By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Zkuq on 24 March 2009
Edit Thread
vlad321 said:
Zkuq said:
vlad321 said:
Let me get this straight, 2 years down the road and all we get is.... this? Seriously? What a waste of human time and manpower. Epic went from UE2 to UE3 in 4 years yes, but the jump between 2 and 3 was huge. This? This is just wasted time.

Well, even if it's not very impressive compared to CE2, it doesn't mean it's not impressive compared to other engines. CryEngine 2 is still easily the most impressive engine on the market (CE3 isn't on the market yet), and its only drawback is its high system requirements. Anyway, right now hardware is the limiting factor; there isn't much room for improvement until devs learn the systems even better than now.

 

Honestly, hardware is only limiting the consoles, not the PC. Basically they spent 2 years keeping tech at a level when the hardware is getting better and better. You don't even need a super expensive PC to run CryEngine 2 now. Would have been better if they had worked on their AI or making a noticeable difference on CryEngine 2 (iono how they'd manage that, honestly).

Well, we've only seen console footage so far so in that sense hardware is the limiting factor. I, too, am expecting the PC version to be far superior, if not in quality, then in performance. Actually even now the console versions seem to have rather horrible framerate. Of course I don't know how CE3 will turn out to be at its best but at least they said it'd scale well so it might actually be good. What we've seen so far isn't too impressive compared to CE2, though... But maybe we'll see more later. A modified CE2 could have been a good idea but I feel what they did was possibly better: they don't have to worry about hearing of bad optimization or the engine running on PC only. It's sort of a new beginning.

That said, so far CE3 doesn't seem like much of an improvement.