The most advance 3d game engine?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
A

ArchAngel777

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
5,223
61
91
I had wanted to discuss the best game engines available today on the market. I would like to hear what everyone's favorite engine is, why it is their favorite engine and then explain why you believe it has an edge over the others.

I'll start:

CryEngine: Yes, I am a sucker for those german developers.

Why: The Engine has been rendering the most incredable outdoor environments I have ever seen. The polybump mapping is incredable and it beat D3 and HL2 to the scene. FarCry (CryEngine) was released before D3 and HL2 and looked just as good, if not quite a bit better.

 
A

ArchAngel777

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
5,223
61
91
Anything you want :D It is personal preference, as none of us have the source code and *prove* which one is indeed more advanced. Just point out what your favorite engine can do and so on...
 
H

HN

Diamond Member
Jan 19, 2001
8,186
4
0
coming out first does not mean it had less development time
 
B

Bona Fide

Banned
Jun 21, 2005
1,901
0
0
Add one more point for the CryEngine...BUT

You have to admit that Half-Life 2's engine is simply ingenious. To be able to play that game on a P3 1.2ghz is pretty astounding. The scalabilty is quite awesome, and if your computer has the power, you will be amazed by the graphics. And if you don't have a top-of-the-line, you can still play it.
 
I

igowerf

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2000
7,697
1
76
Originally posted by: Bona Fide
Add one more point for the CryEngine...BUT

You have to admit that Half-Life 2's engine is simply ingenious. To be able to play that game on a P3 1.2ghz is pretty astounding. The scalabilty is quite awesome, and if your computer has the power, you will be amazed by the graphics. And if you don't have a top-of-the-line, you can still play it.
Click to expand...

Yep. I'd vote for the Source engine just because it's so scalable. Even on two year old (P4 2.8, 1GB, Radeon 9800 Pro) systems like mine, it still looks and runs great. Basically, if I compared D3, HL2, and FC on my computer running at settings that provide smooth framerates, HL2 would look the best. Also, I think one of the reasons that FC looks so good is that it uses very vibrant colors.
 
Schadenfroh

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
Originally posted by: igowerf
Originally posted by: Bona Fide
Add one more point for the CryEngine...BUT

You have to admit that Half-Life 2's engine is simply ingenious. To be able to play that game on a P3 1.2ghz is pretty astounding. The scalabilty is quite awesome, and if your computer has the power, you will be amazed by the graphics. And if you don't have a top-of-the-line, you can still play it.
Click to expand...

Yep. I'd vote for the Source engine just because it's so scalable. Even on two year old (P4 2.8, 1GB, Radeon 9800 Pro) systems like mine, it still looks and runs great. Basically, if I compared D3, HL2, and FC on my computer running at settings that provide smooth framerates, HL2 would look the best. Also, I think one of the reasons that FC looks so good is that it uses very vibrant colors.
Click to expand...

You can run doom 3 on a voodoo 2, link.
 
C

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
definetly the farcry engine, loooove no loading times

second might be the world of warcraft engine, loading times? what loading times

third would be eve online engine, puuuuuurrtty
 
Fenixgoon

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
33,120
12,531
136
ghoul engine for SOF II, based on the Q3 engine. looks great, good physics, and fantastic networking courtesy of Q3

as an overall pick i mean (playability, graphics, networking, etc.)

wait nvm.. thats just the one i like best :)
 
S

stnicralisk

Golden Member
Jan 18, 2004
1,705
1
0
Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
I had wanted to discuss the best game engines available today on the market. I would like to hear what everyone's favorite engine is, why it is their favorite engine and then explain why you believe it has an edge over the others.

I'll start:

CryEngine: Yes, I am a sucker for those german developers.

Why: The Engine has been rendering the most incredable outdoor environments I have ever seen. The polybump mapping is incredable and it beat D3 and HL2 to the scene. FarCry (CryEngine) was released before D3 and HL2 and looked just as good, if not quite a bit better.
Click to expand...


I will put a vote for CryEngine as well.

I would like to say that it is because it not only came out prior to the other engines and wowed us with next gen graphics but it also has recieved many updates. (A64 + HDR +++)

However my vote is of course only for the graphical side. They could have focused a little more on netcode while they were at it so that multiplayer would be viable.

Second place I would say Doom 3 engine.

The engine might not be as scalable as the Source engine but the per pixel lighting and other effects really impress me. Have you guys seen the pictures of HL2 rendered on Doom's engine? I would search and link but im lazy. Again this is only for the graphics, definately not for the netcode or physics.

Actually come to think of it none of the three games really have good netcode. I wonder what the problem is. Farcry has lag issues, Doom cannot handle enough players, and Source practically gives away head shots (hit boxes are borked although im not sure if they are in SP so maybe its bigger than a netcode issue)
 
A

ArchAngel777

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
5,223
61
91
Actually come to think of it none of the three games really have good netcode. I wonder what the problem is. Farcry has lag issues, Doom cannot handle enough players, and Source practically gives away head shots (hit boxes are borked although im not sure if they are in SP so maybe its bigger than a netcode issue)
Click to expand...

LOL, I hear ya...
 
B

Bona Fide

Banned
Jun 21, 2005
1,901
0
0
Do any games have separate physics engines? Or are they incorporated into the game engine? Because Tom Clancy games have hands-down the best physics engines I've ever seen.
 
D

dguy6789

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2002
8,558
3
76
The source engine gets my vote.

It can do anything CryEngine and Doom3 Engine can do, but source does it faster. Not to mention source has physics so astounding that no other engine is anywhere near it.
 
I

igowerf

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2000
7,697
1
76
Originally posted by: stnicralisk
and Source practically gives away head shots (hit boxes are borked although im not sure if they are in SP so maybe its bigger than a netcode issue)
Click to expand...

Actually, that's been disproven. The hit boxes are correct. There were a couple threads in the software forum about it.

 
MBrown

MBrown

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2001
5,726
35
91
Originally posted by: InfiniteLurker
Personally, I'm looking forward to this - I know it's not on the market yet, but check it out:

projectoffset.com

Make sure to check out the downloads page and view their latest video...
Click to expand...

Those videos are friggen amazing!
 
B

Bona Fide

Banned
Jun 21, 2005
1,901
0
0
Originally posted by: InfiniteLurker
Personally, I'm looking forward to this - I know it's not on the market yet, but check it out:

projectoffset.com

Make sure to check out the downloads page and view their latest video...
Click to expand...

I'm impressed by the technology - not so the premise. An FPS set in medieval times? Cmon...FPS is about run and gun...instant hit-type stuff. That's why I always hated the Star Wars games that didn't have lightsabers. Who would want to lead a laser on top of leading because of lag?
 
BFG10K

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,709
3,003
126
From a strictly technical standpoint I'd have to Say Doom III on account its revolutionary lighting & shadowing system.
 
IHateMyJob2004

IHateMyJob2004

Lifer
Sep 29, 2004
18,656
67
91
3d engine? UnReal 2007 screeens look awesome.

But, probably Doom 3.

You might want to have a thread on game engines, not 3D engines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom