Rate the new FPS demo engines

warnea1984 · 9 Nov 2007 at 18:54

OK we've all had a really good few weeks for fps demo's, and I was wondering how you would rate their engines.
The games are Crysis, COD4, UT3,
Give each category a mark out of 10
The categories are;
-Visuals
-Physics
-Stability
-Speed
If you want next to the score you can put a sort reason why you gave it that score in brackets.
Please keep in mind that we are only reviewing the demo engines, not the full retail or future patched engines.

So for me I've only played Crysis and UT3 and my marks are below.
Crysis
-Visuals = 8 (Best looking game ever but not a good as we were first lead to believe)
-Physics = 9 (Not perfect but its very interactive)
-Stability = 10 (Not crashed once for me)
-Speed = 6 (Runs ok but it seems very hard to get any where over 30fps for myself)
UT3
-Visuals = 7 (Looks good but the graphics weren't as good as crysis)
-Physics = 6 (Nothing special)
-Stability = 10 (Not crashed once for me)
-Speed = 10 (Was able to run on top setting and still managed over 30fps)

Zefan · 9 Nov 2007 at 18:58

COD4 runs absolutely stunningly (on 360) and apparently is more or less identical on PS3. That aloe to me is pretty remarkable

It looks amazing and manages to keep a really steady framerate no matter how much action is goin' on. I especially like the FOV and heathaze/explosion wave effects!

warnea1984 · 9 Nov 2007 at 19:01

Zefan said:
COD4 runs absolutely stunningly (on 360) and apparently is more or less identical on PS3. That aloe to me is pretty remarkable It looks amazing and manages to keep a really steady framerate no matter how much action is goin' on. I especially like the FOV and heathaze/explosion wave effects!

Yeah I've got the demo downloaded gona get round to it this weekend, I've heard that the performance and visuals are quite good.

Streeteh · 9 Nov 2007 at 19:11

Crysis - 7

Loads of potential, but its just far too demanding, in terms of the average home pc, mines apparently above average and i've only got a 7800GTX which can't even run it at medium across the board. I shudder to think what the general public will do with this engine.

UE3 - 9

Well the beta demo runs well on my system, Gears runs quite well, though the stuttering issues trouble me. I hope this is a game specific issue, not a engine issue or else it will be a doomed engine without a fix. It looks stunning though, the ability to modify the post processing, in order to reduce the bloom-o-doom is also a blessing.

CoD - 10

It looks stunning, it's not an over-the-top bloomfest like the majority of new engines seem to do these days. It has many subtle features that all add together to make, at moments, an utterly awe inspiring visual experience (the moment in the hotel reception room in chernobyl anyone?). It runs disturbingly well on my system too, it looks better and runs faster than all of the new opposition. I fear the lack of DX10 features may hurt it in terms of future development.

-|ScottFree|- · 9 Nov 2007 at 19:11

Streeteh said:
Crysis - 7

I shudder to think what the general public will do with this engine.

The general public buy consoles!!

geeza · 9 Nov 2007 at 19:13

Crysis
-Visuals 8 great, but not what promised
-Physics 9 great
-Stability 10 didnt crash
-Speed 6 poor - reasonable in medium on my x1800

Cod4
-Visuals 6 looked like cod2 to me with nicer smoke and textures
-Physics 7 only played a bit but seemed ok, nothing great
-Stability 10 didnt crash
-Speed 7 a bit better than crysis but looked loads worse

UT3
-Visuals 7 looks very good
-Physics 6 didnt see any really
-Stability 10 didnt crash
-Speed 9 around 30fps in highest

GOW
-Visuals 7 looks very good
-Physics 6 didnt play it long enough really
-Stability 10 didnt crash
-Speed 5 went from 60fps to 15fps!? loads of stutter

edit -crysis visuals should be 10, because as we have seen u can make it look amazing, if you have the hardware

agnes · 9 Nov 2007 at 19:30

geeza said:
Crysis
-Visuals 8 great, but not what promised
-Physics 9 great
-Stability 10 didnt crash
-Speed 6 poor - reasonable in medium on my x1800

Cod4
-Visuals 6 looked like cod2 to me with nicer smoke and textures
-Physics 7 only played a bit but seemed ok, nothing great
-Stability 10 didnt crash
-Speed 7 a bit better than crysis but looked loads worse

UT3
-Visuals 7 looks very good
-Physics 6 didnt see any really
-Stability 10 didnt crash
-Speed 9 around 30fps in highest

GOW
-Visuals 7 looks very good
-Physics 6 didnt play it long enough really
-Stability 10 didnt crash
-Speed 5 went from 60fps to 15fps!? loads of stutter

edit -crysis visuals should be 10, because as we have seen u can make it look amazing, if you have the hardware

you do realise the GoW engine is UE3 with some very minor tweaks right?

but aye, everyone has the stutter problem, gets really annoying after a while and puts gameplay off.

for me, i would say:

CryEngine
-Visuals 8 - as everyone else said, misleading
-Physics 9 - impressive and new
-Stability 9 - one hitch which was caused by myself
-Speed 6 - for a gtx sli setup, i was getting 50fps average on everything high with 4xAA... joke tbh

Cod4
-Visuals 8 - without spoiling the game, they managed to keep that 'CoD' feel with some original textures, but added in briliant lighting
-Physics 6 - didnt notice anything player caused, mostly scripted explosions
-Stability 10 - solid
-Speed 10 - 60+ fps 90% of the time, very rarely did i go below

UT3
-Visuals 9 - love the UE3 looks... vivid = stunning
-Physics 5 - it has physics?
-Stability 10 - solid
-Speed 10 - not ONCE did i go below 60fps... amazing

ags

geeza · 9 Nov 2007 at 19:39

^ yeh it looked similar thinking about it. UT3 demo ran perfectly with bots on full and neally all options on highest. GOW i played it for a few minutes and it ran like junk. I had fraps on and it said 30fps yet i would walk forward and it stuttered along.

ill just play UT3 instead, i like multiplayer deathmatch, its so much easier than a proper game

Samione · 9 Nov 2007 at 19:40

agnes said:
you do realise the GoW engine is UE3 with some very minor tweaks right? but aye, everyone has the stutter problem, gets really annoying after a while and puts gameplay off.

for me, i would say:

CryEngine
-Visuals 8 - as everyone else said, misleading
-Physics 9 - impressive and new
-Stability 9 - one hitch which was caused by myself
-Speed 6 - for a gtx sli setup, i was getting 50fps average on everything high with 4xAA... joke tbh

Cod4
-Visuals 8 - without spoiling the game, they managed to keep that 'CoD' feel with some original textures, but added in briliant lighting
-Physics 6 - didnt notice anything player caused, mostly scripted explosions
-Stability 10 - solid
-Speed 10 - 60+ fps 90% of the time, very rarely did i go below

UT3
-Visuals 9 - love the UE3 looks... vivid = stunning
-Physics 5 - it has physics?
-Stability 10 - solid
-Speed 10 - not ONCE did i go below 60fps... amazing

ags

All I can say is lol tbh. UT3 engine beating crysis in visuals? Why is everyone so hung up on this one screenshot comparison, they've bothed been cherry picked as best and worst. Sorry mate, but how can you give UT3 and COD4 engine a speed of 10 and cryengine a speed of 6, it's like comparing three bugatti's speed, but one of them having an elephant driving it. It's not proportional to say the least.

geeza · 9 Nov 2007 at 19:44

Samione said:
All I can say is lol tbh. UT3 engine beating crysis in visuals? Why is everyone so hung up on this one screenshot comparison, they've bothed been cherry picked as best and worst. Sorry mate, but how can you give UT3 and COD4 engine a speed of 10 and cryengine a speed of 6, it's like comparing three bugatti's speed, but one of them having an elephant driving it. It's not proportional to say the least.

i agree. id rather play crysis anyday in low-medium than cod4 in high detail

whats your scores?

Samione · 9 Nov 2007 at 19:47

CryEngine
-Visuals 10 -
-Physics 10 -
-Stability 9 -
-Speed 10 -

Cod4
-Visuals 5 -
-Physics 2-
-Stability 10 -
-Speed 6 -

UT3
-Visuals 7 -
-Physics 3 -
-Stability 10 -
-Speed 8 -

Robert · 9 Nov 2007 at 19:48

Crysis has not mislead us. Someone was able to re-produce the same visuals with the sandbox editor. Also how mant TIMES have they said the engine will scale 2 years ahead.

Samione · 9 Nov 2007 at 19:49

Robert said:
Crysis has not mislead us. Someone was able to re-produce the same visuals with the sandbox editor. Also how mant TIMES have they said the engine will scale 2 years ahead.

Exaclty- not to mention crysis is a game that is the generation after the current 'next-gen' consoles - don't be surprised that you can't play it on high with a 7800GTX.

HeX · 9 Nov 2007 at 20:30

CryEngine
-Visuals 10 -
-Physics 8 -
-Stability 10 -
-Speed 5 -

Most detailed engine by far. Physics loose points for blatant sillyness, seriously... wouldn't want to live in a house in korea, one watermellon to the wall and the whole place tumbles to the ground. Top marks for stability not had a problem. Scores low for speed, forever they told us the vids they were showing were on a core2 with a single GTX... suuuuure they were, I expected the game to have far more optimisation than it has.

Cod4
-Visuals 8 -
-Physics 3 -
-Stability 10 -
-Speed 7 -

Superb visuals, but a very limited fov, looks great as its constant action, if you stop to look around though you can see where they have skimped to keep things fast, however doesn't spoil the overall look so still scores high. Physics don't really play a big role. Solid as a rock engine, no crashes at all for me, runs great as well.

UT3/GoW
-Visuals 9 -
-Physics 6 -
-Stability 10 -
-Speed 9 -

Big chunky visuals, but very nice textures, great lighting and hdr, does all the fancy effects like motion blur and depth of field really well. Actually prefer the UT3 engine way of doing depth of field to the crysis one. Physics are pretty good, but most of its scripted, still looks great when you see it. Annother solid engine (been a good set this time round!) so top marks. Runs blindingly fast for such a pretty engine, I have non of this stuttering business people go on about so can only rate it from my personal oppinion, and for me its prolly the best running engine out atm.

oweneades · 9 Nov 2007 at 21:48

Samione said:
All I can say is lol tbh. UT3 engine beating crysis in visuals? Why is everyone so hung up on this one screenshot comparison, they've bothed been cherry picked as best and worst. Sorry mate, but how can you give UT3 and COD4 engine a speed of 10 and cryengine a speed of 6, it's like comparing three bugatti's speed, but one of them having an elephant driving it. It's not proportional to say the least.

He is comparing the speed he encountered based on his system spec. How else is he meant to summarise it?

SixDemons · 9 Nov 2007 at 22:10

CryEngine
Visuals 10 -Stunin.... Best graphic ever... nomather what everybody said...
Physics 9 -Stunin
Stability 7 -Very buggy, but may be a driver issue
Speed 5 -Damn heavy, drivers should improve this but not that much

31/40 Points

Cod4
Visuals 8 -COD2 but a little more bright
Physics 4 -Same as COD2
Stability 9 -Very Stable
Speed 9 -Run even better than COD2 on some old machines....
30/40 Points

UT3/GoW
Visuals 9 -Bioshock doesnt look that good, but gears of wars is other story....
Physics 6 -Not that great
Stability 9 -Very stable
Speed 9 - Real fast, run good in some old PCs....
33/40 Points

Lets hope upcoming drivers improve cryengine a little more... with just 10fps of improvement I think all of us will be happy....

Amnesia · 9 Nov 2007 at 22:22

crysis
visuals 10...currently the best looking game
speed 8.....fps could be better but its still playable

COD4
visuals 9...graphics are only slightly behind crysis...some of the lighting is amazing
speed9...great framerates but not quite as good as ut3

UT3
visuals 8...wasnt impressed by the graphics...was expecting better as its an unreal title
speed 10....as always a superb engine that lets everyone play their game.

dbmzk1 · 9 Nov 2007 at 22:28

Crysis Demo
Visuals = 10 (Best looking game to date by quite a margin - don't see how we have been mislead at all)
Physics = 9 (Fantastic, but a few small bugs)
Stability = 10 (Perfect)
Speed = 7 (Runs kind of slow, but is to be expected)

Total = 9

UT3 Demo and GoW Full Game ignoring stuttering
Visuals = 8 (Looking very nice, but too shiny for me)
Physics = 5 (Good, but nothing special or new)
Stability = 9 (Great, but UT3 didn't like alt-tab on a few occasions.)
Speed = 9 (Runs great)

Total = 7.75

CoD4 Full Game
Visuals = 9 (Very nice, more realistic than UT3)
Physics = 7 (Nice to be able to shoot through fences, destroy walls etc)
Stability = 8 (Crashes when changing res with xfire enabled and needed a hard reset on one occasion)
Speed = 8 (Runs well but slows down in some areas)

Total = 8

IceShock · 9 Nov 2007 at 22:37

strictly speaking from the two demos that iv played:

Crysis demo:

Visuals- 8/10, Would be 9/10 if the demo level's lighting looked like the full potential of what you can do in the editor, or even 10/10 if it looked like the videos and screenshots we have seen.

Physics- 9/10, Would be 10/10 if the jeep's physics was more real, and if the tree's was more destructive to explosion's and if the building's was a tiny bit more solid as they fall down if you throw a chicken at them.

Stability- 9/10, It hasnt crashed on me but it has had some glitche's that iv found.

Speed- 8/10, It isnt as optimized as promised (YET), and hopefully patches will fix it

Total: 34/40
How much i like the game score (not based on any of the other review subjects): 95/100 (a must have game on my account)

COD4 Demo:

Visuals- 7/10, The visuals wasnt so special? some people say it looks better than crysis, i just thaught it was any old shooting game that they just make like they do.

Physics- 8/10, Cant really say whats good and whats bad as there isnt a lot of things like crysis where you can test vehicles and chop down trees and blow buildings up, but yet the running physics and mavity isnt bad ether.

Stability- 10/10 it seemed solid, no crashes no freezes no glitches that i found.

Speed- 8/10 The FPS was high, but yet again i didnt really see what was so special about it? like i said in the visuals bit some people say it looks better than crysis, i just thaught it was any old shooting game that they just make like they do.

Total: 33/40
How much i like the game score(not based on any of the other review subjects): 60/100 (i would not buy this with my own money)

Margaret · 9 Nov 2007 at 22:59

CryEngine2 (Crysis)

Visuals - 10
Physics - 9 (Vehicles are a bit iffy)
Stability - 10
Speed - 10 (Usually 34+ fps with drops to 20's on cut-scenes using the Very High config is fantastic, 1680x1050)
Total 39/40

Could use more optimization (CPU load) and maybe better drivers which will probably arrive nearer the release of the final game.

Unreal 3 UT3 Demo and GoW Full Game
Visuals = 9 (Just a tad annoying with the colours at times)
Physics = 5 (Basic and barely see them in use)
Stability = 10
Speed = 10 (Great)

8800GTX/[email protected]/DDR2 4GB@833