I could make that.. if it wasn't for my soft, human brain.

>> ^gwiz665:

I could make that.. if it wasn't for my soft, human brain.


You don't even have a brain like me.

So is this for games or motion pictures? I find it hard to believe you get that kinda quality real-time graphics in a game on a current spec PC... and it keeps saying "for cinema". But then it doesn't really seem like anything better or new than the CGI we see in films at the moment. Anyone else a little confused?

they are prolly running it on the highest possible config available, if not even on pre-release hardware.
i guess by 'for cinema' they mean that it's really easy to create animation with cryengine3. the (full) workflow is done directly in or with cryengine3. don't have to rely on external tools for rendering and stuff.

Dare I say most mid/high end gaming systems can already run/render a lot of what I saw there. Speaking from my own experience as a hardware enthusiast, I'm running on an AMD (*cough* ATI) 6970 along with a 1090T 6 core processor. The paring makes for some pretty smooth/sweet graphics and anyone who can pull off a decent Heaven benchmark with a bit of tessellation on could probably handle a majority of what I saw here.

Too bad the game sucks

Maximum Lighting!

As I stated on another forum when this video was posted there, the reason everything looks so good is because almost everything shown is static and the engine only needs to render a single object or group of objects. The forest is so very high res because almost every polygon is used to create scenery. The child seen at a distance is probably no more than a thirty or forty thousand polygons, leaving at least half a million others for scenery. In the next part all you have is a square room with little detail and a vehicle. Most the shots focus entirely on the vehicle itself, so they are able to use every poly in the scene for making the most amazing vehicle they could.

Compare this to actual gameplay where not only do you have a background scene but you have a variety of things going on, from half a dozen enemies shooting at you to things exploding. The poly and texture budgets are far more cramped in an actual game than it is in a technical demonstration like this video. It's why tech demo's 'never' represent an actual games graphics, just the absolute high end of what the engine is capable of.

Besides the beautiful but completely unrealistic scenery (in terms of how good that would look in an actual game filled with enemies, explosions, debris, physics objects, etc) the technical aspects such as being able to hand animated in Maya while directly connected to the game in real time is pretty cool as is the engines rendering pipleline. Still, over all it's not as impressive technically as Id Tech 5.

And then it'll get used in games with characters called Jake Manly with Gravelly Voice 2.0.

That there is what we in the business call a great big piece of "Holy Shit".

Looks awesome. I had fun playing Crysis

I think Crytek are far better at producing engines than games...

It's the same rendering engine they are using for games, but a game has a lot more going on (AI, Player Input, Physics, and Animation Blending to name a few) that sucks up cpu/gpu usage. It will be awhile before games can display this quality and do everything else while maintaining a high framerate.

I don't think we're too far off from getting this capability with games on PC's, but I wouldn't expect it until the consoles have a new generation or two.