CryENGINE2 versus Reality

Dcully

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/31023.html

humanji

Sweet Georgia Brown! :eek:

Doodee

CombatCow: "Its the start of Skynet"

CombatCow

It freekin is !! ...mark my words........


CC

Cuddlesworth

Since I point Blank refuse to install quicktime, is it that good?

Kiith

They are some amazing tech video's. Far better then any other engine out there at the moment. The bravia ad one is cool.

tman

krazy_8s wrote: »

Since I point Blank refuse to install quicktime, is it that good?

Click the download link underneath the quicktime box, you can download a wmv version of it
and yes, it's pretty damn cool!

Auvers

krazy_8s wrote: »

Since I point Blank refuse to install quicktime, is it that good?

use Quicktime Alternative instead

po0k

Meh.
Photorealistic my arse.
It still looks like FisherPrice My First Pastel Paint Set textures, with added fuzz and obfuscation.

It's very good for realtime, but it just isn't convincing.
Lighting and surfaces still need alot of work.

humanji

There's no pleasing some people. Considering that there was nothing like it a year ago, I think it's fairly impressive.

yoyo

There is a flash player on gametrailers, click flash, works fine

Nick

Sqaull20

Only 25mb download....

Part near the end with chicken/dog :eek:

AlmightyCushion

Did any one else think that the cars look like something out of gta?

pixelburp

It's impressive, but it asks the question - do games really need increasingly realistic imagery? No more than the Uncanny Valley; surely the more convincing developers try and make their engines, the more likely we are to pick holes in it.

Aside from that - look at one of last years biggest hits, TF2; although Source itself was a great engine, the killer was the superior artistic direction. Ditto games like Mario Galaxy et al.

humanji

A lot of people like realism in their games. If the game looks real, some feel it's more immersive and they enjoy the experience more.

pixelburp

humanji wrote: »

A lot of people like realism in their games. If the game looks real, some feel it's more immersive and they enjoy the experience more.

I'm not saying they don't - but I think developers should chase a unique design aethestic to set themselves apart, rather than having a rather generic "real" look.

brav

Looked really good, but some of the cars didn't look great.
It was always easy to see which was the real etc.

humanji

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm not saying they don't - but I think developers should chase a unique design aethestic to set themselves apart, rather than having a rather generic "real" look.

Well they do. You mentioned yourself TF2 and Mario Galaxy. In fact, there aren't that many games going for the real look. The only problem I see is developers going down the Crysis route and making incredible game engines and then realises too late that they were meant to make a game out of it.

pixelburp

humanji wrote: »

Well they do. You mentioned yourself TF2 and Mario Galaxy. In fact, there aren't that many games going for the real look. The only problem I see is developers going down the Crysis route and making incredible game engines and then realises too late that they were meant to make a game out of it.

That's not necessarily true - Gears of War, Resistence: Fall of Man, and just about any of the PS3's bigger titles have pushed the reality envelope as much as possible (notwithstanding the fiction of the game). You could add games like Call of Duty and their ilk too. The newest generation of game engines and hardware seems to be pushing as much bloom / brown textures as they can. TF2 and Mario Galaxy (or Little Big Planet on the PS3) to me seem the exception, not the rule.

humanji

To be honest, I don't see GOW or Resistance as trying to be realistic at all. They try to be gritty, but that's not the same.

There's plenty of games that are released that don't go near reality at all, each year. IT could be that most of these are glossed over because the more realistic ones seem to make more money, so they'll have more backing and marketing and appear more often than those that don't have as much support.

pixelburp

humanji wrote: »

To be honest, I don't see GOW or Resistance as trying to be realistic at all. They try to be gritty, but that's not the same.

There's plenty of games that are released that don't go near reality at all, each year. IT could be that most of these are glossed over because the more realistic ones seem to make more money, so they'll have more backing and marketing and appear more often than those that don't have as much support.

Of course, every year hundreds of games get released to little or no fanfare. But I think you look at the general trend of the "big" releases to see the trend (afterall, look at the copycat trend that came of the ww2 genre) & where games are likely to go. I would classify Gears as "real" in that they are going for a texture & feel more akin to the real world than something obstensibly "gamey". I think perhaps we have different ideas of what constitutes a "realistic" game.

KoKane

Stop argueing and start imagining what its gonna be like in 3 years !!

pixelburp

KoKane wrote: »

Stop argueing and start imagining what its gonna be like in 3 years !!

Whatdya mean - it'll be the exact same argument in 3 years

humanji

No, I know what you mean by real, it's just that with GOW, I see it as very arcade like. It even has the "end of level boss" type characters and several arcade style sequences.

There is a small trend amongst some developers to make realistic games, but I don't think there are that many at all. The two main ones, in my opinion, are Far Cry 2 (which is trying to make a real world to interact with) and Star Wars: Force Unleashed (which is trying to get the world physics to perfect). Other than these, there's few that are actually trying to be realistic. The rest are just trying to tell stories, using an engine from a game that had previously tried to be realistic.

And then you get the rest that are just trying new ideas, or just trying to be fun (ie, the good ones ).

pixelburp wrote:

Whatdya mean - it'll be the exact same argument in 3 years

Nonsense, we're going to start regressing! Soon the only game will be Pong, in new 2D!!!

BLITZ_Molloy

I'd agree that we're getting into the area of diminishing returns as far as realistic graphcis go. That said I think Bioshock and Crysis were definately steps forward from the Source Engine games. It's not reality, it's more of an arty exaggerated reality.