Crytek and unreal 3 demo...which one has better graphic

[beginner16]

hi

I'm not asking which game engine is/will be more advanced ,instead I'm asking with regards to graphic seen in both crytek engine demo and unreal 3 demo...which of the two demos has better graphics(more detailed textures,more realistic movements etc)

For some reason when looking at pics from both demos I can't decide which one is better looking(perhaps cos one has human characters while the other doesn't)

I aslo realise that demo from unreal 3 will probably become a game sometime in the near future while crytek is only a demonstration of the engine

 

[carpediem]

Unreal Engine 3 without a doubt.

 

[tEd]

ue3 impressed me more

 

[MasterBaiter]

Should these two even be compared?!? :?

 

[Guden Oden]

Ummm, is this even an interesting question to ask, considering personal preference and all, you know...?

 

[101998]

http://www.artificialstudios.com/techdemos.php

Check that out it compairs to UE3 a lot better than cryengine.

 

[GwymWeepa]

That cryengine demo was f'ing ugly, what hideous art design.

 

[beginner16]

Should these two even be compared?!? :?

Well,at least for me it's sometimes hard to figure out what is "more advanced".Perhaps it's easier for a card to draw faces of creatures in unreal 3 even tho they may look better,and as result faces of people may not be as detailed as ones in crytek demo,and vice-versa,and that's why Im asking

 

[991060]

I dont like hard-edged shadow map which can be found in of them, thought it's slightly better than the implementation in 3dmark05.

 

[Richard]

AFAIK that crytek demo was still based pretty much on the engine they used for FarCry and as such, comparing it to an engine with which the first powered game will only arrive around 2006 is not very useful. Anyway, personally I'm (still) more impressed by UE3 than the newest CryEngine.

 

[Ostsol]

Regarding the content, I was much more impressed by UE3.0. As for the technology, both appear just as capable. The difference will be in how fast and easy it is for the artists to import the content and create materials.

 

[MasterBaiter]

AFAIK that crytek demo was still based pretty much on the engine they used for FarCry and as such, comparing it to an engine with which the first powered game will only arrive around 2006 is not very useful. Anyway, personally I'm (still) more impressed by UE3 than the newest CryEngine.

That's pretty much my opinion. Its pretty hard to judge one game that's been out for a spell and another that won't be out for a spell. We are also only seeing parts of U3 that the devs want us to see to boot. Based on models and lighting.. I'd say that UE3 is a far step ahead of Cryteks stuff, but then again it should be, because it isn't even out yet!

 

[beginner16]

I'd say that UE3 is a far step ahead of Cryteks stuff, but then again it should be, because it isn't even out yet!

But I'm assuming you're talking about game engine,while Im asking about the demos.If you were to see two games,one with graphics shown in crytek demo and the other from unreal 3 demo,which would you think is more advanced

Sorry if Im mistaken

 

[XxStratoMasterXx]

Not even in the same league. UE3 is by far superior.

You see, with CryEngine, they just throw some high rez textures, shaders and HDR and everyone goes "wow".

However proper lighting and shadowing is the real key to a "cinematic feel".

Which D3 engine and UE3 both have.

 

[MasterBaiter]

However proper lighting and shadowing is the real key to a "cinematic feel".

Which D3 engine and UE3 both have.

*start rant* I kinda hate the term "cinematic" because I don't feel that we're anywhere close to that yet. It's just an industy buzz word that AMD, and Nvidia (especially Nvidia) seem to like to throw around. *end rant*

In all honesty. The first time I saw Doom 3 I couldn't believe that it was ingame footage that I was watching. I'm a little more jaded now, but it was a big step in the right direction. The U3 engine seems to be taking it to the next level beyond D3 which is good to see.

I'm not discounting Crytek's engine though. It has good visuals IMO and large environments to boot. It was actually the game that made Doom3 less exciting for me in the graphics department.

 

[Reverend]

Between the two, I'd say Doom3 is better.

 

[Mark]

Between the two, I'd say Doom3 is better.

A few days ago I would have passed this off as "oh Rev, jerking it for JC again" but after seeing some screenshots where Doom3 fanboys prove that Doom3 "Can Do It Too", I'd have to say yes... Doom3 is better (than HL2, FC, etc, engine wise).

here's a nice example

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

here's a nice example

Except that's not from the D3 engine. It's a pre-rendered picture that is being suggested as something to copy to prove the D3 engine can produce nice visuals.

Personally, given the low performance/screen res we saw in D3's dungeon crawling even with high end hardware and despite the restricted views and low geometry, I'd be surprised if D3 can do large, in-game outdoor scenes at acceptable speed. There's still stuff like the skinning and audio that is being done on the CPU that could be offloaded to hardware acceleration.

 

[XxStratoMasterXx]

However proper lighting and shadowing is the real key to a "cinematic feel".

Which D3 engine and UE3 both have.

*start rant* I kinda hate the term "cinematic" because I don't feel that we're anywhere close to that yet. It's just an industy buzz word that AMD, and Nvidia (especially Nvidia) seem to like to throw around. *end rant*

In all honesty. The first time I saw Doom 3 I couldn't believe that it was ingame footage that I was watching. I'm a little more jaded now, but it was a big step in the right direction. The U3 engine seems to be taking it to the next level beyond D3 which is good to see.

I'm not discounting Crytek's engine though. It has good visuals IMO and large environments to boot. It was actually the game that made Doom3 less exciting for me in the graphics department.

Yeah. Doom 3 Engine's potential hasn't even been tapped, due to id Software wanting to keep it playable on systems ranging back to GeForce MX.

I don't think ENGINE wise UE3 is much better than D3 (hell, in some cases D3 is still superior on a fundamental basis), but damn, Epic Games has the best art team i've ever seen.

So graphic wise D3, CryTek Demo or UE3 demo, i'd say UE3 demo.

 

[Dave Baumann]

What was somewhat of a shame for the Crytek demo was that the first time it was aired to anyone was the day after HL2 was released; HL2 has really set a high bar for NCP animation and the Crytek demo doesn't quite work as well.