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean man, I think the same way. IMO, I think that the graphics are just too....colorful and bright lol. HL 2, the tone of the colors and textures are just "right" for the game.
 
Originally posted by freddythefrog
and my favorite: An ingame-editor which allows you to edit every single thing in the game, without any compiling times at all. You press a button during the game, enter editing mode, change terrain, add enemies etc, press the button again and you continue where you were before, only with a new environment etc.
Click to expand...

Off topic: DOOM 3 also has this feature. There is no map compilation and when you run the game, you run the editor.

As for if Crytek is better, i can't say but I'm pretty sure both engine got almost the same features but their priorities are not the same. This applies also to the DOOM 3 engine.

This is only my oppinion but i think Crytek is more for outdoor areas, Source is made for interactivity with everything and Doom 3 is made for indoor areas, where lighting is an important factor.

Correct me if I'm wrong
 
Re: Re: Crytek better than source?

Originally posted by BirdMan
This is only my oppinion but i think Crytek is more for outdoor areas, Source is made for interactivity with everything and Doom 3 is made for indoor areas, where lighting is an important factor.

Correct me if I'm wrong
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree with you, Birdman. Valve has shown an incedible diversity of landscapes with Source, ones that allow a seamless integration of outdoor/indoor areas. Also, they don't seem to be focusing on the visual aspect of any one area; the level of artistic quality is consistent throughout.
As far as Crytek goes, I do believe its on par with Source in terms of tech, but we'll just have to wait when both games are out to accurately compare the two.
 
NO WAY just look at the water or the special effects and then think about all the stuff source has, like a 3D sky, far better facial animations and sub divisionall surfaces (ok so cryteck might have the last one too).
 
There is no better engine out of the top upcoming games at the moment. They're all amazing. That includes Stalker, Doom 3, Far Cry and HL2. The engines are amazing. Why?

We're in the next generation of games. They've all got similar features and capabilities, but each of the 4 engines above are for 4 very different games. 4 games that I'm definitely going to buy.
 
Originally posted by Tr0n
It looks good but theres something about the game I don't like.I can't really figure out what but I just don't like the look of the graphics I guess.I will admit tho that engine is as good as Source.But it doesn't have the expandablity(spelled right?) as Source does.But I don't know so we just have to wait for the game to come out.
Click to expand...

I agree, it looks like a playstation game with pastel colors... I dunno much about the engine though.
 
Originally posted by mrchimp
NO WAY just look at the water or the special effects and then think about all the stuff source has, like a 3D sky, far better facial animations and sub divisionall surfaces (ok so cryteck might have the last one too).
Click to expand...

Pretty standard game engine features these days.
 
Source also has:

Reflections off puddles that change when you move.
Dust Particles in Sunlight.

Both were mentioned in previews but aren't in the videos.
 
Re: Re: Crytek better than source?

Originally posted by BirdMan
This is only my oppinion but i think Crytek is more for outdoor areas, Source is made for interactivity with everything and Doom 3 is made for indoor areas, where lighting is an important factor.

Correct me if I'm wrong
Click to expand...
I'm not posting these to compare against Source, but posting them to correct you that the cryENGINE is capable of more than just outdoor areas

http://www.farcryhq.com/farcry/img/screenshots/cvg03/far_cry09.jpg
http://www.farcryhq.com/farcry/img/screenshots/serie01/far_cry28.jpg
http://www.farcryhq.com/farcry/img/screenshots/gamestar/far_cry05.jpg
http://www.farcryhq.com/farcry/img/screenshots/gamespot04/far_cry05.jpg
http://www.farcryhq.com/farcry/img/screenshots/gamespot/far_cry06.jpg
 
I like the enviromental Graphics, but not the weapons or players
 
Looks like a boring/stiff game at the moment, need better videos. There are 4 other videos from ECTS at the official page.
 
Crytek looks to be a promising game as well as all the other titles coming this fall/winter... i dont think we can compare persay, they are all completely different titles... and farcry was meant to be colorful and bright... you can easily change that..
 
How bout S.T.A.L.K.E.R.'s engine? That game looks f'in real. Watch the vid when they dissolve from video footage of Chernobyl to ingame, its unbelievable, and I feel it competes with both HL2 AND FC.
 
But you might especially consider the aspect that crytek is completely free roaming. You have no boarders. None. As for indoor areas, they look pretty good, but the game does concentrate on outdoor areas.
As for interactivity, I guess crytek would allow that. Every game would allow interactivity (look at deus Ex). Hl2 just combines that interactivity with great physics, which makes it an especially innovative feature.

Stalker does look really realistic btw. Graphics are very real, especially textures. I just worry that it wont be that flexibal. In terms of moddability and also in terms of interactivity with the environment. It does have realistic physics that allow you to shoot down bars etc, but all in all the world does seem a bit static, I dont think you'll be able to actually "use" the world physically to knock out enemies (like nin hl2) or to deform terrain like in farcry. The world is imho gonna be rather static.
 
The engine looks on par with all the other next-gen engines; it's ahead in some areas and behind in some others. It looks like why the game doesn't really look that good is in game design- artistically the game doesn't look too hot.
 
The crytek engine is cool, it wouldnt surprise me if it phased out BF1942.
 
it can be quite realistically coloured:
http://www.gamershell.com/imagefolio/gallery/FPS/Far_Cry/FarCry50.jpg
http://www.gamershell.com/imagefolio/gallery/FPS/Far_Cry/FarCry37.jpg

honestly, the bump and normal mapping is impressive:
http://www.gamershell.com/imagefolio/gallery/FPS/Far_Cry/FarCry148.jpg

the viewing distance:
http://www.gamershell.com/imagefolio/gallery/FPS/Far_Cry/FarCry135.jpg

the weather effects are pretty:
http://www.gamershell.com/imagefolio/gallery/FPS/Far_Cry/FarCry44.jpg
http://www.gamershell.com/imagefolio/gallery/FPS/Far_Cry/FarCry131.jpg

the jungle is dense:
http://www.gamershell.com/imagefolio/gallery/FPS/Far_Cry/FarCry112.jpg

the lightning and inddor levels are great:
http://www.gamershell.com/imagefolio/gallery/FPS/Far_Cry/FarCry67.jpg

And the island is really pretty:
http://www.gamershell.com/imagefolio/gallery/FPS/Far_Cry/FarCry75.jpg
http://www.gamershell.com/imagefolio/gallery/FPS/Far_Cry/FarCry57.jpg

And the game doesnt have lame underwater environment
http://www.gamershell.com/imagefolio/gallery/FPS/Far_Cry/FarCry52.jpg


And all that can be featured on one single island, which is totally free roaming. No loading times.
If the gameplay of far cry turns out to be good, HL2 wont be the only game I'll be playing until hl3 or ofp2 come out.
 
The indoor areas look reminisent of Doom 3 with an almost over glossy look, but out door areas look fantastic. I also just remembered that Farcry started out as a nVidia tech demo, I hope it doesn't include features that will be left out of ATI cards like some EA games might in the future.
 
ok u just put far cry on my wish list, congradualtions.

i love the view distance, bf1942 pisses me off sometimes with the "fog of war"

map deforming, i bought...er downloaded red faction for almost this rerason alone...imagine bombers unloading a town....*wipes the drowl off his face*

it is pretty and the physics are a bonus. this will phase out bf1942 if it has good multiplayer.

the textures are very nice but again it better have support for lots of people on multiplayer or it will drown in its vastness.
 
wow, level editin looks so easy with that, would be fun just to make towest of stuff and watch em fall
 
Why does all indoor shots of Doom III and FarCry look like shiney plastic even on things that should not have a shine? I hope they fix that, as its very unrealistic for me. Not very convincing. :/
 
It looks quite promising, great graphics, enourmous view distance, deformable terrain. Really cool all, physics weren't so special though. I haven't seen the so called super intelligent AI yet, they just stand still pretty much.
What bothers me is the B-movie story, well not much is known about it, but it won't be Shakespeare.
It has a lot of freedom, but if I had to choose between freedom and a great story (although we don't know much about the HL2 storyline, but I expect it to be great) I'd choose the great story. Screwing around on the island can be fun, but for how long? And when you're done playing the game, then what? Multiplayer I guess, but how moddable is the game?
I like the darker atmosphere of HL2 better than a tropical island, but that's just taste really. And we were talking about the engines, yeah they're both good engines. But for the game itself I doubt if Far Cry will be as immersive as HL2 promises to be. The facial expressions really add up to the total experience.

But both are in my 'games-I-have-to-play-before-I-drop-dead' top 5
 
I love the out environments, they look like something from off a postcard! The only thing that buggs me about some of the indoors screens is that it has that same 'plasticy' look as doom 3 does. I think that this is mainly due to the fact that they have gone a bit overkill on the spec and bump mapping. I think the reason Source's environments look more gritty and real is because they have used all of these extra graphical features a lot more subtley.
 
Also, the outdoor foilage looks like Turok: Evolution's foilage capabilitys. Nothing really new besides the fact that FarCry can obviously support much more than Turok: Evo could..
 
Polybump: Allows us to create a very high-poly model (our characters are modeled at 250,000 polys, for example) and then store that high-poly mesh out as a normal-map “skin” that we then wrap around a lower-poly model (for our characters, about 1,500) to create an extremely detailed model that we can render very quickly.

Dot3 Lighting: Because our Polybump technology depends on dynamic lighting to work properly, we have always known that we would need a better lighting model. Dot3 allows us to put as many dynamic lights as we want in an environment, which then dynamically work with normal maps to create both per-pixel lighting and lightmaps that work together to allow us to create extremely detailed lighting for all of our levels.

PhysicOnDemand: This is a sort of physics-streaming system that allows us to dynamically determine which objects need to be “physicalized” and which do not at any given time. This way we can “physicalize” just about anything in the world without meaningfully cutting into the framerate. This allows us to have some of the best ragdoll physics in the industry, as well as real fluid physics for our boats and dynamically adjustable terrain that works real-time with “physicalized” objects. The overall effect is a detailed and believable environment that responds to the player as he moves through it and interacts with it.

The CryEngine Material/Shader System: We have something like 50 different shaders available, with just about anything you can imagine supported. Reflection, refraction, radial blur, specularity, glare, the list goes on and on. And all of it is tied into a complete material system that allows us to systemize not only the textures and shaders used on materials, but the particles thrown off when shot, the sounds made when physicalized objects hit it, and the sounds the player makes when he walks on it.

To put it all in perspective, the combined technologies above allows the player to see a light moving above a pond, projecting real-time shadows through a grating on a fog particle system. Moreover, we can also reflect that effect on the surface of water, and use refraction to break it up as the water moves. More than that, in the same water we can float a dead body with incredibly detailed modeling, moving with real physics and buoyancy, and when we shoot it, show per-poly hit location decals based on the material of the dead body. We are not currently aware of anyone who has demonstrated this level of technology hands-on to the general public, as we did at E3.”

from: GameZone.com
 
Originally posted by Adam
Why does all indoor shots of Doom III and FarCry look like shiney plastic even on things that should not have a shine? I hope they fix that, as its very unrealistic for me. Not very convincing. :/
Click to expand...

S I'm not the only one that thinks Doom3 looks like Plastic ^_^
 
Yeah, the 'covered in plastic' look bugs me too. It's kind of fitting for Doom 3, sci-fi and all, but it doens't look right on Far Cry though.
Also the characters look like plastic, not real anyway. The HL² skinshader is far better.
 
You forgot that the charachters in HL2 will be the realest and most immersive charachter any game has ever seen and will ever see for quite some time.

I don't care how many bad looking sprites of grass you can put in your terrain(i'm sure source supports it too.

But can you turn a 20 000 Polygon wall into a 1 polygon wall?With realistic lighting?

Refractive water?(not only reflective)

Alien weapons?

Realisic looking fire?

Crowbar?

Maybe not...
:cheers:


Also will wood and other stuff break off realisticly in farcry?

It just sounds to me like this farcray is becoming a showcase game.
Those terrain textures are really row res.

LMAO stalker has better foliage.
 
yes Stalker has the most impressive outdoor environment i ever seen in a game.. better than half-life2 and far cry
 
far cry looks like a colorful paradise, blue, green, yellow and feels like nintendo mario.

the tech thing in the list are standard for today's video games. if it's more advance than source engine, so what!!! Which is the most anticipated upcoming fps game today? hl2, no doubt. Games like quake, doom3, farcry, ut2004, stalker and all other crap will have like few thousand players, hl2 community will keep growning with mods and stuff, until u see about couple tens of thousand of players. hl1 with its relatively poor engine had beaten up every single fps games in the last 5 years. that's what keeps us here and that's what makes hl2 the most anticipated.
 
can't wait for that game.
and when HL2 comes out I won't have to wait for it :D
hahahaha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Half-Life's lost feature, Timeline
Replies
0
Views
6K
Barnz
B
CombineAdvisor3
Source 2 expectations?
Replies
1
Views
3K
Clan Wolf 2
Clan Wolf 2
B
From Warren Spector to Arkane Studios: Half-Life 2's cancelled Ravenholm episode
Replies
2
Views
10K
Clan Wolf 2
Clan Wolf 2
B
Gabe Newell's AMA summary (January 17, 2017)
Replies
1
Views
24K
Gerzowktz
Gerzowktz
Back
Top