I know that but the rest of the article is talking explicitly about graphics so it seems contradictory.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Illusionstar Games on why UE4 worse than CRYENGINE;feels cartoonish,lacks features
- Thread starter Poetic.Injustice
- Start date
I know that but the rest of the article is talking explicitly about graphics so it seems contradictory.
Glass Rebel
Member
I was thinking more that after one generation of bullshit generalizations they will have to face a different one.
Well, that's pretty impressive. I guess I can see where they're coming from... even though the rest of the argument doesn't make any sense.
GameAddict411
Member
The unreal engine is more than capable of handling cinematic story-telling and has high efficiency in delivering high quality graphics.
Maybe CE now has better work flow?
While UE reigned supreme last gen, I am not really seeing devs jumping on UE this gen. Guilty Gear Xrd looks amazing though. Is that UE3 or 4?
UE3, Rime is UE4 though.
ambientmystic
Member
Yeah, the character models often have that roided up "Gears" look to them.
Some games have done well to mask themselves as UE3 based ones though. A very good example would the Batman Arkham games. The first one doesn't look like a UE3 game at all.
Hmm, it really seems like Epic will have a rough time this gen. I'm really wondering what Tencent wants to do with Epic.
This is just insane. Majority of UE3 games don't have the roided up look at all. Arkham Asylum does though.
Forsaken82
Member
This sounds like an argument from someone with no artistic creativity. Having used both UE3 and CryEngine 3 Extensively, both certainly have there advantages. I have never felt artistically restricted using either...
The most confusing part to me is how it says UE3/UE4 looks cartoonish, CRYENGINE looks photorealistic...and cartoonish might be good for some games but not this one. Thus CRYENGINE.
And then after saying they picked CRYENGINE for graphical reasons they say graphics don't matter and storylines/gameplay is what CRYENGINE allows them to deliver.
Also having to type fnord CRYENGINE fnord in all fnord CRYENGINE fnord capital letters feels weird.
It was pretty obvious, and 30fps was a dead giveaway.
I think that, had I known nothing about the popularity of the Unreal engine, had the games not displayed any UE3 logos, and if I didn't dig through configuration files, it wouldn't be particularly obvious that all UE3 games share the same engine. Post-lightmass, at least.
30fps is not at all unique on those platforms. Hardly a "dead giveaway".
I don't know what in DmC specifically stands out as UE3.
30fps is not at all unique on those platforms. Hardly a "dead giveaway".
I don't know what in DmC specifically stands out as UE3.
I haven't used the latest version of CryEngine but I have played around with the latest builds of UE4 (not work-related) and I'm definitely confused as to what he would consider cartoonish about the engine. The visuals being cartoonish or not depend on the assets you make. The only thing I could think of is the default antialiasing that the engine has, but even that can be modified easily.
Otherwise, the shaders work in the same way as many other new engine's, and the lighting system isn't cartoonish at all.
Otherwise, the shaders work in the same way as many other new engine's, and the lighting system isn't cartoonish at all.
Forsaken82
Member
I didn't realize framerate determined the engine in use.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
That's not UE. That's bad normal mapping.
Isn't that caused by the default UE libraries?
UE3 just can't. Mortal Kombat developers had LOTS of troubles and that was a fighting game. Hopefully 4 is better. CryEngine certainly has produced better results so far though.
The question was whether a game running at 30fps on PS3/360 could be assumed to be a UE3 game. Considering the massive number of games powered by other engines that run at that framerate on those platforms, and considering a small few UE3 games that run at 60 on those platforms, the answer is clearly "no".
And bad normal/specular mapping is something that can happen in any engine supporting those things.
Harp said:
I'll argue that similar-looking Unreal Engine 3 games are usually that way due to developer choice more than anything the engine is forcing.
dragonelite
Member
Maybe the editor is better.
You buy or license the whole package that is engine and tools.
CapitalismSucks DonkeyBalls
Banned
Batman was a bulky GoW character (did you see his forearms?) Goons were roided up, Two-Face never missed arm day. The Joker was the only meek character in that game.
It looked like a UE3 game through-and-through. Bioshock: Infinite is a better example, IMO.
Wait there are 60 FPS CryEngine games on consoles?
Loading Textures too. heh
Who do so many UE games keep texture pop-in turned on? Does it cause a lot of stuttering on last-gen consoles if not enabled? And why don't they offer an option to turn it off on the PC versions? Borderlands 2 is the only UE game I can think of that lets you turn it off in the settings. And it didn't seem to affect my performance much.
pretty done
Member
It's doubly hilarious as Crytek's own games usually have horrible gameplay and story.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
It's caused by the lack of sub surface scattering or detail textures for skin. Skin is slightly translucent and has minor imperfections. Low poly models make it look even worse. R* is notorious for this.
A game engine isn't going to do all the necessary work for you. It takes a lot of artistic talent to make realistic graphics.
This reminds me of the time when people said Cryengine couldn't do cartoony or non-jungle scenes, because Crysis had been made with jungles in mind.
Engine =/= art design
Woah, what?
Story, sure, but gameplay? Crytek's always been up there with the best of the best, AI aside.
Engine =/= art design
Woah, what?
Story, sure, but gameplay? Crytek's always been up there with the best of the best, AI aside.
Because it saves VRAM, don't have to cache as much.
I find this whole argument a bit dubious, to be honest. I've spent a good amount of time with UDK, and found Unreal's toolset to be very conducive to game making, even if the graphics aren't photorealistic. While I can't really comment on Cryengine, I guess I can agree that it looks more realistic, but I feel that Unreal ends up far, far more optimized and is perfectly easy to port for, from my understanding. If you prefer one engine over another, great, be my guest, but I'm not sure I buy the argument in the article.
The loading textures, AA solution, framerate hitches, and the way the shaders look put me off in all but Mirror's Edge but I'm sure that wasn't vanilla UE with DICE working on it and all.
inpHilltr8r
Member
lighting model
Ryoohki360
Neo Member
There's quite a few Cryengine 3.5+ games being develop right now. Star Citizen, that new Middle Age RPG game etc.. it's nice to see variety. UE4 will excel in SciFi imho..
Licensing UE gives you access to the source code, so I'm sure DICE rewrote a good portion of it, especially in regards to lighting.
Vire
Member
This guy probably has an agenda to push cryengine. I can't imagine he actually thinks that the engine dictates art style at all unless they are being super lazy and just using everything stock.
Specially with what they have been demoing with UE4. It doesn't look cartoony or like gears at all.
While on the topic it is interesting how most developers have moved away from using middleware engines and just make their own these days.
Specially with what they have been demoing with UE4. It doesn't look cartoony or like gears at all.
While on the topic it is interesting how most developers have moved away from using middleware engines and just make their own these days.
SolidSnakeUS
Member
That article broke my brain...
PlayStationboy
Banned
I'm cool with "Cartoonish" Maybe the engine will lead to more Pixar/DreamWorks style games rather than the realistic bald marine look 
I'm assuming you're NDA'd out the wazoo, but do you have any guesses at all as to when UE4 might become available in UDK form?
Mirror's Edge used static lighting baked by the Beast engine and imported into the game, I believe.
OldAsUrSock
Banned
The problem with Cryengine is that is has Chromatic Aberration on by default.
When it comes to the whole "Mirror's Edge uses totally different lighting" thing, DICE actually just imported external lightmaps. As far as I can tell from what they've said in interviews, at least.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
I'm not seeing that trend at all. Unless you meant to say the opposite.
Most devs choose UE for the toolset and support. CryEngine isn't on the same level in that department. It's pretty rare to see third parties use it for that reason.
Sanic
Member
They're just saying that, out of the box using default solutions, CryEngine gave them more of the look they were going for.
Still seems like an odd thing to say, and i'm guessing that English is not that individuals native language.
In the AAA space I think there's been a move away. I would agree that overall usage of third party tools has increased.
Still seems like an odd thing to say, and i'm guessing that English is not that individuals native language.
In the AAA space I think there's been a move away. I would agree that overall usage of third party tools has increased.
As a few people have already pointed out, an engine does not dictate the look of a game. The grey and brown colors, somewhat saturated scenes, roided-up characters, and heavy normal mapping are stylistic choices made by the developer. This also contributes to the tupe fallacy a lot of people are falling for. Gears of War was made with UE and set stylistic themes that many developers embraced over the past several years. It was also somewhat of an ad for the engine that in some part led a lot of developers to use it. Put these two together, and you have a widely used engine for games that are intentionally drawing from aspects of Gears' style.
As for the news story, I find it really odd. Googling the studio, I found the first page and a half all referencing this article. The studio hasn't actually released a game yet from what I can tell, which makes them a strange choice for the subject of a news story.
The explanation he gives is also really vague and unintuitive, making me think maybe there were some licensing or monetary reasons they didn't go with UE, and rather than air that in public they leaned on the technical differences without really thinking the explanation through. Or, as is most likely, we're all over thinking this. Yup, that's it.
As for the news story, I find it really odd. Googling the studio, I found the first page and a half all referencing this article. The studio hasn't actually released a game yet from what I can tell, which makes them a strange choice for the subject of a news story.
The explanation he gives is also really vague and unintuitive, making me think maybe there were some licensing or monetary reasons they didn't go with UE, and rather than air that in public they leaned on the technical differences without really thinking the explanation through. Or, as is most likely, we're all over thinking this. Yup, that's it.
It's really been a move towards publisher owned, internal engines for the most part, rather than individual studios.
Certainly UE4 hasn't been announced for any major release, save for the new Fable.
EDIT: And the next Gears.