|
|
| Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
 Posted: Fri, 8th Oct 2010 04:39 Post subject: Crytek @China GDC2010: Tips for engine developement |
|
 |
http://www.crytek.com/sites/default/files/ChinaGDC_Xiaomao_submission_FINAL.ppt
A few interesting things near the end of the presentation:
- Till 2012, max resolution target for engines is 1080p@60fps or 1080p@30fps for stereoscopic 3D.
- Currently we are limited by the consoles, so it doesn't make sense to invest in new rendering algorithms etc, try to make your game stand out with a unique artistic style, advanced physics and AI. Hehe, I like how they troll the average Unreal Engine 3-powered title asking "what's the current artistic style? Desaturate colors?" 
- Since advancements in rendering methods won't happen for the next few years, the advancements you can expect are in physics, AI, and simulation of special effects.
- In mid 2013, when Crytek expects the next generation of consoles to be released, a new renaissance of graphics will arrive that will rival CGI quality.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Oct 2010 04:46 Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sorry, but CryTek have no room to slag off other developers or other engines.. not when their fucking engine is a, admittedly pretty, poorly coded piece of shit that takes a room full of Crays in order to run properly. Yeah it's gorgeous and they could give VISUAL tips, but as far as general usability and overall engine quality? Pfft, take a hike CryDicks.
UE3 may not look as pretty as CryEngine 2, but at least it's playable on any platform you throw it on ... even something as laughable as the friggin' iPhone. Until CryTek learn to optimise their shit properly, I don't even consider CE2 or CE3 to be an engine contender anyhow.
IMO, of course.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Oct 2010 04:51 Post subject: |
|
|
I think it runs okay-ish (not super awesome as other engines, but not terribly either) at medium with a few settings at high. Which is the quality the "good" UE3 titles have. IMO of course too ^_^
TWIN PEAKS is "something of a miracle."
"...like nothing else on television."
"a phenomenon."
"A tangled tale of sex, violence, power, junk food..."
"Like Nothing On Earth"
~ WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY CAN ONLY BE SEEN ~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHTUOgYNRzY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Oct 2010 04:53 Post subject: |
|
|
The thing is, the visual settings at medium look like ass and that just doesn't justify the immense hardware required to run it like that .. let alone the higher settings.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Oct 2010 04:56 Post subject: |
|
|
At least they were making progress with it instead of being stuck in fucking 2005 like we currently are and will be for quite a while.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Oct 2010 05:05 Post subject: |
|
|
I just wish Crysis 2 would've been a proper graphical sequel so to speak with just some improvements on graphics and a whole lot of optimization instead of making it look worse/set in a cramped environment to make it run on consoles.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Oct 2010 05:07 Post subject: |
|
|
| sabin1981 wrote: | | The thing is, the visual settings at medium look like ass and that just doesn't justify the immense hardware required to run it like that .. let alone the higher settings. |
True, I don't disagree with that. I'm talking about textures sizes, CPU loads etc, not how good it looks, which yes it doesn't look all that hot @medium. It's clear to me that they were targeting the few gamers that could run it @High, and didn't care at all about the visual quality at medium and lower. 
Of course the gamer couldn't care any less, as long as a game looks good, but since it's Crytek that brought for example SSAO to games, and various shader effects etc, that no one did before I think it's a bit harsh to call their engine.. shit 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Oct 2010 06:58 Post subject: |
|
|
I disagree about UE3, it's not all that bad, and imho, it's the best engine from a technical standpoint, and the amount of shitty games on it, are a testament to its stability and ease of use. You heard me right. The support network is very good for it, and even as a beginner you can jump right in, and make things happen.
Give the engine in the hands of a capable studio and you get great games (visually at least) with great frames - take the ME franchise - which I hate, but will admit, looks really good with a tweaked .ini and runs super sleek (never drops under 60).
Yeah, they talk big about visual style, but I didn't see crysis having a distinct visual style. Not like Borderlands for example.
Also, Tim Sweeney is a fucking math genius, when UE4 pops up, just like with UE3, people will be stunned once more.
The worst thing about epic is GoW, yeah, now that right there is shit of all different colours.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Oct 2010 08:03 Post subject: |
|
|
The engine that made the best impression on me, was Chrome 4, from Call of Juarez 2. Not only it looked insanely pretty (even though some things could use a bit of work), but it also ran lightning fast on a years old setup.
As far as UE3 goes, I believe it can be reeaaaaaly pretty too. It just requires good coders. Look at ME2, it's gorgeous! Easily one of the best looking games right now, IMO.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tonizito
VIP Member
Posts: 51408
Location: Portugal, the shithole of Europe.
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Oct 2010 10:15 Post subject: |
|
|
Someone give these guys tips about Game Development.
| boundle (thoughts on cracking AITD) wrote: | | i guess thouth if without a legit key the installation was rolling back we are all fucking then |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Oct 2010 10:45 Post subject: |
|
|
UE3 engine can make games look beautiful, if developers know how to use this engine properly. Just look at titles like GoW2, ME2, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Borderlands, Enslaved, and others. They look great and run great as well.
Intel Core i7 6700K @ 4.6 GHz | Asus Z170 Pro Gaming | Corsair Vengenace LPX 16GB DDR4 3200 MHz | MSI GeForce GTX 1080 FE | Samsung 850 EVO 500 GB + 250 GB | EVGA SuperNOVA 750 G2 | Fractal Design Define R5 | Noctua NH-D14
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Oct 2010 11:21 Post subject: |
|
|
yes, Borderlands and ME2 run very fine, in fact 20-30 fps steady as framerate is not bad at all but if your game is stuttering all the way, that's another matter.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ixigia
[Moderator] Consigliere
Posts: 65081
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Oct 2010 12:13 Post subject: |
|
|
| sabin1981 wrote: | | Aye! I'm definitely looking forward to seeing how CE3 runs on PCs. We already know it's going to look and run (figuratively speaking) great on the 360/PS3, but since it's a scalable engine I'm more interested in seeing what happens on the PC. Whether we get a visual feast that also happens to be accessible to hardware made before 2021.. or whether we get a visual feast with all the fluidity of tarmac |
The levels will be much smaller in Crysis 2 (and the game itself will be overall more scripted and linear than its predecessor), so we can also expect the performance to be a lot smoother even on "honest" systems.
Sure, the PC version will have many visual enhancements, dx11 support etc. but the core game will be somewhat bounded by the console memory limitations.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Oct 2010 12:22 Post subject: |
|
|
| consolitis wrote: | | unique artistic style, advanced physics and AI |
You can call me an idiot, but I like this. Hopefully the graphical development will be tempered a bit, turning the focus towards gameplay improving elements. If console limitations are necessary for that, let that be it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Oct 2010 12:53 Post subject: |
|
|
| sabin1981 wrote: | I'm sorry, but CryTek have no room to slag off other developers or other engines.. not when their fucking engine is a, admittedly pretty, poorly coded piece of shit that takes a room full of Crays in order to run properly. Yeah it's gorgeous and they could give VISUAL tips, but as far as general usability and overall engine quality? Pfft, take a hike CryDicks.
UE3 may not look as pretty as CryEngine 2, but at least it's playable on any platform you throw it on ... even something as laughable as the friggin' iPhone. Until CryTek learn to optimise their shit properly, I don't even consider CE2 or CE3 to be an engine contender anyhow.
IMO, of course. |
I agree and would also like to add: am I the only one here to still LOVE UE3? (EDITED - oops by the time I posted, opinions emerged)
I still find it good in terms of visuals and simply great when it comes to performance. Mass Effect 2 is a VERY pretty looking game. BioShock Infinite looks absolutely splendid in terms of artistic design so far.
Ofc, IMO.
EDIT
Still, when it comes to Crysis, besides having the "optimization" issue, a biggest "minus" is the fact that the game launched way ahead of it's time. When playing in the Sandbox editor one can understand just how complex a simple map is/can be and, honestly, how powerful and really worked the engine is.
The fact that the game runs/ran like crap is, IMO, the "marketing" trick that Crytek pulled with the hardware developers. Or to be more accurate: tried to pull. They obviously did not succeed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Oct 2010 13:01 Post subject: |
|
|
I'd have to disagree, I don't think the Crysis engine is poorly optimized. No other engine can handle anywhere near as much detail and still run okay'ish on a good system. For comparisons, look at the Nehrim mod for Oblivion for instance; it doesn't look half as good as Crysis, but runs even worse. Look also at the Stalker games, especially Clear Sky; with probably only a fifth of the environmental detail and view distance, if that, it runs even worse than Crysis. For another example, look at Arma2; no one can argue that one too runs like crap, while still being far inferior to Crysis in looks.
Fact is, no other engine can look as good and handle as much detail as the Cryengine when it comes to outdoors environment. I really can't see what anyone could possibly compare it to.
 Spoiler: | |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Oct 2010 13:09 Post subject: |
|
|
Raap, you do have a point, but somehow I doubt that most players will be satisfied only with the fact that, quote: "no other engine can handle anywhere near as much detail".
A (semi/)slideshow is still a forgettable and sometimes frustrating experience. It simply can't remain 100% memorable.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Oct 2010 13:26 Post subject: |
|
|
your Crysis pictures are relly awesome !!!! is it the "Enthousiast" mode or just photoshopped pictures ?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Oct 2010 13:52 Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I'm not actually saying it's a good game or that it was even a well-made game. I'm just arguing that the engine itself is excellent for what it does best; outdoor areas and physics. And in that area I don't think it has even been close to being overtaken; most games that try require more GPU power to render less. Maybe if the level editors of Crysis had been a little bit less enthusiastic about placing vegetation all over the place, we'd even have seen decent fps.
Serto: The pics are from the original Crysis at V.High settings( no enthusiast mode in that game). Taken from the editor as it were, though not by me.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Oct 2010 14:00 Post subject: |
|
|
just can't imagine what "Enthousiast" could be...^^"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Oct 2010 14:08 Post subject: |
|
|
| Raap wrote: | I'd have to disagree, I don't think the Crysis engine is poorly optimized. No other engine can handle anywhere near as much detail and still run okay'ish on a good system. For comparisons, look at the Nehrim mod for Oblivion for instance; it doesn't look half as good as Crysis, but runs even worse. Look also at the Stalker games, especially Clear Sky; with probably only a fifth of the environmental detail and view distance, if that, it runs even worse than Crysis. For another example, look at Arma2; no one can argue that one too runs like crap, while still being far inferior to Crysis in looks.
Fact is, no other engine can look as good and handle as much detail as the Cryengine when it comes to outdoors environment. I really can't see what anyone could possibly compare it to.
| Spoiler: | |
|
You forgot Dunia. IMO it looks very nice and runs well as well.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Oct 2010 14:13 Post subject: |
|
|
| Raap wrote: | | I'd have to disagree, I don't think the Crysis engine is poorly optimized. No other engine can handle anywhere near as much detail and still run okay'ish on a good system. |
Dunia Engine ...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Oct 2010 14:14 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Oct 2010 14:15 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 8th Oct 2010 14:20 Post subject: |
|
|
thx. Far Cry 2 had indeed a pretty good graphic engine.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 3 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
A pretty slideshow is still just a slideshow, my friend.
