Crytek: CryEngine is three years ahead of Unreal Engine 4

[garyopa]

CryEngine was 'next-gen ready' three years ago



Crytek boss man Cevat Yerli says Epic's demonstrations of Unreal Engine 4 are doing things CryEngine was doing three years ago.

In a recent intevriew, Crytek’s CEO Cevat Yerli, said that CryEngine 3 “already exists” at the quality of Unreal Engine 4, and while there are “tangible differences,” it’s not something people will notice.

“You can go back three years ago to the GDC videos,” he said. “What we put out there is pretty much what Unreal Engine 4 put out now. And what many others are doing now too. We haven’t really put out our latest stuff yet.

“Pretty soon you’re going to see the next iteration of CryEngine, and I’m not putting a number behind it, just the next iteration of CryEngine. Very soon. But we already said, CryEngine 3 is next-gen ready since three years ago. We stand by that. If I look at what people call next-gen technology now, it’s what we were seeing three years ago. We already had massive particle systems, we already had GPU rendering, all these things. Deferred shading. We had tessellation already since we shipped Crysis 2. We already had DX11.

“We didn’t just talk it up as tech demos, we have games that are shipped and are doing it.”

According to him, the differences between his firm’s engine and those of his competitors, is the “fluidity of the overall experience.” He mentioned the differences between and Android and iPhone as an example.

“It’s like you watch an Android phone and an iPhone. The iPhone, despite the fact that most Android phones can do the same things, just feels different,” he explained. “It feels more fluid, more organic on an iPhone. And similarly, with an Android, there are different limitations on an Android. One feels choppy, another feels better. Really, it’s not just about ticking off boxes next to features.

“It’s a holistic experience that has to be fluid and flawless and real. Not show. It must be real. That’s us and what CryEngine always stands for. It was always a very substantial, robust, polished experience that gamers will see. And I also think that we are dedicated to online games. When you look at our number of licensees in that space, we have more licensees than any other engine in the online space. In the console space it’s a different story. In the console space we’re definitely not leading. But I think the next time around, it’s going to be a very different picture.”

Well, we haven't seen a lot from UE4 yet. But, from what we have seen of CryEngine 3, do you agree with him? What do you think?

NEWS SOURCE #1: Cryengine 3 has existed at the quality of Unreal Engine 4 for three years says Crytek (via) VG247
NEWS SOURCE #2: Cryengine is three years ahead of Unreal Engine 4 Crytek (via) CVG

Our thanks to 'Gauss' for this news item!

[Ahmed_p800]

But, but , UE4 and FF tech demos felt more like...CGI!

Crysis looks amazing, but does not feel like a movie or a CGI.

Anyway, hope to see the new CryEngine, im sure it will set new and high standards!

[Xenogears V]

All people are good to use words. we'll see with facts.

[DEDDOA]

As has been proven you need the tech when the hardware can handle it, I have no dounts that a next next gen engine could be released now, it wouldn't work on hardly any hardware in anything less than the most conservative of settings and do so badly, but it could be released. Not dissing the cryengine but as Crysis showed having software thats too much for the hardware makes for little more than nice screenshots for most people.

[DEDDOA]

But, but , UE4 and FF tech demos felt more like...CGI!

Crysis looks amazing, but does not feel like a movie or a CGI.

Anyway, hope to see the new CryEngine, im sure it will set new and high standards!

I'll wait to see in game video and not real time scripted animation. If crysis had used the same method for cut scenes I suspect it wouldn't have looked far off but like most games it just uses the basic ingame engine, SE have a habit of cranking up GFX for cut scenes instead of using the plain in game GFX as they loose a massive ammounts of the overheads you get when you need real time interaction, so they don't give a real representation of ingame gfx. That FF tech demo did look nice tho and was even more impressive considering it is aimed at inferior hardware to that in my PC (but then the PC does suffer for nigh on infinite configurations syndrome, I gues thats why Max Payne 3 on maximum settings can run like a dog at times even on my usually overkill hardware).

[Ahmed_p800]

I'll wait to see in game video and not real time scripted animation. If crysis had used the same method for cut scenes I suspect it wouldn't have looked far off but like most games it just uses the basic ingame engine, SE have a habit of cranking up GFX for cut scenes instead of using the plain in game GFX as they loose a massive ammounts of the overheads you get when you need real time interaction, so they don't give a real representation of ingame gfx. That FF tech demo did look nice tho and was even more impressive considering it is aimed at inferior hardware to that in my PC (but then the PC does suffer for nigh on infinite configurations syndrome, I gues thats why Max Payne 3 on maximum settings can run like a dog at times even on my usually overkill hardware).

FF13 looks "almost" the same as the 2006 prerendered tech demo:


Yes, it has been downgraded, but still looks great (plays like sh*t though)

So I think it is safe to trust SE on this one! (the new engine)

By the way. your HW is powerful no doubt, but In my opinion I prefer to get 1 single powerful GPU instead of crossfiring 2!
You could upgrade to the rumored 7990! ;-) its almost confirmed, .....Afterall, "theoretically" it is a single GPU!

[wewii]

Based on how Crysis 2 was a bust on console...... nobody cares.

Gears of War 3 still dominates since launch.


UNREAL 4 FTW.


next....

[MadonnaProject]

crysis 2 was that way on consoles due to their limitation. its a hefty game and we're lucky to get it on current consoles.

[Signa]

Yeah... I'm supposed to believe that CE3 was doing everything that UE4 is doing now? Nope. That Developer UI in UE4 was so powerful and simplistic that CE3 would have been the standard this gen instead of UE3 had it even been close.

[DEDDOA]

FF13 looks "almost" the same as the 2006 prerendered tech demo:


Yes, it has been downgraded, but still looks great (plays like sh*t though)

So I think it is safe to trust SE on this one! (the new engine)

By the way. your HW is powerful no doubt, but In my opinion I prefer to get 1 single powerful GPU instead of crossfiring 2!
You could upgrade to the rumored 7990! ;-) its almost confirmed, .....Afterall, "theoretically" it is a single GPU!

I was going to get 2 7970's but that would have cost over £1000, plus in all the benchmarks it a single 7970 come some way under crossfired 6970's (crossfire 6990 is slower as well as it's got lower clock speeds than 6970's), so as my board has 4 PCI express slots, I just bought 2 more 6970 and saved myself £500 odd and get better performance, Not only that but it saves on heating bills in the winter, thank god for aircon in the summer, if w get summer this year

[DEDDOA]

Based on how Crysis 2 was a bust on console...... nobody cares.

Gears of War 3 still dominates since launch.


UNREAL 4 FTW.


next....

Try PC Crysis 2 with the DX11 and HD patches, to make it run on the consoles the original version is essentially DX9 given that is more or less what the console hardware supports (ok the 360 GPU is based on the HD3000 series GPU which is a DX10 chip but it's still sub DX10). The XBLA version of the original crysis isn't to bad tho, looks better than a good many other games using the Unreal 3 engine. You also have to bare in mind the influence that the Unreal team had on the design of the 360, it's no secret that the reason the 360 got 512MB instead of 256MB was down to them showing how much it improved Gears of War, so it's safe to say they have their engine better optimised for the likes of the 360 hardware than most other companies.