So far the Unreal 4 tech demos have shown the new lighting systems, and they are amazing.Originally Posted by =sw=warlord
So far the Unreal 4 tech demos have shown the new lighting systems, and they are amazing.
you're comparing a tech demo of an ancient stone knight being awakened by an erupting volcano and summoning elements to do his bidding to a tech demo showing off a modern-day jungle environment and complaining that the first looks too surreal.
well, no shit.
yeah?
Yup, look at all dat bloom.
Also, I don't hate Unreal. I just think for any sort of realism, Cryengine takes the cake.
That tech demo does look gorgeous though, love all the particles and the realtime lighting stuff. Yes, there is a lot of bloom, but it still looks awesome. That being said, I'd have to see "realistic" environments in both engines to say one way or the other. Since Crytek often does focus on trying to replicate real life, I'd say they have that honor for the moment. Better engine? Up for debate. More realistic? Perhaps.
I do dislike bloom too, but when its overdone. You must be on drugs to think that tech demo has tons of bloom.
Also that is the video I was refering to.
and again, I emphasize that the content being shown on each engine is not grounds enough to determine whether or not one's rendering capabilities are more "realistic" than the other. if there were a side-by-side comparison of the same assets on each engine, that would be valid grounds to make a comparison.
But didn't you say that Unreal Engine 4 "pisses all over" CryEngine 3 when the only tech demo available for UE4 is the Knight awakening one? Limited made the comparison first, so I just went with it.
Even so, I said Unreal Engine in general, not Unreal Engine 4. I know the UE3 Samaritan tech demo isn't in the same type of universe as Crysis 3, but it's as close to modern days as you really get in the Unreal Engine. It was praised for its realistic nature, yet if we look at it. It doesn't look as realistic as other engines. My original point is that the Unreal Engine isn't meant to look realistic. CryEngine 3 is. Why is the comparison being made as if they are on the same level? They aren't. It's like trying to compare an AGP GPU to a PCI-E GPU. It's mismatched.
Personally, I think CryEngine 2 looks better than CE3 and UE3/4, but the Unreal Engine is a winner for me because of the beautiful, vibration, and tastefully over-saturated graphics it can produce. I mean, just look at this:
I love how soft and smooth the engine is. It has a certain feel that was make to look unreal.
CryEngine 2 is no slouch in looking surreal, either, though. Check this out:
The vegetation still looks more real then in Unreal Engine
Last edited by Amit; August 13th, 2012 at 12:31 AM.
In my personal opinion, I've messed with both engines before, and Cry Engine definietly is able to make things look a bit more realistic. Unreal though is still great and create some very fantastic visuals too, and the new engine is looking good as wel. Unreal is definetly an easier engine to work with too, simply becuase of the amount of resources and documentation it has compared to Cry Engine.
It's a little difficult to show a tech demo for a game engine without showing the lighting system.
Personally I like Cryengines lighting system better than UE4s, at least CE3's lighting actually makes things look illuminated not just making it seem like it's a dull glow.
lol uh no I didn't?
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks