BNA!@Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:56 am :
The CryPeople have released a nice preview of their upcoming CryEngine 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Kvl31g77Z8

They also claim real time global illumination as a feature :)

If I'd have more time I'd toy around with the CryEngines too...



Rayne@Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 8:37 am :
Right now, with "just" Cryengine 2 you can create amazing stuff... Try it, you are gonna lovin' it.. The beauty you get vs. how easy is to work with its tools, makes Cryengine something unique...



zoost@Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:21 am :
BNA! wrote:
The CryPeople have released a nice preview of their upcoming CryEngine 3:

They also claim real time global illumination as a feature :)



See it in action http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-_pnqXLIg4



Rayne@Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:50 am :
zoost wrote:
BNA! wrote:
The CryPeople have released a nice preview of their upcoming CryEngine 3:

They also claim real time global illumination as a feature :)



See it in action [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-_pnqXLIg4"]here[/url]



Holy sh... :shock:



TRSGM@Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:10 pm :
Slides here if you want to learn more.



New Horizon@Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:40 pm :
I grow less and less interested in each generation of game engine.

Developers aren't making games anymore, they're making interactive movies. Gotta say, I'm disgusted by all this graphic whoring.



whitewolf@Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:31 pm :
Good visuals do not necessarily equate to bad gameplay or story. An engine is merely a canvas on which the artists paint and a stage on which the story pans out. Its a tool, like a paintbrush.

But its interesting how the realism curve seems to be evening out. Sure, it looks better than id tech 4 (sacrilege!) which came out 5 years ago, but its not the order of magnitude leap that we saw in the period between tech 3 and tech 4. I can see engines lasting longer and longer between each generation as they get more complex and expensive to build/maintain. Hell, some engines in use still dont have specular, (I'm looking at you Valve) and that was introduced 5 years ago or longer.

Its just sad to see so much proprietry-ness. If Carmack can go the opengl route and still have his engine kicking ass, why lock yourself down with the evil empire?



=FF=Sturm@Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 4:15 pm :
And there we go with another GPU and CPU killer...
:mrgreen:



New Horizon@Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 4:27 pm :
whitewolf wrote:
Good visuals do not necessarily equate to bad gameplay or story. An engine is merely a canvas on which the artists paint and a stage on which the story pans out. Its a tool, like a paintbrush.


Yup, I'm aware of this. lol

I've been a member of this team for the last 5 years.
http://www.thedarkmod.com

The point is though...the more time you have to spend on insanely detailed graphics...the less time you have to spend on a real game, unless of course you have the money to hire a huge team.

I don't play a game for the graphics, I play a game for gameplay. Wow factor means absolutely nothing to me. Far Cry could have used Quake 3 graphics for all I would have cared, and I still would have played it if the gameplay was engaging.



Phobos@Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:05 pm :
=FF=Sturm wrote:
And there we go with another GPU and CPU killer...
:mrgreen:


Not so much anymore. With nvidia's 200 series of GPU's out and the ATI equivalent, plus with dx10 in and vista out, resource hogging is hardly the issue it used to be (CrytekE2 in geforce 8 series days).

People's ideals concerning graphics and hardware rendering capability are constrained (and traumatized) by the joke of consoles and the average television resolution.

Just because no new hardware has been released on the console side doesn't mean that PC technology hasn't had the time to shoot through the roof when compared to it's outdated counterparts.

With RAGE still worrying about budgets, and dealing half the presentation, and CRYTEK not worrying about budgets so much, and nearly tripling the presentation (imho it looks 3x better), added onto the almost everyday quadcore and high-end gpu and emerging low-latency, low voltage, high speed ddr3 ram, I hardly think this will be quite the resource hog as it's predecessor.



TRSGM@Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:11 pm :
whitewolf wrote:
Good visuals do not necessarily equate to bad gameplay or story. An engine is merely a canvas on which the artists paint and a stage on which the story pans out. Its a tool, like a paintbrush.

But its interesting how the realism curve seems to be evening out. Sure, it looks better than id tech 4 (sacrilege!) which came out 5 years ago, but its not the order of magnitude leap that we saw in the period between tech 3 and tech 4. I can see engines lasting longer and longer between each generation as they get more complex and expensive to build/maintain. Hell, some engines in use still dont have specular, (I'm looking at you Valve) and that was introduced 5 years ago or longer.

Its just sad to see so much proprietry-ness. If Carmack can go the opengl route and still have his engine kicking ass, why lock yourself down with the evil empire?

Carmack has openly stated that he liked/was more familiar with the OGL way of doing things for some time, though it's my understanding that he's kinda 'switched over' to DX in spirit due to his satisfaction with working with the API for the X360. Quite frankly, I don't think he cares much for the political shitstorm flying around the Khronos Group either. Such is the price of an open standard, I suppose. Arguably you're just as bad for blowing off using a particular (fairly nice, I might again add) API on the sole basis of your personal stance on software distribution, but I digress. I'll also confess I don't much identify with the FSF or its attitudes, either, so that may be coloring my perceptions.

New Horizon wrote:
whitewolf wrote:
Good visuals do not necessarily equate to bad gameplay or story. An engine is merely a canvas on which the artists paint and a stage on which the story pans out. Its a tool, like a paintbrush.


Yup, I'm aware of this. lol

I've been a member of this team for the last 5 years.
http://www.thedarkmod.com

The point is though...the more time you have to spend on insanely detailed graphics...the less time you have to spend on a real game, unless of course you have the money to hire a huge team.

I don't play a game for the graphics, I play a game for gameplay. Wow factor means absolutely nothing to me. Far Cry could have used Quake 3 graphics for all I would have cared, and I still would have played it if the gameplay was engaging.

Well, there's good graphics for the right reasons (done in order to enhance gameplay) and good graphics done for the wrong reasons (OMG UNREAL DID THIS THING GUYS GUYS WE NEED TO DO IT TOO). For character-centric and/or horror-themed games I'd argue visual quality is actually one of the things that makes the biggest impact (sound is important too, especially in the case of the latter!) on the overall playability and enjoyment taken from the game. The greater the suspension of disbelief, the greater the overall impact of whatever it is you're trying to present. To be frank, (and not to single you out, mind you) I think many of the people that throw that concept around really miss the point of what makes a good game, right along with those people that rant on and on about how 'fun' is supposedly the gold standard of value assessment. To be blunt, it isn't-- *engagement* is, and many, many things can contribute to that, fun admittedly being one of them. I don't think it's intentional attacking/evil/whatnot on their part inasmuch as it is a lack of awareness.



whitewolf@Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:08 am :
TRSGM wrote:
Arguably you're just as bad for blowing off using a particular (fairly nice, I might again add) API on the sole basis of your personal stance on software distribution, but I digress.


No, its because opengl is more mod and indy friendly in general. Most indy games would not be possible without opengl.

This project for example. http://openpandora.org/



BNA!@Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:22 am :
id software is expressing friendship towards DirectX since approx 6 years now.
And since they go the one engine multiple platform way I don't see much to worry.
It's up to the ogl board to provide an environment developers want to use instead of DirectX. MS has brought DX a long way, can't blame them for being competitive.



Rayne@Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:51 am :
New Horizon wrote:
I grow less and less interested in each generation of game engine.

Developers aren't making games anymore, they're making interactive movies. Gotta say, I'm disgusted by all this graphic whoring.


So what's your point? Programmers should stop enhancing softwares and concentrate on gameplay?

This attitude makes me go crazy. I spent hours looking at doom2 bitmap skyes, then when I saw the Unreal skyes for the first time, again... I was completely speechless. The beauty of an environment is nothing to do with BAD, or GOOD gameplay. It's an whole other story.

You say you are in the dark mod team since 5 years... Well I really can't comprehend what's your problem: who builds the engine and the tools that help who builds the game in the first place, has nothing to do with game story, gameplay and so on... There are designers and level designers for that. So why we should discuss on BAD or GOOD gameplay when we are looking at a promo video for an engine, that shows features and tools (and, btw, since this forum it's full of people who likes to build game contents, there is no better place to discuss about this...)

It's not good to say "good graphics on a crappy game = it's ok", but sayin "well, fuck programmers, we can build a game into notepad, so fuck better tools and tecnhical enanchements" it's not good either. Well, it actually pisses me off.



BNA!@Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:09 am :
I'd suggest not to waste your time if you dislike the attitude of someone - graphics indeed cannot substitute gameplay, but I'd happily walk around in a game environment doing nothing but look stunningly good. Even if it's called ZEN Yoga Master Wanderer I'd line up for it.

I should mention that growing up with Pong greatly helps to appreciate any technical Advance in the gfx dept.



whitewolf@Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:22 am :
BNA! wrote:
id software is expressing friendship towards DirectX since approx 6 years now.


Carmack does seem to be singing the praises lately. But I was under the impression that id tech 5 is still opengl based with the exception of XBox.



Hostyle@Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:45 am :
My suggestion to all modders that they should switch to CryEngine2, because it's much faster to mod on. Mapping and flowgraph in CE2 are very powerfull. And the game itself is much more complex, not a target practice that D3 was.



BloodRayne@Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 12:54 pm :
I may be a gfx-whore, but I love great visuals. I have no problem with starting up a game like Gears of War or Far Cry, going into God mode just to enable me to explore every corner of every map to let the visuals sink in. I want to be immersed into a different world, let my fantasy guide me towards something different than my mundane existence.

Great visuals help a lot with doing that.



whitewolf@Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:15 pm :
Quote:
My suggestion to all modders that they should switch to CryEngine2, because it's much faster to mod on. Mapping and flowgraph in CE2 are very powerfull. And the game itself is much more complex, not a target practice that D3 was.


Maybe for outdoor. But if you are building indoor scenes from scratch, you are probably going to need to use a 3d suite anyway. So I don't really see much benefit, speed wise.



The Happy Friar@Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:48 pm :
some of the technical aspects of that new engine ARE impressive: the progressive destruction, physics, RT full scene color changing (fixing).. THAT'S impressive. But many of the features aren't any where unique to their engine & shouldn't be mentioned just because others will say they have them: all doom 3 engines have a WYSIWYG editing for pretty much everything. Torque 3D (previously TGE & TGEA) has had the same type of world editing since it's Sierra published days (starsiege/tribes). Everybody has a built in particle editor today, I have *NO* clue why animation systems were mentioned: that's completely up to the person who makes the assets: From Quake 2 to now animations have gotten more detailed but even Quake 2 can do what was shown in that video if you want to make it that detailed (Q3A had a ton of custom models that had fancy animations flowing out the ass). RT shadows has been around since a little before Doom 3.

Should also be mentioned that this was an engine demo, THERE'S NO GAME! So it's useless.

just for comparison: cryengine 2 screen:
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/crysi ... ow;thumb;5
cryengine 3 screen:
http://www.wegame.com/view/CryENGINE_3_for_Consoles_19/

A few years difference between them and, imho, the graphical different isn't that great. The non-graphical technical improvements are much better imho. But, for comparison
Doom 3 screen: http://www.gamershell.com/pc/doom_3/scr ... ml?id=1190
Rage screen: http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/arti ... eshow=true

again, imho, that's a huge graphical shift, just like q3a to d3. It seems crytek is stuck on one thing: make pretty island settings, just like id's pretty much stuck on making pretty ruined areas scenes. Only difference is that id's not putting out incremental updates every couple years (wish they would).



Hostyle@Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:54 pm :
whitewolf wrote:
Maybe for outdoor. But if you are building indoor scenes from scratch, you are probably going to need to use a 3d suite anyway. So I don't really see much benefit, speed wise.
There is geom tool and voxel tool in CE2.



rebb@Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:25 pm :
Since raising the bar for graphics is getting harder and harder, one can only hope that developers will instead try to raise all those remaining bars more than before.



obsidian@Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 7:17 am :
More likely raising the bar as far as what developers can do with the tools rather than just adding more graphics, physics, the kitchen sink and more fluff. What really matters is how easily a developer can use those tools to create something that looks stunning rather than just having all sorts of advanced engine features but tools that will take a developer months to create a room.

With ridiculously ballooning budgets and man hours spent on making games, they can't solve the problem by just tossing more people at the development process anymore... they're going to have to figure out ways to get the most out of the same number of developers that they already have.



Vladimir@Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 3:19 pm :
whitewolf wrote:
I can see engines lasting longer and longer between each generation as they get more complex and expensive to build/maintain. Hell, some engines in use still dont have specular, (I'm looking at you Valve) and that was introduced 5 years ago or longer.

Its just sad to see so much proprietry-ness. If Carmack can go the opengl route and still have his engine kicking ass, why lock yourself down with the evil empire?

I believe that the main reason (beside some here already mentioned) why these basically still DX9 engines are in use, is just because of Vista crap… Nobody was seriously tried to develop new engine which will be based exclusively on DX10 standard, and this is what we got… This transition from old OS to new one is taking too long and it seems that it will take few more years, since I can't clearly see when DX11 games will be common thing… Meanwhile what will be offer as solution basically is just a dozen of DX10 or DX11 patches implanted old engines, but that will be all…

So I believe that more or less, some pragmatic elements are the reason why these latest engines are lasting longer, but not just their complexity... ;)



BNA!@Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:56 am :
The CryPeople have released a nice preview of their upcoming CryEngine 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Kvl31g77Z8

They also claim real time global illumination as a feature :)

If I'd have more time I'd toy around with the CryEngines too...



Rayne@Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 8:37 am :
Right now, with "just" Cryengine 2 you can create amazing stuff... Try it, you are gonna lovin' it.. The beauty you get vs. how easy is to work with its tools, makes Cryengine something unique...



zoost@Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:21 am :
BNA! wrote:
The CryPeople have released a nice preview of their upcoming CryEngine 3:

They also claim real time global illumination as a feature :)



See it in action http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-_pnqXLIg4



Rayne@Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:50 am :
zoost wrote:
BNA! wrote:
The CryPeople have released a nice preview of their upcoming CryEngine 3:

They also claim real time global illumination as a feature :)



See it in action [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-_pnqXLIg4"]here[/url]



Holy sh... :shock:



TRSGM@Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:10 pm :
Slides here if you want to learn more.



New Horizon@Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:40 pm :
I grow less and less interested in each generation of game engine.

Developers aren't making games anymore, they're making interactive movies. Gotta say, I'm disgusted by all this graphic whoring.



whitewolf@Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:31 pm :
Good visuals do not necessarily equate to bad gameplay or story. An engine is merely a canvas on which the artists paint and a stage on which the story pans out. Its a tool, like a paintbrush.

But its interesting how the realism curve seems to be evening out. Sure, it looks better than id tech 4 (sacrilege!) which came out 5 years ago, but its not the order of magnitude leap that we saw in the period between tech 3 and tech 4. I can see engines lasting longer and longer between each generation as they get more complex and expensive to build/maintain. Hell, some engines in use still dont have specular, (I'm looking at you Valve) and that was introduced 5 years ago or longer.

Its just sad to see so much proprietry-ness. If Carmack can go the opengl route and still have his engine kicking ass, why lock yourself down with the evil empire?



=FF=Sturm@Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 4:15 pm :
And there we go with another GPU and CPU killer...
:mrgreen:



New Horizon@Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 4:27 pm :
whitewolf wrote:
Good visuals do not necessarily equate to bad gameplay or story. An engine is merely a canvas on which the artists paint and a stage on which the story pans out. Its a tool, like a paintbrush.


Yup, I'm aware of this. lol

I've been a member of this team for the last 5 years.
http://www.thedarkmod.com

The point is though...the more time you have to spend on insanely detailed graphics...the less time you have to spend on a real game, unless of course you have the money to hire a huge team.

I don't play a game for the graphics, I play a game for gameplay. Wow factor means absolutely nothing to me. Far Cry could have used Quake 3 graphics for all I would have cared, and I still would have played it if the gameplay was engaging.



Phobos@Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:05 pm :
=FF=Sturm wrote:
And there we go with another GPU and CPU killer...
:mrgreen:


Not so much anymore. With nvidia's 200 series of GPU's out and the ATI equivalent, plus with dx10 in and vista out, resource hogging is hardly the issue it used to be (CrytekE2 in geforce 8 series days).

People's ideals concerning graphics and hardware rendering capability are constrained (and traumatized) by the joke of consoles and the average television resolution.

Just because no new hardware has been released on the console side doesn't mean that PC technology hasn't had the time to shoot through the roof when compared to it's outdated counterparts.

With RAGE still worrying about budgets, and dealing half the presentation, and CRYTEK not worrying about budgets so much, and nearly tripling the presentation (imho it looks 3x better), added onto the almost everyday quadcore and high-end gpu and emerging low-latency, low voltage, high speed ddr3 ram, I hardly think this will be quite the resource hog as it's predecessor.



TRSGM@Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:11 pm :
whitewolf wrote:
Good visuals do not necessarily equate to bad gameplay or story. An engine is merely a canvas on which the artists paint and a stage on which the story pans out. Its a tool, like a paintbrush.

But its interesting how the realism curve seems to be evening out. Sure, it looks better than id tech 4 (sacrilege!) which came out 5 years ago, but its not the order of magnitude leap that we saw in the period between tech 3 and tech 4. I can see engines lasting longer and longer between each generation as they get more complex and expensive to build/maintain. Hell, some engines in use still dont have specular, (I'm looking at you Valve) and that was introduced 5 years ago or longer.

Its just sad to see so much proprietry-ness. If Carmack can go the opengl route and still have his engine kicking ass, why lock yourself down with the evil empire?

Carmack has openly stated that he liked/was more familiar with the OGL way of doing things for some time, though it's my understanding that he's kinda 'switched over' to DX in spirit due to his satisfaction with working with the API for the X360. Quite frankly, I don't think he cares much for the political shitstorm flying around the Khronos Group either. Such is the price of an open standard, I suppose. Arguably you're just as bad for blowing off using a particular (fairly nice, I might again add) API on the sole basis of your personal stance on software distribution, but I digress. I'll also confess I don't much identify with the FSF or its attitudes, either, so that may be coloring my perceptions.

New Horizon wrote:
whitewolf wrote:
Good visuals do not necessarily equate to bad gameplay or story. An engine is merely a canvas on which the artists paint and a stage on which the story pans out. Its a tool, like a paintbrush.


Yup, I'm aware of this. lol

I've been a member of this team for the last 5 years.
http://www.thedarkmod.com

The point is though...the more time you have to spend on insanely detailed graphics...the less time you have to spend on a real game, unless of course you have the money to hire a huge team.

I don't play a game for the graphics, I play a game for gameplay. Wow factor means absolutely nothing to me. Far Cry could have used Quake 3 graphics for all I would have cared, and I still would have played it if the gameplay was engaging.

Well, there's good graphics for the right reasons (done in order to enhance gameplay) and good graphics done for the wrong reasons (OMG UNREAL DID THIS THING GUYS GUYS WE NEED TO DO IT TOO). For character-centric and/or horror-themed games I'd argue visual quality is actually one of the things that makes the biggest impact (sound is important too, especially in the case of the latter!) on the overall playability and enjoyment taken from the game. The greater the suspension of disbelief, the greater the overall impact of whatever it is you're trying to present. To be frank, (and not to single you out, mind you) I think many of the people that throw that concept around really miss the point of what makes a good game, right along with those people that rant on and on about how 'fun' is supposedly the gold standard of value assessment. To be blunt, it isn't-- *engagement* is, and many, many things can contribute to that, fun admittedly being one of them. I don't think it's intentional attacking/evil/whatnot on their part inasmuch as it is a lack of awareness.



whitewolf@Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:08 am :
TRSGM wrote:
Arguably you're just as bad for blowing off using a particular (fairly nice, I might again add) API on the sole basis of your personal stance on software distribution, but I digress.


No, its because opengl is more mod and indy friendly in general. Most indy games would not be possible without opengl.

This project for example. http://openpandora.org/



BNA!@Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:22 am :
id software is expressing friendship towards DirectX since approx 6 years now.
And since they go the one engine multiple platform way I don't see much to worry.
It's up to the ogl board to provide an environment developers want to use instead of DirectX. MS has brought DX a long way, can't blame them for being competitive.



Rayne@Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:51 am :
New Horizon wrote:
I grow less and less interested in each generation of game engine.

Developers aren't making games anymore, they're making interactive movies. Gotta say, I'm disgusted by all this graphic whoring.


So what's your point? Programmers should stop enhancing softwares and concentrate on gameplay?

This attitude makes me go crazy. I spent hours looking at doom2 bitmap skyes, then when I saw the Unreal skyes for the first time, again... I was completely speechless. The beauty of an environment is nothing to do with BAD, or GOOD gameplay. It's an whole other story.

You say you are in the dark mod team since 5 years... Well I really can't comprehend what's your problem: who builds the engine and the tools that help who builds the game in the first place, has nothing to do with game story, gameplay and so on... There are designers and level designers for that. So why we should discuss on BAD or GOOD gameplay when we are looking at a promo video for an engine, that shows features and tools (and, btw, since this forum it's full of people who likes to build game contents, there is no better place to discuss about this...)

It's not good to say "good graphics on a crappy game = it's ok", but sayin "well, fuck programmers, we can build a game into notepad, so fuck better tools and tecnhical enanchements" it's not good either. Well, it actually pisses me off.



BNA!@Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:09 am :
I'd suggest not to waste your time if you dislike the attitude of someone - graphics indeed cannot substitute gameplay, but I'd happily walk around in a game environment doing nothing but look stunningly good. Even if it's called ZEN Yoga Master Wanderer I'd line up for it.

I should mention that growing up with Pong greatly helps to appreciate any technical Advance in the gfx dept.



whitewolf@Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:22 am :
BNA! wrote:
id software is expressing friendship towards DirectX since approx 6 years now.


Carmack does seem to be singing the praises lately. But I was under the impression that id tech 5 is still opengl based with the exception of XBox.



Hostyle@Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:45 am :
My suggestion to all modders that they should switch to CryEngine2, because it's much faster to mod on. Mapping and flowgraph in CE2 are very powerfull. And the game itself is much more complex, not a target practice that D3 was.



BloodRayne@Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 12:54 pm :
I may be a gfx-whore, but I love great visuals. I have no problem with starting up a game like Gears of War or Far Cry, going into God mode just to enable me to explore every corner of every map to let the visuals sink in. I want to be immersed into a different world, let my fantasy guide me towards something different than my mundane existence.

Great visuals help a lot with doing that.



whitewolf@Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:15 pm :
Quote:
My suggestion to all modders that they should switch to CryEngine2, because it's much faster to mod on. Mapping and flowgraph in CE2 are very powerfull. And the game itself is much more complex, not a target practice that D3 was.


Maybe for outdoor. But if you are building indoor scenes from scratch, you are probably going to need to use a 3d suite anyway. So I don't really see much benefit, speed wise.



The Happy Friar@Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:48 pm :
some of the technical aspects of that new engine ARE impressive: the progressive destruction, physics, RT full scene color changing (fixing).. THAT'S impressive. But many of the features aren't any where unique to their engine & shouldn't be mentioned just because others will say they have them: all doom 3 engines have a WYSIWYG editing for pretty much everything. Torque 3D (previously TGE & TGEA) has had the same type of world editing since it's Sierra published days (starsiege/tribes). Everybody has a built in particle editor today, I have *NO* clue why animation systems were mentioned: that's completely up to the person who makes the assets: From Quake 2 to now animations have gotten more detailed but even Quake 2 can do what was shown in that video if you want to make it that detailed (Q3A had a ton of custom models that had fancy animations flowing out the ass). RT shadows has been around since a little before Doom 3.

Should also be mentioned that this was an engine demo, THERE'S NO GAME! So it's useless.

just for comparison: cryengine 2 screen:
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/crysi ... ow;thumb;5
cryengine 3 screen:
http://www.wegame.com/view/CryENGINE_3_for_Consoles_19/

A few years difference between them and, imho, the graphical different isn't that great. The non-graphical technical improvements are much better imho. But, for comparison
Doom 3 screen: http://www.gamershell.com/pc/doom_3/scr ... ml?id=1190
Rage screen: http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/arti ... eshow=true

again, imho, that's a huge graphical shift, just like q3a to d3. It seems crytek is stuck on one thing: make pretty island settings, just like id's pretty much stuck on making pretty ruined areas scenes. Only difference is that id's not putting out incremental updates every couple years (wish they would).



Hostyle@Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:54 pm :
whitewolf wrote:
Maybe for outdoor. But if you are building indoor scenes from scratch, you are probably going to need to use a 3d suite anyway. So I don't really see much benefit, speed wise.
There is geom tool and voxel tool in CE2.



rebb@Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:25 pm :
Since raising the bar for graphics is getting harder and harder, one can only hope that developers will instead try to raise all those remaining bars more than before.



obsidian@Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 7:17 am :
More likely raising the bar as far as what developers can do with the tools rather than just adding more graphics, physics, the kitchen sink and more fluff. What really matters is how easily a developer can use those tools to create something that looks stunning rather than just having all sorts of advanced engine features but tools that will take a developer months to create a room.

With ridiculously ballooning budgets and man hours spent on making games, they can't solve the problem by just tossing more people at the development process anymore... they're going to have to figure out ways to get the most out of the same number of developers that they already have.



Vladimir@Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 3:19 pm :
whitewolf wrote:
I can see engines lasting longer and longer between each generation as they get more complex and expensive to build/maintain. Hell, some engines in use still dont have specular, (I'm looking at you Valve) and that was introduced 5 years ago or longer.

Its just sad to see so much proprietry-ness. If Carmack can go the opengl route and still have his engine kicking ass, why lock yourself down with the evil empire?

I believe that the main reason (beside some here already mentioned) why these basically still DX9 engines are in use, is just because of Vista crap… Nobody was seriously tried to develop new engine which will be based exclusively on DX10 standard, and this is what we got… This transition from old OS to new one is taking too long and it seems that it will take few more years, since I can't clearly see when DX11 games will be common thing… Meanwhile what will be offer as solution basically is just a dozen of DX10 or DX11 patches implanted old engines, but that will be all…

So I believe that more or less, some pragmatic elements are the reason why these latest engines are lasting longer, but not just their complexity... ;)