Is this 'just' Mega-Texture or something new altogther? Guess we'll know in a few days. Anyone here happened to be at WWDC?
http://pc.ign.com/articles/795/795529p1.html
http://pc.ign.com/articles/795/795529p1.html
Carmack at WWDC
- Thread starter Kurt
- Start date
For reference, there is already a growing thread on this in Console Technology as well as (a slightly confused) one in PC Games Talk.
Ah, OK. I was looking at the topics in the (to me anyway) obvious category. Didn't mean to add to the confusion.
It should be in this forum rather than the others seeing as it is cross platform and is more technology than specific game based.
Personally I think he might have been usurped by the Crysis team for cutting edge given that demonstration. I'd say that EVERYONE at id software has now finally now been consumed and spat out by their own genius'. He just seemed to trudge off stage like he did not care ?
Personally I think he might have been usurped by the Crysis team for cutting edge given that demonstration. I'd say that EVERYONE at id software has now finally now been consumed and spat out by their own genius'. He just seemed to trudge off stage like he did not care ?
He did say give him 4 more days (they put this one together in 10) and the demo will look twice as good.
Sure, as soon as the Crysis team puts Crysis on the consoles looking just as good as it does now, instead of 8800GTX SLI rig's with 4GB RAM, they'll be equivalent.
But since that wont happen, it's comparing apples and oranges.
Perhaps Carmack should have made the strategic decision to only target ultra high-end PC's, like Crytek did. And even PC's 1-2 years beyond what Crysis is targeting, in order to leapfrog them. In fact, he probably should have imo. But that's an entirely different argument.
The plus side for Carmack is, you'll sell a hella lot more on the consoles. The negative side is, the cutting edge of tech is where the glory is, like it or not, and Crysis's halo effect will, already has, mean huge things for that company, which will probably end up translating to good console sales anyway...
There's not much secret to this, just aim for farther away more powerful tech than anybody else is, and your game will look better than everybody elses. That's all Crytek did, and UE3 before that, and Doom 3 before that. That's not programming genius, it's simply timing.
Rangers, you're being ignorant on purpose here. When as Crytek stated they target only the high end? In fact if anything its been the opposite, they've stressed a NUMBER of times that a wider range of systems and scalability options are offered and possible. You're also failing to take into account so many others aspects that its really not funny. Crysis is a FULL game, meaning there are a HUGE amount of other things going into it, instead this was a demo, nothing has been shown besides that, this is coming out most likely much later, etc, etc, etc, etc.
To be honest I think the people at Crytek have just as much if not more talent then those at id. Crytek pulled off the Cry engine with a much smaller budget, a first time game, and ended up making something just as beautiful (I consider it better) than Doom 3 engine and also one that was used in a much better game. To be honest what we've been shown really says nothing beyond the graphics of the demo.
To be honest I think the people at Crytek have just as much if not more talent then those at id. Crytek pulled off the Cry engine with a much smaller budget, a first time game, and ended up making something just as beautiful (I consider it better) than Doom 3 engine and also one that was used in a much better game. To be honest what we've been shown really says nothing beyond the graphics of the demo.
Say what you will about Carmack, but his code is top-notch. In terms of writing great optimized code and using up all resources available in an optimal manner, Crytek is behind him(because Carmack pretty much equals coding at Id AFAIK, so the comparison is valid). As a total package?Probably Crytek make stuff that`s more enjoyable to play, but this constant worshiping that is going on with Crysis is tiring. Yes it looks nice, yes, it should run fine, but IMHO it`s far from being a be all end all product when it comes to graphics.
And nothing to be said for art? Great art assets with a mediocre engine will always look better than a great engine with mediocre assets.
Well yes, I neglected too mention that you need pretty good programming talent too. Obviously ID, Crytek, Valve, Epic, a few others have that..
It remains Id's game is on consoles, targeted at consoles. Crysis is not. Crysis has access to massively more raw horsepower in an unfettered manner.
I dont know whether Crytek's programmers are 10% better than Id's or vice versa, I do know you can easily render that irrelevant by simply targeting 50, 100% more PC power for the future unspecified release date of your game engine. BTW, of course Crytek's programmers are great!
I'm not sure what the succesor to Crysis is, it's not out there yet, but just as Crysis supersceded UE3.0, it will be supersceded. It's a game of leapfrog.
Epic at least, hit a nice point to settle in on this gen of consoles with UE3, so they will make bank, even if they're not top dog anymore. Crytek gained a ton of Halo effect from the last two years of media of their yet unreleased game. ID, I dont know yet. Interesting to see they're now copying Epic and generically naming/numbering their engine..anyway the game still looks great imo, but it's not going to be the best looking game because it's targeted at 512MB of console RAM (not too mention last gen console GPU's)..
Basically if I see what Carmack demoed actually running on 360 (which very well could happen at E3) I think it's very impressive. It's just not comparable to Crysis.
Honestly as I sit here and think, it really does seem Carmack is aiming ID5 at the consoles. Basically trying to recapture what Epic has gained. He's just started late compared to Epic, almost in a reactionary manner. It seems, if his engine is better than UE3 though, he's still got time to make a lot of money on this gen of consoles, especially as I expect this gen to last 1-2 years longer than past.
I kind of doubt Epic planned UE3 so specifically for this gen of consoles, I rather expect it just kind of worked out for them.
Crysis is a game, you have absolute no clue what sort of limitations its facing on a console. One could simply be its huge game world and working inside the RAM at any given time. If the game world was shrunk maybe they could easily fit into a console. Maybe if the id tech 5 demo was enlarged it wouldn't be possible on the console. A engine means little beyond how its used. This is why great always trumps great engine, ALWAYS. Engine worship itself is rather stupid, especially these "but if" competitions. All I can go by is what I've seen Crytek do with their engine and what I've seen id do with their engine(s). For instance, Farcry was so much more impressive visually than Doom 3 that it was a joke to me that they ever got compared. On the same hardware, it was an easy pick. The Cry 2 engine is apparently being used for a console game anyway, maybe we'll have some sort of clue by then. There's a reason why graphics, if compared at all, should be done of a per game basis and not engine. What's "possible" is pointless, what has been done however isn't.
He said twice as smooth, but who knows what that means WRT the time it took him to port/present this on a Mac. Nicer frame rate, scenery, tour, ...?
id Software member posted this about it: "The entire concept of us making this demo was presented to us about 14 days ago and then over the course of about 10 days the engine was then ported to mac and the demo presentation was put together.
I should add or clarify, that yes of course much of the art is older than 10 days, but everything was put together in that amount of time."
I agree. Just because some company releases the absolute best renderer for the Wii does not make it the best renderer of all, no matter how clever and optimised it may be. So, both engines are definitely comparable and we shouldn't..., if you will, excuse id of a fair technological evaluation because of a strategic decision on platform deployment. Obviously, such a decision will also be beneficial to id when comparing those two engines' platform availability (and optimisation).
Yep, just like the old days when they brought out Doom.
Wii shows console graphics engines takes a back seat to playability.
Horses for courses.
