Crytek CEO unsurprised by what Unreal Engine 4 has to offer
By Jess Colwill on August 8, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Last month we saw footage of the Unreal Engine 4 being demonstrated for the first time, and the gaming world was pretty impressed. Well, for the most part. Those numbering among the unimpressed include Crytek, whose CEO Cevat Yerli told VG247 that there was simply nothing that surprising about the Unreal Engine 4.
“We have been presenting CryENGINE 3 as next-gen ready technology since GDC 2010. And we think that Unreal Engine 4 has done a good job to catch up, but nothing is there that surprised us and we still believe CryENGINE 3 remains the benchmark,” he told them in an interview. When asked about the possibility of the CryEngine 4, added, “We have not clearly defined when, or if, CryENGINE 4 will be released, because the architecture of CryENGINE 3 is so forward-looking that we think of it as having been next generation ready for some years now.”
Source: VG247
Unreal Engine 4 ‘Infiltrator’ tech demo leaked, looking very nice
Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaang.
Team Fortress 2 is only “70% free to play”, says Crytek’s CEO
"There is still pay to win there and I don't like that.”
Crytek CEO frustrated at reception of what he sees as the best game in the series
Console fatigue partly to blame.
You can use the following bbCode
[i], [b], [img], [quote], [url href="http://www.google.com/"]Google[/url]
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
facebook
twitter
google+
rss
I agree; I wasn’t really blown away by the Unreal 4 demo either.
Yeah the Unreal 4 demo was pretty meh.
Hopefully Developers don’t pick it up in droves when the next generation of consoles launch, would be nice to have some differentiation in game engines, especially nice if game developers pick some game engines that were more PC and Eyefinity friendly that would blow us away graphically.
What a smug bastard…
I think it impressed the console gamers – us pc gamers though have been looking at those visuals for a while. I think the best thing about ue4 is actually the tool-set. The graphics will be great, but it’s going to be super accessible, which is where it beats Cryengine. And real time global illumination is a very nice touch – anyone who has rendered out stuff from 3d packages like max will understand the awesomeness of this feature.
Unreal 4 can’t do anything better than CE3. Cervat is pretty bang on with his assessment.
^ what he said…
they’re both got similar graphics features, you can’t really go wrong with either. I always found the unreal engines heaps smooth to play though.
^ Unreal Engine has always been crazy optimized imo.
Although Unreal 4 did look like it was playing catchup, Cevat Yerli can’t say sh!t till his games start using all the features Cryengine 3 is suppose to be capable of. Even in DX11 Crysis 2 didn’t look that special.
Unreal Engine 4 Development Walkthrough
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvfn1p92_8
for those who missed the E3 footage
Curious, which UE3 powered games do you think look technically more advanced/better than Crysis 2?
I am unaware that I said such a thing.
as exe3 has said Unreal Engine is very well optimised.
I always think CryEngine’s have always looked good for the times, but they seem to require much more to do so, a couple years later engines catch up and are faster.
Wow.. So I must be the only one who thought cryengine 3 looked like shit compared to the unreal 4 demo. I’ve only seen what the cryengine 3 can mainly do on consoles I haven’t seen the CE3 engines max capabilities so at this point UREAL4 by miles.
The Unreal 4 ‘Samaritan’ Demo looked ok but it isnt a real game you cant judge things like performance or what settings it was on for example. In the most recent UE4 demo video it looked like UE3 with more detailed lighting and that was all.
Aside from Crysis, I don’t think I have ever played a game on the crytek engine. I don’t really think they can put Unreal down when nobody uses their engine.
Sigh. First of all, we’re not discussing which subjectively looks better, we’re talking about the technical features of the engines themselves. If your method of comparing game engines is looking at screenshots or videos of each and then deciding which you think looks better, you are doing it wrong. This is doubly true if you’re comparing final optimized work for a specific game on a console platform with highly polished work designed to demonstrate the engine’s limits.
Secondly, Cevat is not saying that Unreal Engine 4 is shit or anything to that effect; he is simply pointing out that there isn’t really anything that Unreal Engine 4 does that is particularly groundbreaking. And guess what: he is correct.
After going back and looking at the Unreal Engine 4 demonstrations, it seems Epic is mostly proud of its realtime global illumination, subsurface scattering, deferred rendering, large scale GPU powered particle systems, dynamic particle system lighting/shadowing, dynamic time of day, running the full game engine directly in the editor (with the ability to jump in and play instantly), etc.; CryEngine 3 does all of those things and has done for years.
I made the connection by the Unreal Engine praise and then the “Crysis 2 didn’t look that special” comment… didn’t think it was too much of a reach. So you agree that there are no UE3 games that look better than Crysis 2, in that case?