PDA

View Full Version : While we wait for more info... how DX3 could look!



puzl
6th May 2009, 11:18
http://kotaku.com/5241395/screenshots-from-movie-games-you-only-wish-existed

Check those Blade Runner renders in the Unreal 3/Crytek engine. Absolutely stunning. Imagine playing DX3 in environments similar to those... wandering around proper open environments with lush cyberpunk (or cyber renaissance!) aesthetics.

Full props to the artist who made that!

lumpi
6th May 2009, 15:42
I have full confidence in the talent of the DX3 art team. It sure will be the best looking DX game so far, on par with these screenshots.

ZylonBane
6th May 2009, 16:14
how DX3 could look!
...In different engines than what DX3 is using, with no regard for frame rate or texture memory.

Whoop-de-doo.


I have full confidence in the talent of the DX3 art team. It sure will be the best looking DX game so far, on par with these screenshots.
You're a loony. Of course it will be the best-looking DX, since the original is almost a decade old, and Invisible War looked like ass on day one. But there's no way in hell it'll look as good as those screenshots, for the reasons noted above.

puzl
6th May 2009, 18:45
...In different engines than what DX3 is using, with no regard for frame rate or texture memory.

Whoop-de-doo.


You're a loony. Of course it will be the best-looking DX, since the original is almost a decade old, and Invisible War looked like ass on day one. But there's no way in hell it'll look as good as those screenshots, for the reasons noted above.

we all know that it is a single render in a different engine and non-playable.. but thanks for pointing out the obvious.

the whole point is just for the aesthetic value and how closely it would resemble the dream dx3 look, however unlikely it would be to attain.

Tracer Tong
6th May 2009, 19:18
we all know that it is a single render in a different engine and non-playable.. but thanks for pointing out the obvious.

the whole point is just for the aesthetic value and how closely it would resemble the dream dx3 look, however unlikely it would be to attain.

WRONG! I recently bought a Geforce GTX 260 (not the expensive one) and I've seen amazing quality scenes in Far Cry 2 in 50 FPS

GmanPro
6th May 2009, 19:35
Wasn't Far Cry 2's engine derived from the CryEngine?

WhatsHisFace
6th May 2009, 20:02
Wasn't Far Cry 2's engine derived from the CryEngine?

It was, indeed. I have no idea how much of the original code remains though. But Ubisoft Tiwak was the team that built the Farcry 2 engine.

ZylonBane
6th May 2009, 20:15
we all know that it is a single render in a different engine and non-playable.. but thanks for pointing out the obvious.

the whole point is just for the aesthetic value and how closely it would resemble the dream dx3 look, however unlikely it would be to attain.
Then if you already knew all that, you should have titled this thread, "How DX3 won't look".

GmanPro
6th May 2009, 20:31
More like "How DX3 might have looked"

Blade_hunter
6th May 2009, 20:46
It was, indeed. I have no idea how much of the original code remains though. But Ubisoft Tiwak was the team that built the Farcry 2 engine.

It seems it has 5% of the original code from the Cryengine 1 and it be called Dunia Engine :D

lumpi
6th May 2009, 20:50
I don't think the graphics in that shot are impossible for a graphics card made within the last 2 or 3 years. It's 90% choice of color, texture and composition, 10% polygon-count.

But feel free to call me a loony. I still think HL1 looked better than HL2, not because of technical, shiny effects but because the setting, color and lighting was more appealing and interesting in general. I also think that DX1 (and 2) had some of the worst graphics I've ever come across in a title that big (except for the Hong Kong levels... they were amazing at points).

AaronJ
6th May 2009, 20:50
http://kotaku.com/5241395/screenshots-from-movie-games-you-only-wish-existed

Check those Blade Runner renders in the Unreal 3/Crytek engine. Absolutely stunning. Imagine playing DX3 in environments similar to those... wandering around proper open environments with lush cyberpunk (or cyber renaissance!) aesthetics.

Full props to the artist who made that!

DX3 won't look like that.

ZylonBane
6th May 2009, 20:55
More like "How DX3 might have looked"
...if it was being made five years from now.

FrankCSIS
6th May 2009, 21:55
Looking at the Blade Runner 2 and Blade Runner 3 screen shots, I don't see that much of a difference from the actual Blade Runner game, which I re-re-played recently.

I know it's just a shot and not the actual thing, but it reminds me of how fantastic the backgrounds were in the original game.

TrickyVein
6th May 2009, 22:33
you know, I could never get passed the part where you need to exit the city via the subways and go to the "moon thingy" called place - never found out where to go.

agreed the backgrounds were done well. In fact, many older point and click adventure games had good "graphics" if you just mean well rendered, stationary scenes in which your character moved around (oddworld, anyone?) - which is what we're looking at in this thread - non-explorable (in a 3d sense) pretty renderings.

FrankCSIS
6th May 2009, 22:47
if you just mean well rendered, stationary scenes in which your character moved around

Pretty much. I mean, take this shot from 97, I find it even smoother than the 2 screens posted by the op. Of course, like you said, it's not truly explorable.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v197/FrankDePasquale/blade.jpg

ZylonBane
6th May 2009, 22:55
I should certainly hope they'd look good, seeing how as they were probably created in 3D Studio Max, Lightwave, etc.

WhatsHisFace
6th May 2009, 23:11
I don't think the graphics in that shot are impossible for a graphics card made within the last 2 or 3 years. It's 90% choice of color, texture and composition, 10% polygon-count.

But feel free to call me a loony. I still think HL1 looked better than HL2, not because of technical, shiny effects but because the setting, color and lighting was more appealing and interesting in general. I also think that DX1 (and 2) had some of the worst graphics I've ever come across in a title that big (except for the Hong Kong levels... they were amazing at points).

I am a man who appreciates Half-Life 1 in an infinite amount of ways more than Half-Life 2, and I agree with you. Half-Life 1 was the better game, and had a better setting. Half-Life 2's look was so distorted... everything seems overly vertical, with a strange wash to it. I can't pinpoint why but their bumpmaps are really ugly.

I must confess that Episode 2 is brilliant though.

Jerion
7th May 2009, 12:35
http://kotaku.com/5241395/screenshots-from-movie-games-you-only-wish-existed

Check those Blade Runner renders in the Unreal 3/Crytek engine. Absolutely stunning. Imagine playing DX3 in environments similar to those... wandering around proper open environments with lush cyberpunk (or cyber renaissance!) aesthetics.

Full props to the artist who made that!

If what I saw was any indication, we could very well see cyberpunk environments with that level of atmosphere, prettiness and detail. :)

WhatsHisFace
7th May 2009, 14:06
If what I saw was any indication, we could very well see cyberpunk environments with that level of atmosphere, prettiness and detail. :)

The Tomb Raider engine competing with CryEngine 2? Yeah... right. :rolleyes:

Jerion
7th May 2009, 14:20
I stand by what I said. Perhaps not as pretty as some of those pics, but certainly not too far away.

WhatsHisFace
7th May 2009, 15:58
"Not too far away" is both subjective and vague. On a technical level, I expect this game to look like Tomb Raider and not Crysis.

SageSavage
7th May 2009, 16:26
If the screens we've already seen (like the office or the detention cells) are really ingame like we've been officially told, this is not far away from the renders in question.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
7th May 2009, 16:49
Yeah, from what we have seen so far, I think the finished game is going to look great. :thumb:
I have every confidence that the dev team wil deliver. :cool:

Spyhopping
7th May 2009, 19:47
For the visual side of things I'm not hugely bothered about graphics, but rather the style. Here there seems to be ample focus on giving the game a unique 'flavor', which is spot on. Not forgetting the colour palettes(we're already seeing a lot of orange for example). Along with light and shadow colour plays a massive part in making a game look good. Good movement animation and physics will also do more for realism in a game than pretty graphics, IMO.

WhatsHisFace
7th May 2009, 21:11
http://static.clanbase.com/CB/images/news/2008/screenshots/dx3_11.jpg
http://www.my360.com.au/img/game/large/Crysis-6.jpg

They're not even comparable.

ZylonBane
7th May 2009, 21:12
Good point. Geeze, the DX3 engine can't even render vegetation at all!

Lady_Of_The_Vine
7th May 2009, 21:28
The vegetation in TR:U looked good enough to eat. :D :cool:

3nails4you
7th May 2009, 21:44
They're not even comparable.

Most games aren't...comparing the graphics of almost anything to Crysis isn't fair. What else isn't fair is the fact that that is a picture from 6+ months ago. The game is in development, not released (with a patch or two, I might add).

Spyhopping
7th May 2009, 21:48
Yeah, it's gorgeous. But I believe that you can compensate for that realism aesthetically with style and this 'flavor' word that I keep throwing around. Besides, (as 3nails just already said) I don't think the image you selected would represent the graphics very well- it's ancient...

I don't think my tired brain is letting me express what I mean by 'style' very well. I probably need some examples

Laokin
8th May 2009, 14:03
http://static.clanbase.com/CB/images/news/2008/screenshots/dx3_11.jpg
http://www.my360.com.au/img/game/large/Crysis-6.jpg

They're not even comparable.

LOFL

You sir win the award for most stupid comparison.

First, you took a low res scan of a magazine, which is already low res because of mass production. If you look close enough in the magazine you can see scan lines almost. Second, You made it larger than it's original size which further lowers the quality of the already low res image in question. Third, it's like the first screen shot they ever released.... or one of them, and the game isn't set to come out any time soon.

You compare this, to Crysis.... which doesn't even look as good as that touched up screen shot they you posted. I have Crysis and Warhead and can run them on high/enthusiast. I put on the third person cheat and it looks nothing like that. I run it in DX 10 on a 9800GX 2, E8600, 4gb ram. Runs fine and looks nothing like that screenshot. It's an obvious photoshop.

So this comparison fails on so many levels. Also, if you were to compare them the crysis one is an action shot with motion blur, the DX3 shot is low lighting and indoors. Not much of an action shot, just a guy possibly running down a corridor.

Even with the horrible comparison you prove to me exactly how good DX 3 looks. Being that low res and having the deck stacked against it.... it's still not terribly far off of Crysis. Sure the crysis screenshot is clear, but that's about it. You can't tell the poly count or the res of textures, or see how good the lighting is in that screen of DX 3, so what are you even goin on about eh?

WhatsHisFace
8th May 2009, 14:33
LOFL

You sir win the award for most stupid comparison.

First, you took a low res scan of a magazine, which is already low res because of mass production. If you look close enough in the magazine you can see scan lines almost. Second, You made it larger than it's original size which further lowers the quality of the already low res image in question. Third, it's like the first screen shot they ever released.... or one of them, and the game isn't set to come out any time soon.

You compare this, to Crysis.... which doesn't even look as good as that touched up screen shot they you posted. I have Crysis and Warhead and can run them on high/enthusiast. I put on the third person cheat and it looks nothing like that. I run it in DX 10 on a 9800GX 2, E8600, 4gb ram. Runs fine and looks nothing like that screenshot. It's an obvious photoshop.

So this comparison fails on so many levels. Also, if you were to compare them the crysis one is an action shot with motion blur, the DX3 shot is low lighting and indoors. Not much of an action shot, just a guy possibly running down a corridor.

Even with the horrible comparison you prove to me exactly how good DX 3 looks. Being that low res and having the deck stacked against it.... it's still not terribly far off of Crysis. Sure the crysis screenshot is clear, but that's about it. You can't tell the poly count or the res of textures, or see how good the lighting is in that screen of DX 3, so what are you even goin on about eh?
I had a better comparison in a post that never made it online due to this forum's server disconnecting...

Connection Interrupted
The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.
The network link was interrupted while negotiating a connection. Please try again.
...but when it failed to upload my post for the 20th time, I left my PC.

Still seeing people saying Deus Ex 3 could or does (the "From what I have seen..." mod post) look comparable to the Crysis engine renders of Blade Runner, I just wanted to put up a little reality check. Quick Google search... maybe I got a "bad" DX3 shot... cry about it. You can still see the games look nothing alike and it's easy to see that the game will look nothing like those Blade Runner renders, final build or not. This is a game powered by the Tomb Raider engine for god sake. Yeah, the one that started life on the PS2.

And I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but every screenshot we've seen from DX3 looks dated. Barrett at best looks like he fell out of Barby-world Perfect Dark Zero, the environments are either from Metal Gear Solid 2 or the unreleased Xbox 1 version of Bioshock, and furthermore, the team that built the engine would logically get the best results...

Yeah. Don't have me compare TR to Crysis... :lol:

ZylonBane
8th May 2009, 14:52
First, you took a low res scan of a magazine, which is already low res because of mass production. If you look close enough in the magazine you can see scan lines almost.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have here Laokin expressing his belief that printing a screenshot in a magazine causes scanlines to magically appear where none were before.

Awesome.

SageSavage
8th May 2009, 15:00
Let's just wait what shows up during the E3, ok?

gamer0004
8th May 2009, 16:03
Yeah, it's gorgeous. But I believe that you can compensate for that realism aesthetically with style and this 'flavor' word that I keep throwing around. Besides, (as 3nails just already said) I don't think the image you selected would represent the graphics very well- it's ancient...

I don't think my tired brain is letting me express what I mean by 'style' very well. I probably need some examples

I think it's the problem of DX3: trying to have (a) style. They should just try to create a world that is believable for more immersion.

Immersion > anything in DX.

Unstoppable
8th May 2009, 17:41
There are no screen shots of the actual game yet available to the public as far as I know. That shot is concept art and has never officially been said to be an in game shot.

The only way to achieve close to those results in Crysis is the ultra high mode. This mode is only capable in computers with the most high end gear to be playable. Even Nasa couldn't run the game for more than a certain time with all their computers put together.

Crysis gameplay is pretty good single player wise but doesn't hold anything when compared to Deus Ex. Multiplayer was ok but confusing. It wasn't until Crysis Wars till there was something worthwhile. Also the single player was over fast and left you wanting more.

If all you care about is graphics then that is very shallow indeed. Deus Ex wasn't critically acclaimed for it's graphics. Gameplay over shiny nano suits any day.

SageSavage
8th May 2009, 18:00
There are no screen shots of the actual game yet available to the public as far as I know. That shot is concept art and has never officially been said to be an in game shot.

Déj*-vu...

http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?p=948452#post948452

JCD
8th May 2009, 18:02
Even Nasa couldn't run the game for more than a certain time with all their computers put together.
I certainly HOPE that you are joking, cause I ve heard this about 1000 times and it gets on my nerves....

Crysis runs perfectly FINE in Enthusiast/Very High or even "modded" Ultra High quality with a typical high-end setup, if given the correct resolution.

It ALL depends on that - the SCREEN'S RESOLUTION. I have a 30" Samsung and I need 2x GTX 295 in order to play it in 2560x1600. But one of these cards can play it without ANY problem at all @ 1680x1050 for example, which is a very typical screen resolution for most gamers.

For once, let's drop that "NASA crap" about Crysis, it's getting tiresome...

---

As for DX3, TRU's engine can produce better results than the ones I have seen in some of the "screenshots". Not that it is THE perfect engine, it's just a typical good-looking one, so it can do much more.

In fact, it could be rather a surprise to see DX3 in good graphics, combined with a killer story/gameplay as well, because IW was utterly..."blury" and DX1 was a bit outdated compared to other titles (not that I complain! I loved the original UT engine).

Unstoppable
8th May 2009, 20:39
There are no screen shots available of Deus Ex 3. A screen shot would be a shot of the actual game engine while someone was playing.

What you are referring to is concept art of what the game might look like when someone is playing.

There is no official word on what is in game and what is not, however coming from an art background it all looks to be concept art.

WhatsHisFace
8th May 2009, 21:50
There are no screen shots available of Deus Ex 3. A screen shot would be a shot of the actual game engine while someone was playing.

What you are referring to is concept art of what the game might look like when someone is playing.

:lol::lol::lol:

Bluey71
8th May 2009, 23:01
Im pretty sure Rene has said 'somewhere here' that the latest images are screenshots - maybe he said that in the image thread.

SageSavage
8th May 2009, 23:26
:whistle:

Unstoppable
8th May 2009, 23:28
You know if you guys are just going to laugh at the game why are you even here? That's pretty shallow if you ask me. I sincerely hope the devs shut your mouth when Deus Ex 3 is released.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
9th May 2009, 00:40
Im pretty sure Rene has said 'somewhere here' that the latest images are screenshots - maybe he said that in the image thread.

Yes, indeed. :cool:

Laokin
9th May 2009, 03:25
Ladies and gentlemen, we have here Laokin expressing his belief that printing a screenshot in a magazine causes scanlines to magically appear where none were before.

Awesome.

Um, yeah they do. They are "Scans" of a magazine after all? Less to not forget a printer actually printed those images. Should we talk about the DPI or the parts per million in the ink? Because no matter how you cut it magazine prints are NO WHERE NEAR high resolution .bmp's or .tga's taken on a computer and viewed on a computer.

And once again, IMO as well as many others Crysis isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Why is it "so pretty"? It has high resolution textures and loads of motion blur and post precessing effects. It also doesn't run nearly as good as games that look 9/10ths as good.

While I'm not saying DX3 will be better looking or even the same as Crysis, all I'm saying is it's definitely in a comparable ball park. Your comparing unfinished alpha screenshots release via magazine and transferred via scanner to touched up screenshots dumped straight out of a final build.

And yes, while it is on the Tomb Raider Engine, it is not built on the old PS2 version. Hell those games weren't even made by crystal dynamics they were made by core. It's built on the next gen Tomb Raider UNDERWORLD engine. Which was designed to reach a bigger more generic audience. This means it was ultimately made with System Requirements carefully thought out.

Furthermore, Eidos has stated that the TRU engine will be heavily rewritten by various developers in the eidos family to become their unanimous in house engine. Meaning it's entirely possible the renderer was drastically rewritten.

With this in mind, it's really not that hard to see that DX 3 will be a beautiful game come release. Unlike Crysis.... which looks super ugly on 90% of rigs out there since they have to turn everything down. Even people with beast computers still have trouble running it on the highest settings like it should be. In order to get 80+ STEADY Frames in Crysis I'm sure you need an I7 and SLI 280GTX's.

::Sigh::

Some people think they know everything... who I am to point out the seemingly obvious?

P.S.


I certainly HOPE that you are joking, cause I ve heard this about 1000 times and it gets on my nerves....

Crysis runs perfectly FINE in Enthusiast/Very High or even "modded" Ultra High quality with a typical high-end setup, if given the correct resolution.

It ALL depends on that - the SCREEN'S RESOLUTION. I have a 30" Samsung and I need 2x GTX 295 in order to play it in 2560x1600. But one of these cards can play it without ANY problem at all @ 1680x1050 for example, which is a very typical screen resolution for most gamers.

For once, let's drop that "NASA crap" about Crysis, it's getting tiresome...

Dude a GTX 295 is not your TYPICAL high end setup. It's not even close to "typical." That's what you call an enthusiast. Which is what the highest settings are actually called. I'd say a wopping 1% of computer owners in the world have a GTX 295. Remember most people who have computers don't have close to top end ones. Only enthusiasts who update to maintain top end specs have cards like that. I mean hell, with my 9800GX2 I'm still WELL above the curve, what are you talking about????

So there are systems out there that can do it.... but you don't understand fully yet do you? Your average consumer doesn't have a $2 - $3k computer. So the amount of people to this day who can actually play Crysis smoothly are very nominal.

Yes I am one of those people, but even my system doesn't run it perfect. I get slow downs here and there dropped into the sub 30 frame category. It still doesn't help the fact that the game really isn't all that pretty. It's a game with 2D foliage and cached tree's all over the place. The only thing really graphically good about that game is the lighting engine and the water engine. Medium Polygons, super high res textures on the first person props, and everything else is eh. You just can't see it with all the heavy post processing going on. Shut off you post processing and your advanced lighting and you will see just how crappy the game looks. Because quite frankly everything else is just bland and mediocre.

I call you people Fan Boys. There are several games that look better than Crysis and UT3 is one of them. Do we need to compare player models?

Christ, Crysis isn't the holy grail of anything but UNOPTIMIZED graphic engines. See Cry Engine 3. It looks nearly identical to Cry Engine 2, guess what though? It runs smooth.

Unstoppable
9th May 2009, 06:23
Well you can build a computer to run Crysis for like 800$ now. However the gameplay of Crysis has nothing on the original Deus Ex. Gameplay is more important no matter what.

GmanPro
9th May 2009, 06:24
^^ It would look like crap though, so whats the point? Its not like the gameplay is anything to write home about

Jerion
9th May 2009, 12:03
crysis isn't the holy grail of anything but unoptimized graphic engines. See cry engine 3. It looks nearly identical to cry engine 2, guess what though? It runs smooth.

qft

JCD
9th May 2009, 14:12
Dude a GTX 295 is not your TYPICAL high end setup. It's not even close to "typical." That's what you call an enthusiast. Which is what the highest settings are actually called. I'd say a wopping 1% of computer owners in the world have a GTX 295. Remember most people who have computers don't have close to top end ones. Only enthusiasts who update to maintain top end specs have cards like that. I mean hell, with my 9800GX2 I'm still WELL above the curve, what are you talking about????

So there are systems out there that can do it.... but you don't understand fully yet do you? Your average consumer doesn't have a $2 - $3k computer. So the amount of people to this day who can actually play Crysis smoothly are very nominal.

Yes I am one of those people, but even my system doesn't run it perfect. I get slow downs here and there dropped into the sub 30 frame category. It still doesn't help the fact that the game really isn't all that pretty. It's a game with 2D foliage and cached tree's all over the place. The only thing really graphically good about that game is the lighting engine and the water engine. Medium Polygons, super high res textures on the first person props, and everything else is eh. You just can't see it with all the heavy post processing going on. Shut off you post processing and your advanced lighting and you will see just how crappy the game looks. Because quite frankly everything else is just bland and mediocre.

I call you people Fan Boys. There are several games that look better than Crysis and UT3 is one of them. Do we need to compare player models?

Christ, Crysis isn't the holy grail of anything but UNOPTIMIZED graphic engines. See Cry Engine 3. It looks nearly identical to Cry Engine 2, guess what though? It runs smooth.3 words - Are you nuts?

Where did I say that GTX 295 is the "typical setup" for a gamer? And of course, you out of all people know who I am/what I do, so you automatically classified me into a -> fan boy.

HOW MUCH should I be laughing? Let's see:

- I have been working with the major PC Sellers/Distributors in my country for quite some time.
- I am a hardware reviewer and a newsposter in an IT dedicated site/forum.
- I have played the Crysis Beta, where quad core optimizations were used for example, unlike the original game, so I can say that I know some facts about the game.

Based on all these, let's start from the beginning, cause frankly, I think your "attack" is mis-informing people.

1) Most people play their games on 19" screens with 1280x1024 resolution. This resolution is so low, that even a Radeon HD 4830/4850 or a GeForce 9800 GTX/GTX+/GTS 250 can play Crysis on very high/enthusiast really smoothly.

2) The 2nd most famous resolution is of course the 1680x1050 one, were both Crysis/CW run at maximum settings with the use of a Radeon HD 4870/4890 or a GeForce GTX 260 (192/216)/GTX 275. The game runs like "water".

3) Because the game is different than it's beta, quad cores are not used, so any PC with a decent dual-core CPU can run it smoothly. In higher resolutions, there is practically no difference whether you use a Core i7 @ 4GHz or a Phenom II X3 @ stock. All that matters there are TWO things: The GPU you have and the HDD/SSD you own, because CryEngine 2 writes new textures to the drive all the time, something that messes up your Minimum FPS - we have seen increases up to 5 FPS with the use of an SSD - quite a leap, if your MinFPS were 19 and with it's use, are boosted to 24.

4) CryEngine 2 - "the fact that the game really isn't all that pretty". These are your words. I am one of those people who blaim CryTek for not releasing all they promised in the final version (there are MANY graphical elements missing) and of course I blaim them because they promised things they didn't deliver (quad core optimization in the final product, etc).

But - I can't believe I have people saying that "it isn't pretty"...WOW?! Name one graphics engine which can produce a so large area with so much detail as CryEngine 2 did. Is it...Unreal Engine 3? No matter how much I tweak it in UT3, it still looks NOTHING like the one we were promised some years ago. They are liars as well, don't let me rant on UE3 and how many elements are missing.

So, tell me, which game/graphics engine simulates a better "open-world" scenario than CryEngine 2? You were upset because of the 2D foliage? I was too, they promised it would all be 3D and you could interact with it. But they didn't make it that way. However, is it THAT bad, that makes you say that "it looks bad"? How can you say that, when only Far Cry 2, Fallout and STALKER are the other "open-world" games and over 90% of the people will say that Crysis looks way better than them?

Oh, and since you mentioned UT3's models, this was done because Image Metrics' technology was used in order to make their animations/expressions, so they could benefit a lot by an ultra-high quality model. That doesn't make UT3 look better than Crysis though, nor does the fact that UT3 runs 100 times faster than Crysis - CryEngine 2 still looks better.

5) You said sth about CryEngine 3 - what do you know about it really? You have seen a gameplay video on 2 consoles, nothing more. I have noticed the true volumetric clouds, some extra weather effects, a better sun ray model, some more interaction with the vegetation, it was not the "same engine".

And it will not be, since CryEngine 3 for PCs will take...2 more years to be released? You know how many changes can happen in these 2 years, it will not just be a remake of CE2 with better optimization, it will be just another "killer" engine for the high-end PCs, as CryTek usually give us.

So please, don't be hasty. If by only one video you have understood what CryEngine 3 will be for our PCs (where no real PC footage was actually shown), you could make a good Oracle.

AaronJ
14th May 2009, 12:23
"not too far away" is both subjective and vague. On a technical level, i expect this game to look like tomb raider and not crysis.

Look! Adam is covered with DIRT!