wonder how a game will become when Frostbite and Cryengine combine sure dam heavy on graphics and proc but sure dam beautiful and fun to play

But that CryEngine 3.0 demo was meant for Cinema, not for realtime gaming. You need a supercomputer to do the rendering.

This post has been edited by avex|mode: Mar 8 2011, 12:11 PM

We buy the products (games), not the game engine

like Avatar....great engine. But i walked out the cinema after 15 minutes.

Looking at those videos, and then I look outside the window. Eh why the graphics outside looks worst? How do i upgrade the gfx outside to look as nice as these videos?

i think u need to build a new world *ahem* TRON ??

Reality bites harder

Anyway... I'm wondering if my PC will withstand BF3. *sigh*

i think cryengine focuses more on gc processing while frostbite is more towards processor

but cryengine 3 is an exception bcoz its also optimized for consoles, which is good news for those who hav outdated rigs like me.and dun be surprised if the recommended spec for frostbite 2.0 is another quad core,although i hope the developers will further optimize the engine to be resource friendly

This post has been edited by ZeneticX: Mar 8 2011, 11:20 PM

if recommend spec is quadcore then my laptop cannot play already

Yep....
More recent games needs atleast a good quad core CPU to run smooth....

And what good to bring when bulldozer is coming in June

Where'd he get CryEngine3 Lingshan from?

its jut their demo coz its the most beautiful scene in crysis. so they remade and compare it with cryengine 2. tbh it is the most beautiful scene in the entire game.

See this some Battlefield 3 Scans they said they uesd Deferred rendering which is same as killzone tech and which i think is really amazing.

http://gamenyusu.com/component/content/art...looks-good.html

i would have to say cryengine 3 is the winner hands down

This post has been edited by fat cat: Mar 30 2011, 05:01 PM

in term of what criteria?

graphics and realistic destruction.

i wont say that anymore. graphics....i would have to say bf3 will take it away just by looking at the trailer. destruction? there are more destruction in the 1st crysis than the 2nd one. besides bfbc2 have more destruction than crysis 2 and crysis combined. to me frostbite engine is the clear winner.

realistic destruction?
btw crytek really good at rendering these
im amaze


for destruction frostbite so far prove alot in BC2 and better than ''cosmetic'' crack here n there

but spec wise, it seems frostbite2 need more power rig to run it well unlike crytek (tried b4 playing crysis2 MP, can easily tune all max setting, dunno SP yet)
but again, these two engines cannot be compared like this.
all have its own pros

This post has been edited by MjMax15: Mar 31 2011, 10:29 PM

i feel like crytek pro in rendering realistic environment

while frostbite pro in rendering effects and interaction

somehow i dont seem to like crysis 2 a lot, prefer to old crysis where there are more free roam and more destructible

talking about destructible, crysis is far behind bc2