Ok compare the Creation engine from what you have seen in the videos and say your opinion on it plus telling what for you are the pro and cons of this engine compared to the others , what has more and what has less ???

Vote comparing to the others so if let's say for you Cryengine is 10 then vote accordingly ....

Explain the reasons why tough please....


CryEngine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Kvl31g77Z8

Unreal engine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSXyztq_0uM

Anvil Engine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coC33tc3lws

Dragon Dogma's Engine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybJD9jAg_Cg

Frostbite 2 Engine :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pNOxynC1Dc

Rage Engine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pROWml_4sYQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edmTtBnHmV0



IDtech 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4ieFw2s7Fw&feature=related


Naughty Dog Game Engine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwywuVzrJTg

IW Engine:
http://uk.ign.com/videos/2011/06/08/e3-2011-modern-warfare-3-video-preview

Chrome Engine 4 :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4kyEW1zKAM

Hard to say as I have only seen streamed videos off the internet, it will look completley different whan you are playing it off your system.

Things that aren't as great as they could be like the physice of the giant dropped by the dragon could well be improved by the time the game is released, if not already, does anyone know how old the gameplay footage from E3 actually is.

Still overall I am impressed, I especially liked the ruuning water in the cave. I give it a 8/10

Edit: The unreal engine 3 is pretty damn good though

I don't know.

Its from videos.

Its running from the flopbox.

How about something from a pc.

Then I rate it.

all of the footage I saw has been recorded from an internet stream that svcked. When we are given nice clear images then I will decide what the game looks like. Better yet once I have the game running on my machine, then I will decide.

I will say I was impressed with some of the stuff I saw, even if it was all blurry and full of artifacts.

The creation engine is complete and utter [censored] compared to those other engines. Skyrim looks no better than Oblivion.

What are we rating it on?? Graphics?? Suitability for a TES game?? Multiplayer?? :\

They are all extremely mediocre, those engines can run on consoles no problem, but there is no way in hell you can run it on PCs with equivalent processor power.

Bottom line: As long as a game based on an engine that runs perfectly on 2005/2006 hardware is going to stress out my core i7 and GF580 I will say it svcks :meh:

The actual game may feel different than in the videos, I don't know, but it's a fact they didn't show us what this engine CAN do, there was nothing spectacular engine wise in the demo, they only show what they have made it do. Given the console limitation, I doubt they will use this engine at its potential, maybe for next TES.

A solid 6, maybe a 7 with one eye closed.

Of course, that's based on the videos, which is hardly fair on any engine.

What exactly are we comparing? Where is the Creation engine demo?

I wouldn't go that far, if you compare the skyrim pictures with Oblivion's you can see a big difference, I've noticed a lot of criticism from you I'm curious, do you actually plan on buying the game? also the footage we saw, isn't that the same footage Game informer saw? if that's the case then the footage is almost a year old and it's possible they've improved a lot of things like the physics of the giant falling.

All those engine are top quality :goodjob: but an engine is half of what we need (or even less), the most important is what a dev can do with a given engine. I want to see a game comparable to Skyrim on the other engines and made to be smooth on the 360, then I'll rate the Creation engine.

Cryengine 2 > Every engine out there.. Cryengine 3 is a POS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhaQmNmb0CQ&playnext=1&list=PL5F311BBE9E10A8E9

Also as a side note just to point it out.. can't really judge Graphic engines that are built for console anymore since devs already maxed them out years ago in terms of graphics.

It may not be the very best engine in the world, but to say it's no better than Oblivion is just stupid.

Graphically it is lightyears better http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2011/02/Oblivion_vs._Skyrim.jpg, the differnce is pretty significant.

The physice are better, although I admit could use a little improvement. In Oblivion when you shot someone with an arrow they flew half way across the room, however in the gameplay demo when a NPC is shot with an arrow they simply fall to the floor (without the cristiano ronaldo diving involved)

The water in the dungeon is, I think spectacular and even if you don't you can't claim it to be worse or no better than Oblivion.

This.

It's perfect.

There is way more to a game engine than graphics. And there are too many factors to take into account, so no vote from me.

How it looks depends a great deal on how good the artists, how detailed the textures are are how many effects are used, the hardware it's running on and so on rather than the engine. I mean, the Unreal 3 engine is behind both http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QIBaKX_RkU and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSXyztq_0uM, but one of the videos look noticeably better. Not to mention that the looks of Oblivion been greatly enhanced thanks to various mods, but it's still the same engine.

The biggest difference between the Creation Engine and most other game engines is that the Creation engine is pretty much coded for a general case. The other engines are pretty much "special purpose" engines. The areas are all pre-calculated and optimized, few things (if any) ever changes in them, etc. Whereas Creation Engine is coded for the general case. Basically, Creation Engine is sort of like Microsoft Word, and the master esm file is a document. The program has to handle the general case for everything -- terrain, buildings, statics, items, NPC's, etc. But an Unreal 3 engine game can have specific code to handle specific areas, they can pre-calculate lighting (even with weather & time of day changes), they can optimize paths and collision, etc. This makes the Creation Engine slightly slower than the competition, but I think it's a perfectly valid trade-off, going with better and easier to develop content over render speed. It makes it easier for the developers to make a huge explorable game world filled with interactive clutter and it also proved to be a very GOOD thing for the TES modding community for the past 2 games.

If Betheda had started to work on Skyrim with the Unreal 3 engine, I'm sure it would still be years from being completed, the game would require multiple discs (the esp plug-ins is a very efficient way to store game world data) and have longer loading times. But I there would have been a slightly higher framerate.

It wouldn't really have looked any different though, cause there would have been the same artists working on the game anyway, and they would have made the game for the current consoles anyway and everything wouldn't be able to be in great detail cause it's a large open game so a lot of things will have "medium" quality instead of a few things having "high" quality. The smaller the game, the more detailed it is. Just compare a character from GTAIV to a character in Soul Calibur IV or something (they were both released the same year), the Soul Calibur IV characters look noticeably better and more detailed. There is really no way Skyrim will look better on the PS3 compared to a linear level based game on the same platform, such as Uncharted. The focuses of the games are simply too different.


They are the same thing.

+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

From the videos a 6 or 7 i gave it a 6 cuz the phisics looked terrible(yes the dragon picking the giant) the rain didn't seem realistic, water was ok but could had more reflection, but i gess it too early to judge only by the graphics i am still waiting to see something about that radiant story.

Judging solely on the graphics, and based purely on what we've seen so far, and considering the fact that we have nothing all that similar to compare it to, I think the fairest rating is "incomplete." But for the sake of the thread, and again taking into account that we've only seen a sliver of the engine's capability, and also considering that the engine is designed to operate on consoles and provide a seamless experience in a massive, partially dynamic open world, I give it a 9/10.

Sorry to say but creation engine is league or 2 below the other you mentioned in your post, especially cry engine 3, chrome engine 4...wow

There is a huge difference between how they use the engine, and its actual power.

Also, I agree with Freddo.

Isnt this a bit premature? Let them release the game and then judge the engine.

I've rated it 8, it's hard to tell honestly all we've seen are blurry videos, played on the fail-box 360 and not much more than a dozen of screens. But when I look at the game, it appears to that they put alot of work into the artistic part of the graphics, which is vital for these games.

Omg why didn't Bethsda use the Chrome engine 4 Q.Q it looks so beautiful !!! Guys before you rate watch the chrome engine link dammit now i wana give the creation engine even smaller grade