» Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:29 pm In this topic I will show 2 videos, one looking at the visuals of CryEngine2 in the original Crysis, and the second being footage from Crysis3 which utilizes Cryteks latest graphics engine the CryEngine3.
In the following points I make throughout this topic, I will only be judging both videos/engines based entirely on my own opinion, any thoughts and comments are very welcome. I will show both videos with a fairly detailed overview of each and what makes them both so visually stunning, and then after form a detailed comparison of the two. This will be a very LONG post!!! So feel free to skip to the comments part when you feel you have read enough into this and of course viewed my 2 comparison videos. Keep in mind though I am not comparing both the engines too much in terms of there functions and advanced features such as DX11 within CryEngine3 Etc. Instead I am focusing on the visual aspect and why CryEngine3 is still being questioned as to whether it is truly the successor of the CryEngine2.
Now for some time now Crytek has claimed that the visuals on the CryEngine3 used in both Crysis2, and the upcoming Crysis3 are on an advanced and truly next generation graphics engine, and that is claimed to be one of the most, if not THE most unparallelled and unmatched graphics engine around!....But is there recently developed engine really that much better than that of CryEngine2 used in the original Crysis back in 2007? Is there any truth behind these statements, and is it the fault of the developers to have the engine include current consoles instead of an exclusive PC only engine, which has lowered the graphics level to current console hardware, that has made people question the engines performance? Is it this that has made some players question whether this is the reason that the visual quality on the CryEngine3 seems to be lower, even when the graphics settings are maxed out on the PC?
Well here are 2 video links, the first link being the tech demo behind the CryEngine2 exclusive to the PC, and the second being the newly released footage of the Crysis3 single player mission titled 'The Fields'. Now baring in mind that it is 5 years since the original Crysis, my focus here is to assess and really show the difference in quality through such elements as environmental ambiance, colour accuracy, and the general technology behind the stunning visuals and the use of vegetation like flora, trees, and foliage, within each game that Crysis is very well known for. Both videos show off very well the differences in there level of realism, which are different as they all have different visual styles and locations. However My focus is the visual side of the engines and how realistic both the recent installment in the Crysis franchise which utilities the CryEngine3, and there latest additions to the engine, and the focus on the old CryEngine2, to see how they match up in this category...
This link is the Demo for the CryEngine2 and footage of the original Crysis...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOJqXLNfCDs&feature=relmfu
Now watching the footage of this demo really puts things into perspective, as of 5 Years ago we were able to achieve graphics of that quality shown the same year games such as Call of Duty 4 and Mass effect were released which is astounding. Watching this video still blows my mind as to how photo realistic and accurate the colours are represented, and also level of detail and again the level of realism that this engine was capable of in a time that could now be considered a very long time ago using hardware that is ancient. The foliage, dense jungles, and the lighting seemed almost perfect, and you would think 5 years on that this would almost be at the point of real life, right?
Well this next link is footage of the newly released single player mission 'The Fields' utilizing the CryEngine3, and is 5 years on from the original game...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEvCpWaGYsY
That footage from Crysis3 which is running on the CryEngine3 is undeniably beautiful. It shows very clearly a lot of the games vegetation within, and really shows off the environmental and volumetric Lighting and temporal changes in it's visual style. The entire level shows gorgeous water reflections and realistic ripples, dense grassy terrain and an open world like level to explore. This is not to mention the individually rendered strains of grass that make up the dense grassy areas we see in the video. The gritty swamp like terrain I feel is extensively shown and extremely impressive which is clearly evident in this particular mission and is relevant in the comparison of the 2 engines.
Okay now we have seen both videos I would like to compare again all in my own opinion which one I think is the better looking in terms of photo realism. But first Let me say that I do not know what the actual requirements of the each game are for the PC version of course, and I would imagine that with Crysis3 with all the added features and of course the addition of DX11 will make the game more demanding than the original Crysis. Also I have had an extensive overview of the added features from the tech demo of Crysis3 and everything shown such as, real time volumetric shadows, tessellation, next generation in global illumination and much more obviously has upped the hardware requirements even higher as of course these features bring more clarity and graphical improvements to the game. However not compromising the reason I am comparing these 2 engines by potentially contradicting my self, or being ignorant and implying that the logical answer to this question, is saying that the Cryengine3 is the better engine overall simply becasue it has been developed for DX11 and next generation features, is clearly to be avoided as this is not the case as shown in the videos, and in my opinion and hopefully to everyone else who has played the games.
My final verdict and I think a lot of people have said the same as me, is that the visuals in the original Crysis, appear to be a lot better than that of Crysis2 and Crysis3, despite the fact that these 2 games were made 5 years on, and on a brand new engine. The reason a lot of people have said the graphical fidelity is that much better than that of crysis2 and 3, could be the fact that it is clearly evident in the videos, that it being a PC exclusive the optimization of the game and engine meant that there was far greater level of care and detail put into the graphics of the game, without worrying about tailoring it and dumbing it down for console hardware. In comparing the two, the lighting and colours of the vegetation far exceeded those seen in the crysis3 footage, as it seemed that the contrast was overly exaggerated and overly excessive with too many vibrant colours. There wasn't a great range in this regard especially that of the vegetation i.e the grass, which seemed to only use a single shade of green across the entire level. Also the actual grass it self seemed to be exactly the same everywhere in the map even inside the buildings, which highlighted even more the lack of variety that would be expected to make a realistic looking terrain, that again was well executed in Crysis1. Also further adding to the vegetation, was the fact that their only seemed to be one type of tree and again the same dark green used for the grass. It being in NYC you would think that there would be different colours, such as browns and red and yellows aside from the green. Obviously it being only a single mission and area, variation in the vegetation would be limited but is still required even if they are small differences. However in the tech demo for Crysis3 the colours did not seem to be that different in the midst of the city either, and the trees again too similar.
But there may be a possible reason for all of this, and is a reason I briefly mentioned earlier on, and is the fact that because this is now a multiple platform based engine, the game is mostly developed around the specs of the consoles, and then ported over to PC. This means the growth and change in graphics is slowed down hugely!
I hope I wasn't too biased and favored the CryEngine2 over the CryEngine 3 too much, becasue I think the CryEngine3 is still an astounding achievement especially to be able to run such a gorgeous and innovative looking game on 7 year old hardware. I think I balanced both arguments rather well and I could potentially make this even longer but I think this is too long as it is. But anyway ANYBODY who got to the end I thank you and I hope you agree with the points I have made. This may not have answered whether or not the CryEngine3 is an actual successor and is the better engine and not just a solution for consoles, but I hope it gave you a bit of insight into the fundamental differences between the 2 engines and how it has developed over time...
Any comments below are appreciated and are of course optional, I have spend a good few hours writing this simply to make comparisons to the engine so far, and have no doubt lost sleep over this. But any thoughts are again welcome.
Thanks for reading! Love from I FibreOptic I
Piece out!
:)
