Setting the competition for HL3: FarCry cinematic demo

F

fluX

Newbie
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
And now our daily commercial: :)

It seems that Crytek has switched sides, at least
there's a new Machinima demo done in collaboration with ATI

http://www.ati.com/gitg/promotions/crytek/index.html

(Enlarge Window by right mouse click -> Zoom -> Full Screen)

No idea if it's a real-time rendering ( probably not),
but it seems to be rendered directly by the CryEngine 1.3.

So HL3 will face strong competition graphically - or what do you think?

ok, the story is still.... judge for yourself ;)
 
it is real-time rendered, you can download the movie and it will be rendered on your machine by the farcry engine. But hl2 characters look way better than these.
 
fluX said:
So HL3 will face strong competition graphically - or what do you think?

ok, the story is still.... judge for yourself ;)
Click to expand...

Who ****ing cares.
 
hey look at those fancy graphics.... hl2 will still be a better game.
 
If talented people can make a film with just stick figures that get across all kinds of emotion and feelings. It goes to show graphics ain't everything (and graphics is my job and im saying that hehe don't tell the clients;))

Valve put more effort into story, then worry about how cool things will look. FarCry looked niceish but was a bit dull tbh.
 
The Dark Elf said:
If talented people can make a film with just stick figures that get across all kinds of emotion and feelings. It goes to show graphics ain't everything (and graphics is my job and im saying that hehe don't tell the clients;))

Valve put more effort into story, then worry about how cool things will look. FarCry looked niceish but was a bit dull tbh.
Click to expand...

k, it's a matter of taste here. I liked both a lot. I preferred HL's story, imersion and gemaplay, but I think Farcry's freedom of movement and stealth gameplay was very appealing, too. And BTW: Farcry was much tougher than HL2, which is hardly a true challenge for a good FPS player.

Anyway, let's keep this comparison aside, I think competition is a good thing and if FC2 reaches a better and less cliché-laden storyline (and get rid of their plastic looking shaders on clothing) it will bring the whole FPS world a new step ahead towards cinematic gaming.

Unreal3 looks awesome, too, but I do not think it is real-time rendered :)
 
I think it looked great. Yeah the models in HL2 still look a bit better but The Project will give it a run for it's money. Can't wait for it's release.
 
mikren said:
I think it looked great. Yeah the models in HL2 still look a bit better but The Project will give it a run for it's money. Can't wait for it's release.
Click to expand...

On second thought ....
 

Attachments

  • scientist1.JPG
    scientist1.JPG
    39.9 KB · Views: 470
Anyone remember when people thought Far Cry might be a better game than HL2?
 
Heh, I didn't like it. Everything still looks like plastic. Facial animations arent to great either.
 
Crytek needs to shuffle up its design team, but FC was still a great game. As someone said, it was a real challenge when compared to HL2.

Someone said the UE3 pics aren't realtime, but there have been videos and such. The honest truth is that yes, those shots of characters on black bgs use a level of lighting you probably won't see in game, but the basic idea is that it's possible
 
Those pictures where mostlikely rendered in real time, but on state of the art hardware, probubly hardware that is not even avalible to the public yet. Still dosent look that much better then HL2 imo.
 
HunterSeeker said:
Those pictures where mostlikely rendered in real time, but on state of the art hardware, probubly hardware that is not even avalible to the public yet. Still dosent look that much better then HL2 imo.
Click to expand...

What pictures? The ATI tech demo is completely realtime and runs well on my system.
 
Spartan said:
What pictures? The ATI tech demo is completely realtime and runs well on my system.
Click to expand...

I have not actually downloaded the actual tech demo. Just seen videos/screenshots of it.
 
HunterSeeker said:
Those pictures where mostlikely rendered in real time, but on state of the art hardware, probubly hardware that is not even avalible to the public yet. Still dosent look that much better then HL2 imo.
Click to expand...

You can render them in real-time but then you have sth like 0.2 fps. The U3 movies are not possible with todays hardware at a decent framerate. Technically, the Ati/Crytek demo is more advanced than the HL2 graphics, epecially the shadows & lighting and animations are awesome. On the other hand skin and clothing still looks rather ... bad IMHO. So the subjective perception may vary :)
 
Ran it on x800xt PE. Looks terrific and runs quite well. I don't see hiccups at all, just a bit of 'lag': at 1600x1200 4AA I notice the sounds and speech are a bit delayed and the motion is not quite so smooth. The thing about the crytek engine I hated was that if you push the graphics settings too far, you get really laggy mouse control though the framerate appears to be fine. I played through the whole game on my 9800pro, then realized how much better the control was when I popped in the x800xt.

My other complaint was that I foudn the FarCry characters to be lame, so even if it's a really good MOD platform, it just puts me off as a a starting point.
 
fluX said:
Technically, the Ati/Crytek demo is more advanced than the HL2 graphics, epecially the shadows & lighting and animations are awesome. On the other hand skin and clothing still looks rather ... bad IMHO. So the subjective perception may vary :)
Click to expand...

Skins are just a question of art, not an engine limitation.
 
fluX said:
You can render them in real-time but then you have sth like 0.2 fps. The U3 movies are not possible with todays hardware at a decent framerate. Technically, the Ati/Crytek demo is more advanced than the HL2 graphics, epecially the shadows & lighting and animations are awesome. On the other hand skin and clothing still looks rather ... bad IMHO. So the subjective perception may vary :)
Click to expand...

Actually, the Unreal3 demos were run on 2 SLI'd 6800 pro's, so it's not THAT far off (though I'm sure they used a buttload of RAM).

I think the thing lacking in the Crytek demo characters were the facial expressions and the eyes. Other than that, you can't really complain (except how the monster whacking the guy with the shield was obviously a reaction animation they gave up on doing properly).
 
HunterSeeker said:
Those pictures where mostlikely rendered in real time, but on state of the art hardware, probubly hardware that is not even avalible to the public yet. Still dosent look that much better then HL2 imo.
Click to expand...

i have certainly don't have 'state of the art' hardware, or hardware that isn't available to the public. and it runs in 'realtime' at about 15-20fps.

@Mr Neutron when did they reveal what cards the demos were being shown on ?
 
Ah

It looks good, but it is absolutely no match for the new unreal engine, and obviously we know nothing about HL3 but it will also be much, much better.

The question is what will CryTek come up with in a year or so that rivals HL3/U3.
 
Yeah games get better and better every time graphically.
 
:Rex Saw: said:
It looks good, but it is absolutely no match for the new unreal engine, and obviously we know nothing about HL3 but it will also be much, much better.

The question is what will CryTek come up with in a year or so that rivals HL3/U3.
Click to expand...

Well, let me point out one important thing: The Unreal 3 movies and screenshots are boasting an incredible amount of polygon and texture data, so the detail that you see is mostly doable with any kind of advanced shader/ normal / bump asf. mapping engine. The important thing is to do all this in a reasonable calculation time, giving the gamer some FPS... That's the real achievement, speed is as important as visual quality. To me that's one of the major achievements in Hl2.
Having said that IMO the Morrowind 2 pics even outpace Unreal 3 in terms of photorealistic imaging. :)
 
fluX said:
So HL3 will face strong competition graphically - or what do you think?
Click to expand...
Half-Life was never about the graphics. Yeah, Far Cry looked nice, but its gameplay was sub par. I'll take Half-Life's quality gameplay over state of the art graphics any day of the week.
 
Well, it looks exactly like what I would expect for graphics somewhere in between FarCry and Unreal 3.
 
The voices in Far Cry were horrible and extremly cheesy. This video does not stray from that mistake.
 
Unreal 3.0 won't have any practical use util late 2006. The code still doesn't run well on current video technology anyway. But aside from that, the Unreal 3.0 renders and real time demonstrations are the most I have ever been impressed by a 3D engine. But consider the HL2 engine's age (close to 3 years) and it's damn near close. The thing with U3 will be that those incredible graphics will be failry capable to be done on any system of any make with any video card which right now is the current objective because developers lose money off of customers who don't have the 1000 bucks to update their computer for one game. So, to be honest, I'm really excited about U3, but onyl on a technological standpoint. The Unreal series has been lacking in originality lately so we'll see how far that goes.

We can't also forget that the Source engine is an adaptable and ever evolving beast that by the time of U3's release, will possibly look completely different than we can even imagine. Here's hopin *crosses fingers*
 
I dunno, if you've seen the U3 techdemo video, it would seem that Source won't be able to adapt to quite that level.

I guess we'll have to wait and see...
 
er, i don't think source is anywhere near the unreal 3 engine.
 
I can't f*cking wait to see what HL3 has new to us! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top