The mod isn't finished yet, so they should apply for the MOTY 2008, instead of hunting players attention with nice static screenies.
Nevertheless, the crytec graphic engine is lightyears better than the unreal or half life source engine. Don't know, why so many developers are paying a license for the unreal and half life source engine.
' Wrote:The mod isn't finished yet, so they should apply for the MOTY 2008, instead of hunting players attention with nice static screenies.
Nevertheless, the crytec graphic engine is lightyears better than the unreal or half life source engine. Don't know, why so many developers are paying a license for the unreal and half life source engine.
Respectful
AoM
If the crytec engine 2 has always a performance like in Crysis i can understand why the developers (developers! developers! :lol:) do so :tease:.
@ Flo: The problem is not the crytec engine. The problem is direct X 10. So it is up to Micro(Money)soft to solve the problem along with (hasta la) Vista.
I don't agree with AoM. I've been working with Unreal tech for many years myself both as a hobbyist level designer and employed by companies. All I can say is that it's one of the most sophisticated and friendly engines I've seen, and I've seen many others. Although those engines are being used for the same game genre they are essentially different as to what they are geared for the most. Don't judge only by what engines can do technically as it always comes down as to how developer teams can use that technology properly, what visual style they follow and how well that technology can work with it. In my opinion: games are all about fun, when simple 2D platformer, shmup, action or rpg game can bring loads of hours of pure fun while you're just yawning through the single player campaign of some high tech engine demo-game, to me it rings a bell: something is terribly wrong with fun factor of the latter game.
' Wrote:I don't agree with AoM. I've been working with Unreal tech for many years myself both as a hobbyist level designer and employed by companies. All I can say is that it's one of the most sophisticated and friendly engines I've seen, and I've seen many others. Although those engines are being used for the same game genre they are essentially different as to what they are geared for the most. Don't judge only by what engines can do technically as it always comes down as to how developer teams can use that technology properly, what visual style they follow and how well that technology can work with it. In my opinion: games are all about fun, when simple 2D platformer, shmup, action or rpg game can bring loads of hours of pure fun while you're just yawning through the single player campaign of some high tech engine demo-game, to me it rings a bell: something is terribly wrong with fun factor of the latter game.
I agree with you. I work at a game store and we can't sell crisis. No one has a PC that can run it. The unreal engine is tried and true technology. I have seen/played some pretty spectacular games made by small time and major developers based on unreal. (Correct me If I am wrong but BioShock is one of them)
Source is by far one of the most realistic physics capable engines on the market. Heck I have a friend in university who uses it for simulations for his theory class. Besides, with the right developers source can look very impressive too.
hey
i was in the store the other day lookin at Crysis...when saleman told me not to buy it
cause it requires some CRAZY game system...is that true?
and if so...what does it need?
![[Image: aviary_pteratopslodge.jpg]](http://media.moddb.com/images/mods/1/9/8320/aviary_pteratopslodge.jpg)
![[Image: GlossyNew2copy-1.png]](http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z57/dopamino/GlossyNew2copy-1.png)
![[Image: mmdhapiruna2.png]](http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/893/mmdhapiruna2.png)
