• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

POLL: Which Graphics engine is the best?

S

Sureshot324

Diamond Member
Vote for which graphics engine you think is the best!

This is not about which games are the best, just the graphics engine. For example, I thought Doom 3 wasn't a very good game, and even the graphics got boring because they were always the same, but the graphics engine was excellent and the game could've been awsome of the artists were more creative with it.
 
Well... this disscusion has been had many times over already and everything depends on the situation. The FarCry engine is great for outdoor environments but really bad for indoor, source is better for indoor, doom3 only does industrial indoor well, Gamebryo is pretty well rounded (and newer) and has much better details in facial expressions and character models. It keeps going, and like I said it depends on the situation. I define best differently as well. The engine that's the best for me is the one that looks good running medium quality and running on slower machines... not necessarily what looks the best after dropping 2 grand on hardware.
 
I would say in terms of flexibility and capability, the Unreal Engine 2 has yet to be beat. It can go from the moderately good visuals of UT2004 to visuals that are equivalent or better than Fear at framerates that completely blow it away.(Splinter Cell Chaos Theory)
 
I really like Source, and I'm looking forward to the upgrades (HDR and the like) it underwent for HL2:Ep1.
 
Originally posted by: dguy6789
I would say in terms of flexibility and capability, the Unreal Engine 2 has yet to be beat. It can go from the moderately good visuals of UT2004 to visuals that are equivalent or better than Fear at framerates that completely blow it away.(Splinter Cell Chaos Theory)
Click to expand...

It is great yea, it's even powering MMORPG's which just shows how versatile the engine is. You can turn it to just about anything.

However, I voted for Gamebryo. Mostly down to the pre-release Oblivion movies & pictures which were quite frankly great.
 
FEAR uses the latest version of the LithTech engine.
Made by Monolith and used in games like AvP 1 and 2, No one lives forever 2 (maybe 1), Tron 2.0 and Might & Magic 9.
 
Originally posted by: shortylickens
FEAR uses the latest version of the LithTech engine.
Made by Monolith and used in games like AvP 1 and 2, No one lives forever 2 (maybe 1), Tron 2.0 and Might & Magic 9.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, I thought they used their own engine. But I guess they just used their own physics engine then.
 
Originally posted by: BFG10K
In terms of a performance/visuals ratio I'd probably have to say Source.
Click to expand...

Yes, and IMO that is one of the most important things if PC gaming is to continue to get itsself out of the rut its in, alongside gameplay. Noone wants to have to buy a $2000 pc to play FEAR, which dosent look that good anyways.
 
Originally posted by: gorcorps
Originally posted by: shortylickens
FEAR uses the latest version of the LithTech engine.
Made by Monolith and used in games like AvP 1 and 2, No one lives forever 2 (maybe 1), Tron 2.0 and Might & Magic 9.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm, I thought they used their own engine. But I guess they just used their own physics engine then.
Click to expand...
I thought they used the Havok for physics, but I could be wrong about that.
EDIT:
To answer the OP, I think the BEST is the one that has the most potential and works efficiently, so I pick Source.
So many folks say its substandard because the few games they've seen (HL2 and CS:S, which are really the same when you think about it) didnt utilize the same features as other games.
Source can do HDR, and faster.
Source can do Bump-Mapping and better.

Heck if you think about it, Doom3 was a rotton engine because without bump mapping everything looks like crap. But we dont KNOW that for sure because we havent seen anything new with that engine. (Again the two games based on it were basically the same.) Maybe it could look good without bump maps and maybe they can make some sweet outdoor levels with it. But we need a bunch more games for eahc of these engines before we judge them.

Actually, thats my official stance. We need more games before we can judge objectively.

Quake 3 must have had what, a dozen games using its engine?
Yeah, that fvcker was picked apart and analyzed by everybody and his brother.
Thats what I'm looking for.

P.S. Same for Far Cry/CryEngine. The technical specs cant even compare to the newer stuff, but the game itself was designed so well by people with genuine artistic talent that its still very visually appealing today.
 
Originally posted by: BFG10K
In terms of a performance/visuals ratio I'd probably have to say Source.
Click to expand...

To add to that, Source is a very scalable engine. Overall, I think Source is the best.

If a game has a specific mainly indoor or mainly outdoor scenario, then other engines clearly have an advantage.
 
Originally posted by: Stangs55
In terms of purely graphics?

There's no way that Source is better than Oblivion or FEAR. That's just crazy talk.
Click to expand...

Fear and oblivion are more advanced, but source is much efficiently programmed.
 
all the newer engines can do most if not all of dx9 features, oblivion could be done with doom3 engine or any other engine allowing all the features they were looking for, they can all be made for consistant enviro loading, the main differences is how they use shaders and how they go about peforming anything specific, some are more efficient at some than others not to mention what the developers did with each one

you cant judge an engine based on whats been seen from current games, farcry's outdoors are large but the polygons used were a fraction of what was used in oblivion for instance, then you have other things like physics load determineing how developers will handle certain problems.
hl2 didnt use very many poly's per load cycle either, just use no clip mode and you can easily see how small enviro really is, thats why it gets good fps with graphics.
 
Cryengine by far, source or doom couldnt render such huge lusch enviroments without choking. Even with Quake 4:enemy territory coming out, the megatexture redering still wont hold as beautiful as the cryengine. Source looks real and runs great but i prefer large open enviroments with more realism, cryengine is also very powerful when it comes to indoor enviroments, FC lab levels were beautiful. If the cryengine were modified more like the D3 engine, by altering plastic like skin and head shape, it would even look more amazing. Problem is not many developers want to use it.......
 
Originally posted by: Nextman916
Cryengine by far, source or doom couldnt render such huge lusch enviroments without choking. Even with Quake 4:enemy territory coming out, the megatexture redering still wont hold as beautiful as the cryengine. Source looks real and runs great but i prefer large open enviroments with more realism, cryengine is also very powerful when it comes to indoor enviroments, FC lab levels were beautiful. If the cryengine were modified more like the D3 engine, by altering plastic like skin and head shape, it would even look more amazing. Problem is not many developers want to use it.......
Click to expand...

yeah great out doors. you can do alot of cool things will it. its pretty flexable.

it doesn't scale very well at all though on old cards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top