Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Games' started by mac000, Jun 10, 2006.
does anyone know this for sure?
No, no one knows. It's possible it might be able to run it at low settings, no HDR, in SD....we'll see.
Probably not, but the Unreal engine is so yesteryear. Now Crysis...
Its a Games Console.
The OS takes up the same size as a mobile phone ringtone.
The answer is very much yes.
(Hard Hat on! )
are u kidding me??? Crysis 2 is still < Unreal 3 engine.
Are you insane? Crysis uses freakin' raytracing, apparently. It's for next gen PC's with physics cards and >$600 graphics cards in SLI and multicore processors.
OMG raytracing, like, that's never been done before wow. No, actually it has. In fact, I'm quite sure I saw the Quake III engine using raytracing at some point.
Of course, raytracing hardly means visual qualty. I can raytrace some of my 3-D scenes in Carrara but if I turn off shadows and refraction and GI, transparency, etc, it'll look like crap. The simple fact that a game has raytracing is not something that's jaw dropping to me. A game that can use raytracing faster than and at the same quality as major 3-D programmes out there would.
You know, before you respond with sarcasm you should do some actual research.
There were some college students that re-wrote Quake 3 to use raytracing, and it required a computer cluster for a decent framerate.
I'll show the visual quality. Nothing ten seconds of google wouldn't have found.
If you think Unreal 3 is better than this, you need to have your eyes checked.
I agree that Crysis looks more life-like than Unreal 3, but I wouldnt exactly call this yesteryear
Oh, neither would I. Both look spectacular. But Crysis is notably better.
I don't know if Crysis can actually run on the PS3/XBox 360 though. The physics and graphics shown were spectacular and so far it's been only announced for the PC, using PhysX graphics chips IIRC.
The point of my comment is that simply because an engine uses raytracing does not automagically increase its visual quality. In fact, most commercial renderers use an amalgam of techniques to produce their images, one of which includes raytracing, but it is slow and thus needs speed boosts for commercial productivity. In fact, simply implementing a ray-tracing algorithm (assuming your graphics card doesn't make, say, Z-buffer errors like was common in the olden days of graphics cards) doesn't really improve the quality unless the source also improves (standard GIGO) or additional rendering effects (HDRI, GI, etc) are added. Some of the best landscapes I've seen are done actually using a fully procedural method (see ArtMatic Voyager http://www.uisoftware.com/Voyager/VYGallery.html by U&I Software).
Technically speaking, a raytracing game engine could have been made years ago, it just wasn't practical. (and, at least according to Wikipedia's article on ray tracing, it has been done since the 90s in real-time game engines, albeit not in commercial games). The fact that a ray-tracing engine is available today has less to do with any amazing advancement in game engine development, and far more to do speed advancements and price drops on the hardware required to run it. The plain and simple fact is that an old Atari COULD run a raytracing engine, but whether it would be practical is another question entirely.
All points summed up: simply having raytracing in an engine neither implicates nor necessitates increased quality (all is dependent on source material) nor advanced rendering techniques (because raytracing is decades old).
Quake 3 has a raytracing mod yes. Have you heard about the computer used to make it run at a decent frame rate?
Crysis runs on 1 PC at a good speed, it just needs to be a very good PC. Frankly I've never seen anything as powerful as Crysis, it's like looking at a Quad G5 setup compared to the numbers we're getting for Quad Woodcrest. both fast, but one is majorly better
LADIES cant both be excellent?
It's the gameplay that will be important at the end of the day Get back into your corners, pick uop your handbags and take out your lipstick and have a chill pill
Bitc* fighting on the games forum, what next
Crysis will eventually see a ps3/xbox 360 release. How close it will look to the demos we've seen so far remains to be seen, but the same can be said about an ordinary currently available top of the line pc a this stage....
personally i'd take crisis over unreal any day.
Aye me too, probably because I haven't played a decent game with the Unreal engine since UT99.
I mentioned the Crysis engine because people seem to think this Unreal 3 engine is the be-all end-all engine. when frankly, it's just *another* engine which has lost its grip as the fanboys favourite to the uncanny valley of Crysis.
I should hope my upcoming PC built specifically to run Crysis should will run the Unreal 3 very, very well.
Uhh...please don't quote 7 huge images. It's unnecessary and makes the thread hard to read, thank you.
I second that!
And anyway, who wants to play another bloody PC FPS when when we can all start our Lightsaber training instead?
Where have you been?
Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_engine and look down the list of games that have used the Unreal engines (1/2/2.5/3)... that is a dang good list, have you not played and liked any of those??
As for Crysis using raytracing... well... I'll go look into that but it is something I highly doubt! Why? There is no hardware available to accelerate raytracing, leaving it entirely CPU bound. Then if it is going to be rendered at all won't it need passed to the GPU? I'd need some proof to believe that claim!
EDIT: I looked up CryENGINE2 on both Crytek.com as well as on Wikipedia.org and found no mention of ray-tracing at all. A google search for "Crysis ray tracing" and "CryENGINE2 ray tracing" pulls up a bunch of nothing as well... how this rumor got started, I don't know!
Weird, have had a bunch of people telling me that. Thought it was a bit off.
This might by why:
That's what I thought too.
Maybe my tastes are different, but none of those game vaguely appeal to me. Psi Ops was good for a short while, till the novelty wore off. Duke Forever is the only Unreal engine game I'm looking forward too, whether or not it's good or bad is yet to be seen.
Americas Army, Splinter Cell, Postal 2... nah. not my cup of tea. Unreal 2 was absolute pants.
Why wouldn't it run? Once screen-size is factored into the equation, the Wii is nearly as powerful as the Xbox 360.
not in any way shape or form is the wii nearly as fast as the 360, ffs it has a crappy 700MHz ppc and a crummy low end ATI card Vs the 360's triple 3.2GHz core and a 500MHz 48 pipeline monster of a GPU with shader effects on a whole nother plane compared to "hollywood"
Ashame, I'd say these games were quite good:
Deus Ex (original)
Theif: Deadly Shadows
Splinter Cell series (you have to like stealth games in general though, I do and these are the best in the genre)
XIII (A very fun FPS actually, and love the comic book look)
Ragnarok Online 2 (Okay, it's not even out and I haven't played it, but RO1 was a blast)
Tribes: Vengeance (always been a fan since the original)
UT2K4 (runs so great on Mac too!)
Upcoming - BioShock (from the System Shock people, much hype I have for this)
Upcoming - Gears of War (reason to own a 360? perhaps?)
Upcoming - Mass Effect (Bioware, plus... see above?)
Upcoming - SWAT 5 (Hey, one of the artists is a guy I know, must support that, heh)
Upcoming - Too Human (see reasons: Gears of War?)
Anyway, it's a great engine, props to Epic and their Jazz Jackrabbit beginnings. UE3 looks to become the defacto-standard in game engines and is seeing more licensees then likely any other engine before it. id Software loses this time around... UE3 vs Doom3? hah!
Well, no one knows the final specs of the Wii at this point, but it is rumored to be twice as powerful as the Gamecube. The Xbox 360 is said to be 4 to 5 times more powerful than the original Xbox.
Here's the kicker though... Wii games are optimized for SD resolutions, while Xbox 360 games are optimized for HD resolutions. Twice the resolution requires FOUR TIMES the processing power. So most of the Xbox 360's power is simply going towards producing a HD picture.
I've played the Xbox 360, and it looks great because it is in high resolution and has high resolution textures, not because it is puming out tons more polygons or is using a bunch of processor intensive special effects.
In the end, Wii games and Xbox 360 games should look quite similar when viewed on standard definition TV sets.