Has the Unreal 3 engine won the licensing competition for this generation?

[Stoneburner]

So many of the FPS games i read about these days are based on the Unreal 3 engine. The rest seem to in house engines. Why is unreal so popular? Back in the day the Unreal and Quake 3 engines were about equal. But Doom 3 's tech never caught on outside of ID projects. What about Cry Engine 2.0? Are there any developers outside Crytek using it? Seems like a waste of what is the best graphics engine on the market to let it just die off until DX 11.

Seems like there is less and less competition in every facet of pc gaming these days.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

I haven't been impressed with any of the games based on Unreal 3.

 

[Jules]

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper
I haven't been impressed with any of the games based on Unreal 3.

:roll:

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper
I haven't been impressed with any of the games based on Unreal 3.

:roll:

Roll your eyes all you like. GOW, Bioshock and Unreal 3 are overly shiny, gaudy, and not very interesting.

 

[s44]

Mass Effect (not PC yet though)

 

[n7]

IMO the issue with the Cry Engine is how poorly it scales.

It's not terrible, but UE3 seems way better for running on less than stellar systems.

I suspect UE3 is also a bit easier for devs to use, especially since it's multi-platform...

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper
I haven't been impressed with any of the games based on Unreal 3.

Yep, totally agree. :thumbsup:

KT

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper
I haven't been impressed with any of the games based on Unreal 3.

:roll:

Roll your eyes all you like. GOW, Bioshock and Unreal 3 are overly shiny, gaudy, and not very interesting.

The thing to remember here though is thats not the engines fault.
Its the developers using the engine.

Normal mapping and bloom are the two new "kewl we got to use it" features in new game engines. Its sad that developers want to use them so much that they make the games look worse.

I'm working on some levels for UT3 and I made myself promise it would not have that plastic rocks, metal shiny as the sun look.

 

[Lamont Burns]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

I'm working on some levels for UT3 and I made myself promise it would not have that plastic rocks, metal shiny as the sun look.

In all seriousness gl with this... UT3 imo is in desperate need of good maps with some depth. I don't like about 75% of the maps shipped. Yes, I'm a hater I am aware of this.

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper
I haven't been impressed with any of the games based on Unreal 3.

:roll:

Roll your eyes all you like. GOW, Bioshock and Unreal 3 are overly shiny, gaudy, and not very interesting.

The "shiny" thing may be true, but you can't knock the gameplay of Bioshock. Its simply a fantastic game.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
So many of the FPS games i read about these days are based on the Unreal 3 engine. The rest seem to in house engines. Why is unreal so popular? Back in the day the Unreal and Quake 3 engines were about equal. But Doom 3 's tech never caught on outside of ID projects. What about Cry Engine 2.0? Are there any developers outside Crytek using it? Seems like a waste of what is the best graphics engine on the market to let it just die off until DX 11.

Seems like there is less and less competition in every facet of pc gaming these days.

D3 engine was an unfinished/unbalanced crap - it's nice to see I was dead right after I took lot of heat over at B3D back when I predicted it won't sell at all due its obvious shortcomings. Most people were so far up in the @ss of id/Carmack they couldn't admit these problems were too much, significant together...
D3 engine or tech4 was a complete flop, I think - howw many they sold? 2? 3, perhaps even 4 licenses? ROFL - and game didn't score much better either despite the hype they have created around it.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper
I haven't been impressed with any of the games based on Unreal 3.

:roll:

Roll your eyes all you like. GOW, Bioshock and Unreal 3 are overly shiny, gaudy, and not very interesting.

ROFLMAO - Bioshock as "not very interesting" game... priceless!

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: LAMONTBURNS

Originally posted by: Modelworks

I'm working on some levels for UT3 and I made myself promise it would not have that plastic rocks, metal shiny as the sun look.

In all seriousness gl with this... UT3 imo is in desperate need of good maps with some depth. I don't like about 75% of the maps shipped. Yes, I'm a hater I am aware of this.

I'm with you - where is my good-ol' ONS? What is this Warfare crap, with all the castrated vehicles, castrated weapons, stupid small maps resulting in retarded TDM-like carnage, I don't know...

I highly doubt it will last another few years like UT2k4 did unless the community will pick up Epic's slack and do the heavy-lifting by releasing some meaningful, BIG maps...

 

[Modelworks]

I'm going for a pretty large map.
It may alienate some players because I think its going to require 2GB memory to play without any hitching.
At this point I don't care though , I'm more interested in the map itself than the hardware requirements to run it.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
The "shiny" thing may be true, but you can't knock the gameplay of Bioshock. Its simply a fantastic game.

I just did because I found it overhyped and dull. The FOV was all wrong for me too until the widescreen forum guys fixed it.

I watched an interview with one of the devs, he said they wanted to enable players to not feel restricted and go where they want. As soon as I got out of the biosphere(?), I looked at the water behind the railings and wondered what was down there. I tried to jump over the railings but couldn't (even though they weren't high enough to stop me), yet I could throw suitcases and other junk over them. Invisible no-player-allowed walls FTL. Looks like they failed in the first 10 minutes of the game, most of which was on rails.

This is more of an engine discussion anyway so I'll leave it there.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I'm going for a pretty large map.
It may alienate some players because I think its going to require 2GB memory to play without any hitching.
At this point I don't care though , I'm more interested in the map itself than the hardware requirements to run it.

Great news - I wish I have the time...

Don't bother about 2 gig - anyone is more interested in UT (e.g. custom maps, regular online player etc) won't have any problem with it.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: T2k
Don't bother about 2 gig - anyone is more interested in UT (e.g. custom maps, regular online player etc) won't have any problem with it.

QFT.

 

[gi0rgi0]

Epic rules!!! Id sucks!! And the requirements are to high for the crytek engine.

 

[Stoneburner]

Is id out of the licensing game then? I know developers can do some amazing things with even old engines, but sometimes you'll see a game that looks and feels too much like the licenses marquee title. I see alot of game developers that develop their own engine, such as FEAR and Monolith but that probably means longer development times and greater costs. Only epic, far as I know, actively seeks out licensees.

 

[Modelworks]

Id is far from out of licensing.
The newest id tech isn't finished so that may be the reason all is fairly quiet for them right now.

I think one of the things thats going to be challenging for map makers in UT3 is to get away from all the brown and grey. I've looked through the textures and everything is dark and gloomy. Granted they are trying to make the game have a certain feel, I just feel they went too far. I don't think the color white even makes an appearance

 

[Vidda]

id's working on a new engine due out next year. You can argue then.

 

[duragezic]

Yeah, other than Epic and UE, I guess I don't see a whole lot of licensing going on, for how many games are released. I've always liked Source quite a bit, but the number of titles using it outside of Valve's own products is pretty small. I guess Valve knew they were gonna improve Source early on, so you'd think companies would love that ability to buy an original license for their game, and for a smaller fee and much less time than an all-new upgrade, over the next couple of years they could get the Source improvements as Valve does (HDR mainly, also Source 2007 improvements like multicore support is suppose to be coming to older Valve titles).

CryEngine 2.0 is great of course, but I don't think most devs want to do what Crytek did with Crysis and release only a powerhouse/technological marvel. If all games were like that, well for anyone who doesn't upgrade their video card every year or more, they'd be screwed. I'd like to see some games based on it. Well for that matter, I'd like to see some Source, some UE3, some id engine, etc.

Then again, of the shooters left like COD, Medal of Honor, GRAW, and so on, I guess they have old versions of their own engines to use generally. And sometimes the feel might not be right for a different dev's game. Source-based multiplayer games always seem to have a similar feel, even if they are totally different or are mods.

I guess I'm just kind of surprised that with the ridiculous development costs and time required for a modern PC game, that more licenses aren't sold for the more established engines.

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper
I haven't been impressed with any of the games based on Unreal 3.

 

[Kur]

Unreal engine is very easy to use. Nothing more to really say...

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: Kur
Unreal engine is very easy to use. Nothing more to really say...

Tell that to Silicon Knights. :laugh: