Frostbite 3 vs CryEngine 3

[Jodell88]

Lets revisit this when we have some UE4 titles shall we?

I believe UE4 will outclass both FB3 and CE3.

When UE4 engine games are released it will be going up against CryEngine 4th Generation.

 

[cmdrdredd]

When UE4 engine games are released it will be going up against CryEngine 4th Generation.

I still think ue4 will be better.

 

[Red Storm]

I vote CryEngine due to Star Citizen.

 

[Jodell88]

I still think ue4 will be better.

I don't think any one will be better than the other.

 

[videogames101]

I still think crysis 3 looks the same as crysis 1, but my crysis 1 is also modded to hell...

I'd go with Frostbite 3. The way Crytek's engines make games look is very surreal in my eyes, whereas BF4, while it may technically have lower fidelity than Crysis 3, feels closer to realism.

Could be art style too, but since we only have BF4 to work with, it's rather hard to judge.

I voted that they both suck though, because they both could be worlds better without forced release schedules.

 

[Jodell88]

I'd go with Frostbite 3. The way Crytek's engines make games look is very surreal in my eyes, whereas BF4, while it may technically have lower fidelity than Crysis 3, feels closer to realism.

You see the world with a teal tint?

 

[videogames101]

You see the world with a teal tint?

Interestingly enough my left eye has a cooler color palette than my right eye.

Just one of those things.

 

[TechBoyJK]

No games use UE4 and the tech demos epic has shown are better than anything crytek has done to date.

You should watch the latest CE3 vid then?

 

[cmdrdredd]

You should watch the latest CE3 vid then?

I did and dont see anything exciting. Sorry

 

[Carfax83]

One thing the Unreal Engine 4 has going for it that the other engines don't, is that it has PhysX 3.2 integrated. PhysX is probably the best middleware physics engine available, as it's the most capable of simulating a wide array of different effects across the most platforms.. And it's still the only one with hardware acceleration.

 

[Stringjam]

Tech demos don't really mean much to me, especially considering most of them are heavily animated / scripted and have little to no realtime gameplay.

Games mean everything. What can developers accomplish with the SDK tools and how does it run in-game.

We won't know anything about UE4 until we see a game developed with it. Epic is good at doing demos - but how many UE games ever look anything like their demos?

I think if we rendered the exact same environment in Frostbite, Cryengine, and UE4, each would be pretty impressive. It would be interesting to see the results.

The only engine I've ever seen really impressive vegetation rendering is Cryengine. Comparatively speaking, what we see in BF4 and UE isn't a dot on a line.

 

[HeXen]

Tech demo's are kinda designed similar to a game like say God of War, they use careful camera positions, scripting and one way play. They may use real time physics...etc but they obviously set it all up for demonstration purposes which is just simply marketing.
Heck the old Matrox GPU demo of "Reef" still looks pretty damn good and that's a solid decade old or something.

No games use UE4 and the tech demos epic has shown are better than anything crytek has done to date.

But if you look at the features list and watch the videos of using the UE4 Editor, it is very clear they copied from Crytek. Right down to the press of a button to drop in and out of the game and back to the editor in real time. Crytek stated something like that they havn't done anything innovative, they are just getting caught up.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Tech demo's are kinda designed similar to a game like say God of War, they use careful camera positions, scripting and one way play. They may use real time physics...etc but they obviously set it all up for demonstration purposes which is just simply marketing.
Heck the old Matrox GPU demo of "Reef" still looks pretty damn good and that's a solid decade old or something.



But if you look at the features list and watch the videos of using the UE4 Editor, it is very clear they copied from Crytek. Right down to the press of a button to drop in and out of the game and back to the editor in real time. Crytek stated something like that they havn't done anything innovative, they are just getting caught up.

So your metric is crytek being babies and calling them copycats? Gotcha...

 

[Carfax83]

One more reason why CryEngine 3 is a more impressive engine than Frostbite 3. It makes excellent use of hyperthreading.

Frostbite 3 on the other hand, can apparently run slower with HT according to those benches.

 

[Agent11]

I'm playing the single player in BF4 right now and I still haven't bought crysis 3 yet. My observations compared to Crysis2 are that both games have CRAP models that aren't part of the main story line.

NPC's and vehicles in both games look like complete trash if they are not a main character. That is really annoying because it totally breaks the immersion. Look at a gloriously detailed character and then turn left and see Generic Civilian Model 1 with horrible textures and a blob looking appearance and the immersion is immediately ruined.

It's just crazy to me that they can't up the production value of those aspects of the games, but I'm sure it's completely tied to money.

Crysis 2 had a much better single player campaign than BF4 and BF3 in terms of story. I'm way off topic here, but DICE should never make a single player game again. They are horrible at it. BF4 is actually worse than 3. I can't believe they regressed considering how I thought the only thing they could do after BF3 single player was improve because it was so bad.

They should stick to the comedic single player of Bad Company. I don't understand why they can make those games entertaining and decent, but their main franchise is just horrible. The dialogue,. story, and acting is so bad in all their games but I think Bad Company's saving grace is that the ridiculous story and bad acting/characters are the punchline. When they take themselves seriously I'm waiting for the punchline that never comes and I shake my head thinking that they seriously thought they had something good in this game because they never made fun of how horrible it all is.

They design the game to only demand so much memory, if you want to have some things ultra high def you need to free up some vram from some where else. . . Or demand higher minimum specs.

 

[moonbogg]

Knowing nothing about game engines, I can only comment on my experience with them both, and any point I can make has been well made already. But just to say it myself, I think each engine delivers a specific flavor of game and they are both great. CE3 seems to provide a nice single player game and FB3 is amazing at MP games. I think it has a lot to do with the intentions of each game company and what their goals are. Each engine could probably switch roles if that's what they wanted to do.

 

[Skurge]

FB3 is being used in a racing. CryEngine 3 is not. That's an automatic win in my book for FB3

 

[bwat47]

Purely based on visuals, I'd say cryengine3. Its very impressive. The character models and facial animations are the best I've ever seen. Its also got amazing lighting/shadows/effects and very good hardware utilization.

Frostbite 3 is also a very good engine though, BF4 looks great and performs quite well. its a shame its ridiculously full of bugs ATM, hopefully the next patch fixes it up.

The only engine I've ever seen really impressive vegetation rendering is Cryengine.

I was pretty impressed with assasins creed 4's vegetation rendering.

 

[Gloomy]

Maybe it's just me, but I felt that Crysis 3 was extremely smooth even at lower framerates (30-35 ish). Whereas in BF4 anything below 45 or so would feel choppy.

 

[Fire&Blood]

Unlike DICE, Crytek doesn't have a bunch of studios to share the engine with and it would do a lot better if it had a game putting a spotlight on it like FB does with the Battlefield series. Crytek obviously makes a great engine but can't establish a game franchise like COD/BF and they might be hurting if this "drought" continues. Even if they can get a couple of successful projects lined up like Star Citizen, the licensing fees are far from the type of cash needed to fund their own stuff.

Crytek gets my respect for their achievements over the last 10 years but chronologically they have been fading away for the last 5. They danced both with Ubisoft and EA early on but haven't sold out which is rare. As for their lastest works, Crysis 3 didn't shine long, the F2P game is forgettable and Ryse is getting bad to mediocre reviews though I am not sure how much they are involved past having the game done in their engine.
The engine is superb, at least as good if not better than others but without aequally good IP to run it it falls behind FB.

 

[Malik2981]

I voted Frostbite 3 as I like that it takes use of more cores and taxes GPUs nicely

 

[Carfax83]

Maybe it's just me, but I felt that Crysis 3 was extremely smooth even at lower framerates (30-35 ish). Whereas in BF4 anything below 45 or so would feel choppy.

No it's not just you. Before I upgraded my rig to what's in my sig, I played Crysis 3 on an overclocked Core i7 920 @ 4.2ghz and overclocked GTX 580 SLI (900/1800) at 2560x1440 very high settings with SMAA 1x and V-sync off.

At those settings, I was getting 30-35 for the most part, and the game was very playable and pretty smooth. I even made a post about how shocked I was that I was getting such good gameplay on my overclocked 580s at max settings, as they only had 1.5GB of VRAM.

So Cryengine 3 is definitely a well optimized engine there's no doubt. That said, after revisiting BF4 again, I must say I'm more impressed with the FB 3 engine after driver and patch updates than I was when I first made this topic.

Playing the single player campaign again, the performance has improved significantly compared to the first play through that I did shortly after the game was released. I'm seeing greater CPU utilization across 12 threads, a long with higher frame rates and smoother gameplay.

Heck, the game even looks better to me. So yeah, I guess I'm kind of swinging towards the FB 3.0 engine now :whiste:

But eventually CryTek will come out with their 4th generation CryEngine, which will be more comparable to the Frostbite 3 as it should sport native 64 bit capability and perhaps DX11.1 or DX11.2 support.

 

[Enigmoid]

Don't really play Battlefield but what I think about CE3.

Crysis 3 on my laptop was by far the best looking and best running game I have played. Laptop uses a 660m at 1085/1250 and played at low 1080p with textures ultra and object quality high. Looked better than metro by far and ran better too. Engine has almost 0 pop in and is extremely smooth at low framerate. Playing at ~30-35 fps felt fine compared to most games where I feel like I need over 40-45. I think toms mentioned in one of their frame time benchmarks that cryengine interpolates the next frame based on the current frametime (last couple frames) to reduce input lag. Cryengine uses the CPU well (though it is very CPU heavy). SMAA 2x cost almost nothing on the game and significantly improved image quality.

In Crysis 3 character models and animations were top notch. Some of the levels (last level) were very large. For instance compared to metro LL poly counts were much better and visual quality wasn't comparable.

I have played around briefly with the SDK on my old laptop and can say its a pretty powerful piece of technology with everything you need to make something. Place objects, texture or modify terrain (similar to ms paint with) was extremely easy to do. The game engine files are modifiable too.

However, one thing to be aware of is that CE3 uses a terrain and object based system. Building and texturing terrain is done completely in the SDK which objects tend to be imported from 3ds or maya, etc. This means that while object quality tends to be very good, terrain quality can be sub-par, a good example of this is in Crysis 3 where you have Psycho's iconic faceshot (just before you play around with the big tower targeting laser) the rocks on the right are lower quality than the rest of the scene. I don't know if other engines to the same but this is a problem (as object quality using the SKD is harder to achieve than in maya).

A far as Crysis 3 goes, it looked amazing, was exceptionally smooth and was a fairly enjoyable game IMO.

 

[Fire&Blood]

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/disappointing-sales-crysis-3-pc-has-just-passed-100-000-sold-copies/

Barely 100k copies sold in Germany. They really need talent and IP to take advantage of the technical assets. I would argue the engine has been ahead of its time and the competition but they are catching up as well as already having an edge with better IP and storytelling. Crytek needs to make better games, Ryse and Warface aren't doing it.

 

[Carfax83]

A far as Crysis 3 goes, it looked amazing, was exceptionally smooth and was a fairly enjoyable game IMO.

Excellent synopsis Enigmoid. Actually, after watching this youtube video:

Crysis 3 is crazy beautiful

I'm swinging back to CryEngine 3. The amount of graphical detail in Crysis 3 is just stunning. Battlefield 4 has it's moments as well no doubt, but it doesn't approach the detail of Crysis 3.

BF4's strength lies primarily in the scope and size of the maps.. Although as you say, Crysis 3 has some very large playable areas as well, like the last level.

And the best part is, the game is optimized so well, that you don't have to wait years to be able to max it out like the first Crysis.