For anyone who doubts the Crysis Engine.

I find this more impressive:



Ok, the movement animations are little too exaggerated, but it's along the right lines. The graphics though are beyond anything we have right now, even BF3. We had this tech four years ago, but because of consoles, it's not gone anywhere. I'm not sure who to blame, but Crytek have to be commended for what they achieved with Cryengine 2 - it's was truly a no compromise, **** consoles engine.:(
 
Longbow said:
There's a reason why most games don't look like Doom now-a-days. People want it to be visually appealing, as well as having good gameplay.
Click to expand...

The other problem is anyone who dares question the top level graphics being labelled old fasioned and apparently only wanting 8 bit graphics... :rolleyes:

There is a balance, and the trend with a lot of game designers at the moment is to far on the looking nice side of the scale, to the detriment of game play.

Its also an issue with peoples perceptions. I've known people dismiss a game simply because it doesn't look nice, to the extent they have refused to even download a demo or try a game on someone else's machine.
 
Yeah I agree entirely that gameplay > graphics - take Crysis as a prime example.

However I am also a sucker for graphics as well :D Skyrim wouldn't be as fun IMO if the graphics were crap. I would still love it, but the graphics (and never forget good audio too) add a lot to the immersion.
 
willhub said:
Who to believe, that guy or Notch? Who to believe?
Click to expand...

Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?

Personally, as one post in the comments of the 0.7 animation video says, even if it's fake, it not like they are running around asking for money, no point abusing them like some have, if at the end their claims are true, you'll just have egg on your face, but you'll still get the benefit, graphic's that will be a ****load more capable than current gen, WIN!

for all the glossy niceties of Crisis 1+2 and metro, you still look at the floor and textures and think... **** that's just a flat, smudged picture
 
It is all smoke and mirrors and rubbish in my opinion. Why is the whole environment on rubbish square grids? Everything just looks like it is built on a basic grid layout. Surely if you were going to show off a tech demo, combined with the fact that it is apparently so easy to make things in their engine, why would you not make a stunning island like landscape with beaches and waves lapping the shore e.t.c. :confused:

He just keeps saying " when we are ready" " we aren't going to show you that yet". Which is subtext for " we don't know how to do that yet, probably never will, and we are actually a bunch of strange Aussie fraudsters"

That bit when he asked about animation made me laugh as well. They show some terrible footage that was supposedly done 7 years ago and then the bloke says that they "of course" :rolleyes: have better animation now but that they don't want to show it because it isn't quite finished.

Why do 3D animated films use polygons and use huge server farms that take ages to render one frame when they could just be making the whole film so easily with a few guys and a laptop?

It is all complete baloney in my opinion.
 
To me it just looks like the 3D equivalent of viewing a 2D photo. Look at a photo, the graphics are obviously amazing (being a real photo) but it's useless for anything other than viewing, because nothing is actually being rendered, it's simply a captured/scanned image of real life, nothing can be moved/manipulated or be animated, it's completely static.

Notice how apart from the camera viewpoint, everything in that demonstration is static, no dynamic lighting effects, no shader effects, no dyamically modelled geometry, just a completely static world.

Also, as someone already pointed out, why is everything being repeated over and over again, in a very grid like fashion? Sure, if you look closely at something, it looks amazingly detailed, but zoom out a bit and it's just the same objects being repeated over and over again. This tells me that just like a massively high res image/video, it's taking massive amounts of memory - trying to create a proper gameworld with a reasonable level of unique assests will require stupid amounts of storage.

The more I think about it, the more this seems like holodeck technology from Star Trek, except the holodeck particles don't actually exist and are represented virtually on a normal 2D screen. Viewing a static scene is mostly just a matter of having enough storage to hold the position and makeup of every particle, but for the particles to move and interact with proper physics would require computational power not really possible right now, unless something like quantum computing lifts off big time.

Honestly, I hope they succeed in what they're trying to achieve, but I think the dude in that video is being a little too sneaky for my liking and trying to brush aside some major questions about his tech (for whatever reason).
 
The game industry is fairly fast to adopt new technologies as they become available. Look out for games using this `engine`in the near future...or maybe not:D Not gonna happen. This tech is an evolutionary dead-end as far as games graphics are concerned, and as Notch said the guy is basically a scammer/troll who has been making these videos for years only God knows how he still manages to find investors.
 
Is it just me or was that staircase the grand Staircase in the Titanic?

I could say right now that it's missing some ornamentation, but for a real time rendering it's pretty damn good. A far cry from the Mental Ray/Vray renders I do which take 10-20mins a frame :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom