Unreal vs Cryengine vs Source vs id Tech vs Frostbite

[kache]

the thing is that people here is voting engines according to what games each engine has... and that is 2 different worlds...

if the game is GREAT you will probably remember on what engine it was done, but that is because the game is good ... and the engine there is just a part of it.

that being said, i think UE had the best capabilities/flexibility/performance, from ALL the games that used UE3 these years...
Cryengine is only used on crysis...
Source is used almost exclusively by valve (some exceptions here and there... Alice madness uses source isnt it?)
like someone sayd.. SERIOUS ENGINE 3 looks GREAT in SS3 and the framerate is GREAT... but what other game uses it?
i think that this generation that is ending soon was the UE3 Generation of games

Alice uses UE.

 

[Ben90]

There's so many factors.. For instance, much of what you see in a game is an 'asset' and most assets say.. in an Unreal Engine based game could just as easily be imported into CryEngine. Much of what you see is made in a 3D modeling program and is imported into the engine.

I'd be curious how Crysis would look/perform if ported to idTech/Unreal/Source.

 

[bigrash]

I'd have to go with Cryengine.

 

[reallyscrued]

This is like asking NASCAR fans which car they like to watch circle track the most.

If you wanted a real answer, you'd have to ask in the "Programming" section. I doubt serious developers come into this subsection very often.

 

[Stringjam]

Cryengine is only used on crysis...

CryEngine3 is actually starting to get licensed more now. The upcoming StarCitizen uses it as well as Sniper: Ghost Warrior2.


The SDK is free and openly available to download at crydev.net. There are a bunch of little indie projects getting started on it. Everything from RPG's, flight sims, to racing games. I believe they offer a more flexible license now for these smaller indie teams.

 

[kache]

This is like asking NASCAR fans which car they like to watch circle track the most.

If you wanted a real answer, you'd have to ask in the "Programming" section. I doubt serious developers come into this subsection very often.

^ This.

 

[Martimus]

CryEngine3 is actually starting to get licensed more now. The upcoming StarCitizen uses it as well as Sniper: Ghost Warrior2.


The SDK is free and openly available to download at crydev.net. There are a bunch of little indie projects getting started on it. Everything from RPG's, flight sims, to racing games. I believe they offer a more flexible license now for these smaller indie teams.

I am pretty sure that Mechwarrior also uses Cryengine.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Unreal engine is probably the winner here, it's very powerful but also the development tools are pretty much the best in the industry.

Cryengine is also very good just as feature complete as Unreal engine maybe more so, pretty good development tools.

Source engine is old and crap and the development tools are atrocious, the updates it's received over the years are minor at best. The whole thing needs scrapping or a major re-haul.

idTech engine is really more tailored towards specific game, it's megatexture is quite unique but so far only really used to boost the memory issues with consoles and not to push the high end.

Frostbite I don't know a lot about, aimed squarely at consoles with what feels like DX11 a bit tacked on, not sure about development tools.

 

[Red Hawk]

Frostbite I don't know a lot about, aimed squarely at consoles with what feels like DX11 a bit tacked on, not sure about development tools.

I'm not sure how DX11 can be "tacked on" when the engine requires DirectX 11 (or 10) in order to run on PCs. I mean, what's there to tack on to?

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I'm not sure how DX11 can be "tacked on" when the engine requires DirectX 11 (or 10) in order to run on PCs. I mean, what's there to tack on to?

Engines do not require DX11 or DX10 to run on PC, its backwards compatible all modern windows operating systems can run all the prior versions of DirectX.

By tacked on I mean they've upgraded an existing engine (frostbite 1) and added DX11 effects to upgrade the engine to frostbite 2, everything I've seen with the Frostbite 2 engine has looked a bit naff, the lighting specifically is not very nice in my opinion, this was the single biggest graphical issue in BFBC2 and it honestly didn't seem a whole lot better in BF3. I'm not sure how they're doing their global illumination but there's just not as much depth to the a lot of the scenes, it's all a bit...evenly lit.

 

[Red Hawk]

Engines do not require DX11 or DX10 to run on PC, its backwards compatible all modern windows operating systems can run all the prior versions of DirectX.

By tacked on I mean they've upgraded an existing engine (frostbite 1) and added DX11 effects to upgrade the engine to frostbite 2, everything I've seen with the Frostbite 2 engine has looked a bit naff, the lighting specifically is not very nice in my opinion, this was the single biggest graphical issue in BFBC2 and it honestly didn't seem a whole lot better in BF3. I'm not sure how they're doing their global illumination but there's just not as much depth to the a lot of the scenes, it's all a bit...evenly lit.

Try installing Battlefield 3 on a Windows XP machine, then.

Isn't that how all these engines are working? Cryengine 3, Unreal Engine 4, etc., are all pre-established engines which have been revamped and retooled to use DirectX 11. Simply disliking the implementation of the effects does not somehow indicate that the implementation is more primitive or less complete than the implementation in other engines.