Gonna have to go with CryEngine 3 on this one

UT3 is outdated tech time to put the old dog out of it's misery

Cry Engine killed that comparison right there. I'm excited to see how the Cry Engine is used.

the engine of unreal looks like ps2 game and outadated........

unreal engine not surpassed the cryengine 2.5

The Unreal Engine looks disgusting.

I can't watch the video, some Naruto crap shows pops up whenever I press play.

Edit: Nevermind, I got it working. But they should have compared Unreal Tournament 3 instead, I think it looks better than Gears. CryEngine would look better either way, I just need to see an actual game running it on consoles.

You are comparing an engine rendering environments, with no real onscreen characters, in a controlled enviroment to a actual game designed to have tons of characters on screen.
How is the comparable? Any game running tons of enimies all with AI on will obviously be rendering less detail to all of them.
Any engine could render these scenes in a controlled environment with no action on screen.
how ridiculous.
Don't get me wrong, I'm pumped about the engine, and love the Crysis games, but this is worthless. A totally pointless article.
Lets compare some unreal tech demos, to Crytec tech demos. Then we can play fair. Not tech demo vs game.

That's because the console versions are running 30FPS so the frame rate is consistent,hence why they didn't go 60FPS like the PC version they would of had a lot harder time getting the game running properly.

It never really impressed me to begin with. The CryEngine 3 looks better but the video of it running on consoles really didn't wow me. I would like to see a comparison of Gears 2 and a game on ps3 or 360 using the CryEngine 3. Not a tech demo.

I wanna see a game with the Art design of Gears and the way they look on a game using the CryEngine3.

Nobody here can't deny that Gears design looks awesome.

That comparison is no fair at all lol.

:( Epic,use the Cryengine for Geow3

Talking about Unreal Engine 4, It would have to be seen just what the quality is on UE4 to be able to make any comparison but I think it's important to note that if you look at CE3 specs there are a number of features there not being implemented (i assume due to hardware limitations)on this generation of console. We haven't seen a maxed CE3 yet, we haven't even seen a PC CE3 yet. I hope we do soon as I reckon it might just rock socks off.

I have come very annoyed with the UE3 because every game i played seem to use it. Dont get me wrong it is a great engine but now its over done, and most devolpers wont utilize it right so its even more annoying like Rainbowsix Vegas. On the other hand, Gears of War1 and 2 look awesome and Bioshock.

Is it me or does it have that "Grainy" look to it that just annoys me now.

EDIT: I wanted to add that the CryEngine 3 seems to be having Frame rate issues. to me its a little jittering due to the fact its running at its max for consoles, not PC for consoles therefore its also just a demo. I hope devs use it right to have max visuals with solid gameplay

That was a lame ass comparison! Lol it was only water!!!

I hope ME3 uses Cryengine. . .just. .wow.that would rock.

...........

2005 vs 2009.

'nuff said.

this is so unnecessary ...

I'd like to see comparisons between Cry Engine 3 and whatever Crysis used (Cry 2?) to see what drawbacks (as well as improvements) it actually has. UE3 (as much as I despise its overuse) has the added advantage of developer experience, everybody and their mother has had a go at the old UE3 or its predecessors at some point or another; the old skank.

This is an awkward comparison. I dont know if these are the two engines in need of comparsion. Sucks that alot of you taking this as an opportunity to bash one console or the other.

Unreal Engine 3 looks amazing, It has this amazingly gritty realistic look. Plus it clearly has better looking buildings and architecture.

Cryengine 3 looks Good. They spend so many resources rending all of the environmental detail that they sacrifice things like improved AA. I am one of those guys that cannot STAND jaggies. Also i beleive Cryengine3 has far superior Foliage, however it does all have that PLASTIC look. you know what i mean?

Cryengine3 looks good, but in both the 360/PS3 version there is only 2x AA, Pop-in shadows (worse in the PS3 version), and pop in Foliage. Plus it appears that it can barely run on either system with more than 20-25FPS even during the demo. I understand that they arent finished optimizing it, but im reluctant to believe its going work well on either system.

Cliffy B little Unreal Engine 3 doesnt touch the CryEngine 3

are they making out?

Cryengine 3 is not a gimped version of cryengine 2.

It's better!.

Just watch the interview with crytek.

The new engine is going to be used on high specs pc's as well.

It's coded better, will run better and hopefully for Consoles will play very well.

I asked this question ages ago.

Lets say crysis has 100,000 trees on PC.

And crysis comes on console with 50,000 trees.

It's still crysis.

Even if they remove parts of the world.

But in actual fact, i've played both crysis and warhead and i don't want that on console.

This is off topic but does anyone know what engine Polyphony Digital use for Gran Turismo on PS3? Im curious.

CryEngine 3 is the clear winner, although there were a couple of shots, specifically the urban shot and the last shot where the UE3 looked better. CryEngine 3 is lacking a little bit in urban areas, but the jungle areas and human faces look unbeatable.

both look amazing, but there are already better engines out there. Before any idiot start to flame me, this is CE3 we're talking about not CE2.

they both look great. I think what it really boils down to is the art direction. To really see the true difference a developer would have to do the same game on the two different engines. Unfortunately that will never happen due to the cost.

The UE3 engine is done, Cryengine 3, Id Tech5 engine are the future. I have said it before and I will say it again. Let Bungie get their hands on the CryEngine 3

This is an apples to oranges comparison, and there's no way to confirm that CE3 trumps UE3 until it has shipped games for PC, Xbox 360 and PS3, and those developers say it was better than their experience with Unreal (which gets new features all the time, btw).

Evolution Engine is better the Unreal Engine 3

Cry Engine clearly looks much better.

one is years old has been used many times,

the other is pretty new and more advanced..... gee i wonder which one will look better...

Maybe we should all wait until we see an actual game using the CryEngine3 before we make any comparisons.

This comparison is unnecessary. I found the article quite upsetting and provocative...made me want to post a blog :)

Otherwise, I find both engines to be exceptional pieces of technology.

Nothing wrong with comparing engines.

But both engines are going for different things.

Crytek always had Foliage in mind and high quality physics.

Epic always had alot of bump mapping and style.

But yeah i'd like to see one game made on a few different engines, not only to see how good it looks, but how good it runs.

Either way, both suit their purpose.

from the article it seemed that the CE3 is only for PS3. anyone else get that?

also, like the other's said, its apples and oranges.

lets see a game with CRY3 and then we'll judge. Until i can see NPCs in action there is no real comparison. I mean the GEARS footage is IN GAME. the CE3 footage is a tech demo.. not exactly fair.

and personally FARCRY totally put me off the whole JUNGLE setting, its so overdone and it seems to be CRY engine's main selling point..

and don't FARCRY devs have an engine that does this too? i'm confused

Tell me again how the multiplatform strategy was supposed to fix everything. Look at your results and compare them to Nintendo, which keeps thriving with exclusives. Your loyal fans are gone. And let’s not forget the pile of IPs you purchased only to let them rot.

The worst thing is this is down from last years numbers/expectations which was down from the previous years numbers/expectations. You think about how long “down” has been a consistent part of the communication and you realize those subscriptions are what’s holding that boat together. The price cut of gamespass is still a price raise in a string of price raises. They are trying to use players to offset the missing revenue. Now call of duty is out of gamespass, which is literally WHY they bought the company. To draw people to the subscription. They realized they missed a boatload of money and that wasn’t sustainable. Now you pay for it like you would have if they never bought the company… so why buy the company? Mind you those billions still need to be paid back. Yeah it gives you a chance to say we make the biggest FPS… but the internal conversations must be brutal at high level on topics that really matter. Like revenue. Profitability. And ROI for the shopping spree.

Is this like the 10th quarter in a row they're down 33% on hardware how is that even mathematically possible. You would think their mediocrity would Plateau