Crytek better than source?
- Thread starter freddythefrog
- Start date
Wow screen shots of more post cards! Too bad those kind of things arent fun. Anyone else get a sense of lonlyness when looking at the Farcry screens? Honestly, I feel having a really pretty scene that you can explore entirely but that serves no purpose to completing the game, is nothing more than a gimmick. :/ Enough with the techdemos, and make a game out of those screens already!
Styloid
Newbie
- Joined
- May 28, 2003
- Messages
- 753
- Reaction score
- 0
Honestly, the first time I saw content for this game I laughed at it and thought about how it wouldn't be able to match Stalker, HL2 or Doom3. The low poly count, ugly textures, wacky lighting, abuse of bump/normal map, old fashioned 'ragdoll' physics, lackluster story, unnatural animations etc...
But I guess that a dynamically generated world that can be huge is pretty cool, doesn't really put it on my must-have list though.
Stalker looks awesome; I love the postscreen processing they have. I heard HL2 has it too but may only be for recorded demos. Stalker textures are also great- I wished they had a blurring effect when they get really far away though.. more realistic.
HL2 textures seen so far are too inconsistent (some good some bad), hopefully only placeholder art.
But I guess that a dynamically generated world that can be huge is pretty cool, doesn't really put it on my must-have list though.
Stalker looks awesome; I love the postscreen processing they have. I heard HL2 has it too but may only be for recorded demos. Stalker textures are also great- I wished they had a blurring effect when they get really far away though.. more realistic.
HL2 textures seen so far are too inconsistent (some good some bad), hopefully only placeholder art.
Apos
Tank
- Joined
- May 14, 2003
- Messages
- 3,157
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't think it makes much sense to compare these engines to source, mostly because they aren't due out until several months later. Source is designed to be constantly upgraded as people's sytems allow. The S:OL and FarCry games are targeted at a standard system range in the future, when the faster Intels come out and everyone has upgraded.
Something like "physics-streaming," if it really works, is the kind of thing that really makes one engine better in a lasting way. Simply having a bunch more shaders, which is basically just a drop-n-play addition, is not. So we really have to wait and see how the games perform on comparable systems, rather than just the highest end, highest detail on hardware nobody owns yet.
Something like "physics-streaming," if it really works, is the kind of thing that really makes one engine better in a lasting way. Simply having a bunch more shaders, which is basically just a drop-n-play addition, is not. So we really have to wait and see how the games perform on comparable systems, rather than just the highest end, highest detail on hardware nobody owns yet.
G
Guest
Guest
Yea, thats possible with the crytech engine. It uses the same type of normal map techniques used in source and the doom3 engine. I know you guys pissed your pants when you saw how cool it looked in that XSI vid, but fact is both Doom3 AND crytech use this technique alot more than hl2 does. Infact, ive only seen ONE surface in hl2 so far that was normal mapped, and that was the wall form the vid. The tile walls in the e3 vids were possibly normal mapped, but we cant really tell from the vid. Normal mapping just wont be a big feature in hl2 since it will be used so sparingly.
Look at Doom3, every surface normal mapped. Is this over use of normal maps? I dont see how it can be. You can have 1 surface in a scene look 200,000 poly and the rest of the surfaces absoulutly flat looking(hl2), or you can have every single surface in a scene look 200,000 poly(doom3). Obviously the one with every surface looking like its made of 200,000 poly will look more detailed.
Also, the vast majority of the lighting in hl2 will be absolutly static. The wall in the XSI vid was most impressive when he moved the light around and showed how the light interacts with the normal map. You wont see this very much in hl2.
Like a bumble bee shooter? Or a green snot shooter? Silly weapons like those found in the half-life world have no place in the world of farcry. Its not that type of game.
Like the flat animated loop graphic in half-life 2? Is that what you call realistic? Quake3 had the exact same type of fire. Flat textures NEVER look realistic. They might look more realistic simply because they are in a higher resolution than was previously possible in games and things like that, but they dont look real at all.
If i remember correctly, i was breaking wood in halflife1. ;o
Sure it might be more realistic in half-life2, but thats due to the natural progression of quality in games, not due to any new and awesome innovations that valve invented. I mean cmon guys, it might be cool but its not like we have never seen breakable objects before.
Actually, no. It may appear that way to you since you hang around here, but there are a few things to consider. The majority of gamers DO NOT hang around online forums talking about what game they anticipate more. The majority of people who will buy hl2 and doom3 are NOT MP gamers and will buy the game for the SP experience, therefore they generally do not have a voice in the online community. The doom series had a much bigger impact on the gaming industry than ANY other game.
Just for fun, type "most anticipated FPS game" in google. You will get five results, one for halo, one for serious sam, one for DNF(LOL), and TWO for doom3.
G
Guest
Guest
About "plastic looking" games.
People seem to be under the delusion that because doom3 has specular maps on all objects that makes all objects look like plastic. This is a misunderstanding of what specular maps do. Specular maps DONT make a surface shiny, specular maps give complete control on how that surface will act when light hits it. That surface can be as shiny or as dull as you like, and you can make ANY part of that surface shiny or dull. If you wanted some parts to be shiny and some dull that is controlled by the specular map. When you see shots liek in the stalker shot posted in this thread with the shiny rock surface, that is plain ugly. But dont include doom3 in shit like that. You dont see that in doom3 anywhere. Everything in doom3 that should be shiny is shiny, everything that should be dull is dull.
I understand what you mean when you say it looks like plastic, but the only places this is seen is in "alpha" screenshots. Screenshots from the "alpha" are very misleading as far as how the game really looks. Its code that wasnt meant to be run on 90% of the hardware combinations its run on, and is unfinished and unoptimized code. You cant base what the game will look like on "alpha" screens.
People seem to be under the delusion that because doom3 has specular maps on all objects that makes all objects look like plastic. This is a misunderstanding of what specular maps do. Specular maps DONT make a surface shiny, specular maps give complete control on how that surface will act when light hits it. That surface can be as shiny or as dull as you like, and you can make ANY part of that surface shiny or dull. If you wanted some parts to be shiny and some dull that is controlled by the specular map. When you see shots liek in the stalker shot posted in this thread with the shiny rock surface, that is plain ugly. But dont include doom3 in shit like that. You dont see that in doom3 anywhere. Everything in doom3 that should be shiny is shiny, everything that should be dull is dull.
I understand what you mean when you say it looks like plastic, but the only places this is seen is in "alpha" screenshots. Screenshots from the "alpha" are very misleading as far as how the game really looks. Its code that wasnt meant to be run on 90% of the hardware combinations its run on, and is unfinished and unoptimized code. You cant base what the game will look like on "alpha" screens.
G
Guest
Guest
Wu-Ming, almost everything u said in ur post is already said by brassmonkey couple weeks ago, if u're trying to make another topic out of it and see how people respond, then u should use the search button. cuz we get bored enough of everything in ur post and i'm tired of arguing again. Man how many noob come to the forum and saying exactly the same ****ing shit every month?!!!!
G
Guest
Guest
It obviously needs to keep being said since you people dont get it through your heads. If its already been explained then why are you people still acting ignorant about it.
"It uses the same type of normal map techniques used in source and the doom3 engine. I know you guys pissed your pants when you saw how cool it looked in that XSI vid, but fact is both Doom3 AND crytech use this technique alot more than hl2 does."
I did not piss in my pants, I seen this technique before, and as for applying it onto models, I think its overrated. I don't care how well the lighting trys to trick me, I will still be able to tell if a model is made up of 1500 polys, or 250000 polys simply by looking at how certain parts of the texture itself is blocked by obstructing polygons at different angles. If no matter where I look, I still see the same texture look on a supposedly round tube like surface, the lighting effect moving around the flat texture can only do so much at fooling me.
"Like a bumble bee shooter? Or a green snot shooter? Silly weapons like those found in the half-life world have no place in the world of farcry. Its not that type of game."
Whats silly about weapons that were choosen based on their ability to enhance gameplay and the overall fun and diversity of the game?
"Like the flat animated loop graphic in half-life 2? Is that what you call realistic? Quake3 had the exact same type of fire. Flat textures NEVER look realistic. They might look more realistic simply because they are in a higher resolution than was previously possible in games and things like that, but they dont look real at all."
From what I seen of fire in the E3 footage, I'd say it looks real, maybe not to you, but it looks real enough for me. I have yet to see a screenshot of ANY fire in the Farcry or Stalker engines, so I can't say much about them.
"If i remember correctly, i was breaking wood in halflife1. ;o
Sure it might be more realistic in half-life2, but thats due to the natural progression of quality in games, not due to any new and awesome innovations that valve invented. I mean cmon guys, it might be cool but its not like we have never seen breakable objects before."
It's not the fact that wood is breaking that is revolutional, but the fact that it breaks realisticly instead of peices of random debris that don't even match the original object and fade away after some time.
"Actually, no. It may appear that way to you since you hang around here, but there are a few things to consider. The majority of gamers DO NOT hang around online forums talking about what game they anticipate more. The majority of people who will buy hl2 and doom3 are NOT MP gamers and will buy the game for the SP experience, therefore they generally do not have a voice in the online community. The doom series had a much bigger impact on the gaming industry than ANY other game.
Just for fun, type "most anticipated FPS game" in google. You will get five results, one for halo, one for serious sam, one for DNF(LOL), and TWO for doom3."
For anyone who is INFORMED, HL2 is the most anticipated. People who don't play Quake III Arena or Half-Life, etc online don't coun't. They don't anticipate much and any anticipation they do have would seem worthless if they never got anticipated enough to play these games online yet. Which makes it ridiculus to assume HL2 is not the most anticipated just because not everyone plays online, including some random kids in the middle of some 3rd world country with no access to games, let alone electricity. And forget about how dumb using googles search results as a basis for your point is. I will pretend I didn't even hear that one.
I did not piss in my pants, I seen this technique before, and as for applying it onto models, I think its overrated. I don't care how well the lighting trys to trick me, I will still be able to tell if a model is made up of 1500 polys, or 250000 polys simply by looking at how certain parts of the texture itself is blocked by obstructing polygons at different angles. If no matter where I look, I still see the same texture look on a supposedly round tube like surface, the lighting effect moving around the flat texture can only do so much at fooling me.
"Like a bumble bee shooter? Or a green snot shooter? Silly weapons like those found in the half-life world have no place in the world of farcry. Its not that type of game."
Whats silly about weapons that were choosen based on their ability to enhance gameplay and the overall fun and diversity of the game?
"Like the flat animated loop graphic in half-life 2? Is that what you call realistic? Quake3 had the exact same type of fire. Flat textures NEVER look realistic. They might look more realistic simply because they are in a higher resolution than was previously possible in games and things like that, but they dont look real at all."
From what I seen of fire in the E3 footage, I'd say it looks real, maybe not to you, but it looks real enough for me. I have yet to see a screenshot of ANY fire in the Farcry or Stalker engines, so I can't say much about them.
"If i remember correctly, i was breaking wood in halflife1. ;o
Sure it might be more realistic in half-life2, but thats due to the natural progression of quality in games, not due to any new and awesome innovations that valve invented. I mean cmon guys, it might be cool but its not like we have never seen breakable objects before."
It's not the fact that wood is breaking that is revolutional, but the fact that it breaks realisticly instead of peices of random debris that don't even match the original object and fade away after some time.
"Actually, no. It may appear that way to you since you hang around here, but there are a few things to consider. The majority of gamers DO NOT hang around online forums talking about what game they anticipate more. The majority of people who will buy hl2 and doom3 are NOT MP gamers and will buy the game for the SP experience, therefore they generally do not have a voice in the online community. The doom series had a much bigger impact on the gaming industry than ANY other game.
Just for fun, type "most anticipated FPS game" in google. You will get five results, one for halo, one for serious sam, one for DNF(LOL), and TWO for doom3."
For anyone who is INFORMED, HL2 is the most anticipated. People who don't play Quake III Arena or Half-Life, etc online don't coun't. They don't anticipate much and any anticipation they do have would seem worthless if they never got anticipated enough to play these games online yet. Which makes it ridiculus to assume HL2 is not the most anticipated just because not everyone plays online, including some random kids in the middle of some 3rd world country with no access to games, let alone electricity. And forget about how dumb using googles search results as a basis for your point is. I will pretend I didn't even hear that one.
"People seem to be under the delusion that because doom3 has specular maps on all objects that makes all objects look like plastic."
You got it all wrong. I looked at the screen shots and video clips, seen everything shiney. And came to the conclusion that of the footage that I have seen, it all looks like PLASTIC. I did not mention anything about specular mapping, ect. Hence the basis for your entire post was pretty much pointless.
You got it all wrong. I looked at the screen shots and video clips, seen everything shiney. And came to the conclusion that of the footage that I have seen, it all looks like PLASTIC. I did not mention anything about specular mapping, ect. Hence the basis for your entire post was pretty much pointless.
G
Guest
Guest
ignorant about what??? why don't u even take ur time to search for topic about doom3 vs hl2 vs stalker stuff. u will find out that most of people won't upgrade their computers only for hl2. but u will definitly find out why hl2 is the most anticipated upcoming fps game. I used to typed up a pape of explaination like u did, but i'm tired of it now...
I
ice101
Guest
Why did Wu Ming get banned? Have some posts been deleted?
G
Guest
Guest
when we say hl2 is the most anticipated, we are talking about the amount of people who want to play this game, not how many stupid adds out there saying the game is the most anticipated like other games do.
LoneDeranger
Newbie
- Joined
- May 27, 2003
- Messages
- 4,378
- Reaction score
- 0
OMG even a farcry troll (!!!)
The diversity of this community astounds me.
The diversity of this community astounds me.
G
Guest
Guest
oh man he get banned, too bad for him
G
Guest
Guest
hey anyone see G-man , he's a terminator
T
The hotdog man
Guest
HAHA nice one dude.
N
nw909
Guest
I don't get why people are only arguing about one game at a time, I think all of these games are going to be awesome and i'll buy all of them money permitting, I will definitally buy hl2 first because that is the game I am most anticipating, I may buy farcry second just because it looks really fun to play around with the engine.
I have lots of games on my wishlist this year and 2004.
I have lots of games on my wishlist this year and 2004.
"Normal mapping just wont be a big feature in hl2 since it will be used so sparingly."
When will people learn that using the latest technology as much as possible is not good game design, and that using new technology only where it's 'needed' IS good game design? (I mean this in general, not trying to say Normal Mapping is new or anything.)
This is probably why Doom III looks so shiney. They come up with new technology and right away have to apply it to as many different aspecs of the game as possible on the supposed assumption that it will make the game that much better? Perhaps it's time to let the Game Designer tell John Carmack what he should add to the game, and not the other way around. Hopefully it's not like that. Since only early mod teams I've been on made that kind of mistake.
Ah.. i've said to much and ended up going slightly off topic.. oh well.
When will people learn that using the latest technology as much as possible is not good game design, and that using new technology only where it's 'needed' IS good game design? (I mean this in general, not trying to say Normal Mapping is new or anything.)
This is probably why Doom III looks so shiney. They come up with new technology and right away have to apply it to as many different aspecs of the game as possible on the supposed assumption that it will make the game that much better? Perhaps it's time to let the Game Designer tell John Carmack what he should add to the game, and not the other way around. Hopefully it's not like that. Since only early mod teams I've been on made that kind of mistake.
Ah.. i've said to much and ended up going slightly off topic.. oh well.
I know what you guys mean when you say Doom 3 is plastic looking, but what is "shiny" about this picture? http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/doom3/screens.html?page=73
Doom 3 looks very good, it's funny that people are complaining about it's graphics when they are in fact the best aspect of the game.
Doom 3 looks very good, it's funny that people are complaining about it's graphics when they are in fact the best aspect of the game.
G
Guest
Guest
i don't think it's a good day to argue about games. first, someone get banned for saying bad stuff on hl2, then few thread are closed for some unknown reason. I mean the moderator is probably going too harsh.
T
The hotdog man
Guest
hmm. You got a point there dude.
The Doom 3 graphics are good, no doubt about it, and that screen shot doesnt have overly shinned surfaces, which is good. But that doesnt stop the game from looking odd in many other screen shots where every surface was shiney. The only anwser I have to this, is that UAC has developed some new kind of all purpose metal thats best suited for building bases in the middle of nowhere on desolate moons and planets. The side effect of this new metal being that its highly reflective. If they added that as the reason to the game, I think all complaints about the topic would be ended completely since the Devs would atleast admit to it being there, and include the reason for it into the background information of the story.
G
Guest
Guest
man not doom3 again, we have been discussing about doom3 for too many time, can we talk about something new? have anyone seen the far cry engine video, it seems the cry engine is even better than doom3 engine. at least it has the dynamic lighting and shadow that doom3 has for all i know. when i state that far cry engine is better than doom3 engine, i'm not a stupid noob saying brainless ****ing shit and i'm referring to the crytech engine video. check it out first before responding to what i say here.
L
Logic
Guest
There are going to be a lot of impressive graphics engines coming out in the next year. Some of them may or may not be better than source. What's really important though, is the game itself. The quality of HL2's gameplay and design will, from what we've seen so far, most likely blow Far Cry out of the water. Yes, it may have an impressive engine, but the game just doesn't appeal to me like HL2 does.
It's all about the design, and the game. The engine is merely the technical aspects of how the game is presented. I'd much rather play a fun game with flat textures than a boring as all crap game made using the doom 3 engine to it's full potential, for example.
It's all about the design, and the game. The engine is merely the technical aspects of how the game is presented. I'd much rather play a fun game with flat textures than a boring as all crap game made using the doom 3 engine to it's full potential, for example.
G
Guest
Guest
if there is really something need to compare with, compare far cry with stalker, they both features large outdoor maps, dynamics lighting, realistic soldier stuff (i know there's zombie in stalker, but the rest of it are pretty realistic).
Far Cry's engine is alright, I suppose, but the game looks very uninspired. Doom 3 doesn't look to have an award-winning plot either, but at least it has some creative enemies.
P.S. I think all of these games can be compared considering they are all FPS's that come out within 6 months of each other.
P.S. I think all of these games can be compared considering they are all FPS's that come out within 6 months of each other.
Tr0n
Newbie
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2003
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 0
Yep I totally agree.The game I'm mainly waiting for is Quake IV.Quake IV is going to be using a modified Doom 3 engine.It's going to have vehicles and most of the physics affects that HL2 will have.But by the time it comes out computers will have more than enough power to run Quake 4's outdoor enviroments.So keep your eye on that.
G
Guest
Guest
that's one thing we need to clear up. Even though we use engine to make game, game and engine are two seperated entities. When i said cry engine seems to be better than doom3 engine, i'm only talking about the abilities of the engines and i'm not talking about how fun are those games that people make with those engines.
Tr0n
Newbie
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2003
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 0
I think Quake 4 will come out in about 2 years so by that time they should be well past the Radeon 3000's.There have already been concept art pictures and pictures of models that have been rendered from Quake 4.I have a couple but I can't show them to you.I might get sued from ID.Oh yea and if you was wondering Quake 4 is going to continue off of Quake 2.Looks like you got to verus those ugly mofo of robots again.
Similar threads
