CryEngine vs FrostBite vs Unreal Engine
- Thread starter SoumyaHD
- Start date
Solution
kind of a stupid question but ok
cryengine used by cryteck in production of farcry series.
frostbite used by EA for battlefield series
and unreal used for various games.
now the question is what do u like to play
online or campaign.?
cryengine used by cryteck in production of farcry series.
frostbite used by EA for battlefield series
and unreal used for various games.
now the question is what do u like to play
online or campaign.?
Mohammed Taz
Honorable
- Sep 10, 2013
- 44
- 0
- 10,540
Diffentence:
Cryteck- Have good graphics but no multiplayer support
FrostBite - Have a Great Graphics but not so good MP support (Bf4 has many Netcode issues)
Unreal - Have a both fair graphics and MP support
Source 2.0- Have fine graphics but a great MP support
If you trying to buy a game of your choice please take note whether there is MP or not.
I hope I helped!
Cryteck- Have good graphics but no multiplayer support
FrostBite - Have a Great Graphics but not so good MP support (Bf4 has many Netcode issues)
Unreal - Have a both fair graphics and MP support
Source 2.0- Have fine graphics but a great MP support
If you trying to buy a game of your choice please take note whether there is MP or not.
I hope I helped!
caj
Distinguished
- Jun 27, 2013
- 1,329
- 0
- 20,310
Your kidin right? Frosbite is nothing in front of cryengine. Cryengine make pc go on their knees with still crysis 1 unplayable on ultra. That is bf4 already achievable with high or ultra. Try doing that with crysis 3? Ut going to need a 2 or 3 way sli just to achieve that on 1440p +. And far cry uses a diff engine known as modified dunia 2.5 engine.
Mohammed Taz
Honorable
- Sep 10, 2013
- 44
- 0
- 10,540
Caj, we arent here to debate which is the best. We are here to just help op with his question. Cryengine was the best but not now. Making your PC down on it knees is not good for PC, its gonna cry. As for BF4, DICE wants everyone to enjoy the game not just High users, this is marketing skills. Thats why crysis 3 was not that profitable.
caj
Distinguished
- Jun 27, 2013
- 1,329
- 0
- 20,310
Contraty to what you think the question asked was
Which is better in all aspects.what did you expect?Crytek has a reputation to maintain? They made only 4 games but those game where the most epicgames which gained their repuattion and respect. EA dice had just their main focus on multiplayer else their singleplayer caimpaign royally sucks. Crytek redefined open world environment and pushed the next gen grpahics. It not any1 fault if the consoles failed to render a game properly just coz the coporation such as sony or ms choose to cut on cost. If bf4 was so great why are the stockholders still suing EA & stillthe game ridden with bugs? Oh for the record as in regard to pc on your knees...much games use cryengine as compared to frosbite.
Which is better in all aspects.what did you expect?Crytek has a reputation to maintain? They made only 4 games but those game where the most epicgames which gained their repuattion and respect. EA dice had just their main focus on multiplayer else their singleplayer caimpaign royally sucks. Crytek redefined open world environment and pushed the next gen grpahics. It not any1 fault if the consoles failed to render a game properly just coz the coporation such as sony or ms choose to cut on cost. If bf4 was so great why are the stockholders still suing EA & stillthe game ridden with bugs? Oh for the record as in regard to pc on your knees...much games use cryengine as compared to frosbite.
Mohammed Taz
Honorable
- Sep 10, 2013
- 44
- 0
- 10,540
You sound Like a Crysis FanBoy.
Anyway I purpose was done, Op can choose whatever he or she likes. I gave a reasonable answer.
Anyway I purpose was done, Op can choose whatever he or she likes. I gave a reasonable answer.
caj
Distinguished
- Jun 27, 2013
- 1,329
- 0
- 20,310
Contrary to what you think I base an engine on what I have seen it do in terms of effects, graphics and performance, not on fanboyism. You probably never head of the popular gaming phrase " can I run bf?". But there is a phrase which garned attention such as "can it run crysis?" That even top gaming sites have acknowledged and proven
lemme see... u should know what version u r talking about right now ... is it unreal engine 4 vs cryengine 3 then;
cryengine 3 is slllliiiightly better than unreal engine 4 as unreal engine 4 has really photorealistic texture ability whereas cryengine has
life like shaders and cryengine 3 is more system friendly as it can run in athlon processor...yeah!
cryengine 3 is slllliiiightly better than unreal engine 4 as unreal engine 4 has really photorealistic texture ability whereas cryengine has
life like shaders and cryengine 3 is more system friendly as it can run in athlon processor...yeah!
UKINFINITE
Reputable
- May 22, 2014
- 96
- 0
- 4,660
I run Crysis 1 with every setting on the highest you can in 1080p at around 70 fps i never dip below 60
Your kidding right? Graphics is the very last thing to consider when comparing game engines. The core of the game engine will determine its strength, frostbites back end net code is its real strength, the fact that it also has one of the best looking game engines around is a bonus but not its real strength. No other game engine on the planet can pull off 64 players on a map with destruction and vehicle's an that's what to expect from frostbite let alone what is being discovered as its being developed.
Btw, the fact that cryengine requires such powerful resources to run it at anything above 60fps @ 1440p just shows how bad the engine is, not how good it is.
gamerk316
Glorious
- Jul 8, 2008
- 13,234
- 131
- 44,840
*cough*
I now point out that pretty much any engine can display and level of graphics. Point is, the fact CryEngine games tend to look better isn't due to the engine design, but rather the design decisions made by the development staff.
The "best" engine is the one that gives the widest support for various features, modability, and does so without breaking the performance bank. That means Unreal. And before anyone blasts how Unreal games tend to look, look how they've changed over the course of Unreal 3's lifespan. Graphics went all the way to the quality of CryEngine titles, but unlike Crysis, developers waited for GPUs powerful enough to actually RUN those graphical goodies.
Point being: I could make Crysis in Unreal 2 if I wanted to. I would run 1 FPS, but it would look just as good. That doesn't make Unreal 2 a "better" engine though.
I now point out that pretty much any engine can display and level of graphics. Point is, the fact CryEngine games tend to look better isn't due to the engine design, but rather the design decisions made by the development staff.
The "best" engine is the one that gives the widest support for various features, modability, and does so without breaking the performance bank. That means Unreal. And before anyone blasts how Unreal games tend to look, look how they've changed over the course of Unreal 3's lifespan. Graphics went all the way to the quality of CryEngine titles, but unlike Crysis, developers waited for GPUs powerful enough to actually RUN those graphical goodies.
Point being: I could make Crysis in Unreal 2 if I wanted to. I would run 1 FPS, but it would look just as good. That doesn't make Unreal 2 a "better" engine though.
Yes. That's my point when it comes to the (mine looks better than yours) argument. It's what's under the hood that differentiates between game engines and frostbite kills them all when it comes to true power. Frostbite 3 is already being utilized by at least 15 game makers now, why do you think that is when unreal is free and cry engine is practically free, they want what's under the hood in fact some games are being ported to frostbite engine because it enables them. Was just watching a utube vid were a golfing game was being rewritten in frostbite 3 which allowed the game to be played in a single level, cutting out level load times for each hole.
Caj if you think making a computer kneel defines a good game engine then you are sorely mistaken. If that was the case Real Virtuality 3, used for Arma 2, would be the best engine of all time (and it REALLY isn't). Also, I am pretty sure Crytek made it their mission, riding on some sort of hype-wave, to have Crysis make PCs struggle, so they could say they had the best graphics ever (and the graphics were very good, but it kinda stopped there). There are rumors about them putting water under the ground in different zones just so it would have to be rendered in in the background, making the PC kneel because "the graphics were so good".
Fallout 4 is an excellent example here, seeing as the graphics are not great. They focused on other stuff, and the world is so large and there are so many objects and details in it that if they were to develop it to an insane standard of graphics, it would require an equally insane effort. Not to mention it would make the game way too big and demanding for consoles and PC. Bet it was developed for console in the first place, which means they had to tone the graphics down initially. In their case it's a little different though, because the community will probably release new texture packs for them, so that anyone who wants to sacrifice another 60 GBs of space can play it in full glory.
I totally agree that all over, the Frostbite engine is a step ahead right now. Of course, Battlefield 4 was so full of bugs it literally made me crazy at times, but consider its achievements. 64 players on relatively large maps, enabled for water, land and air vehicles, destruction, bullet registration over large distances with bullet drop. Just tons of shit. The stuff they had to pull off was perhaps the most DEMANDING task to ever ask of a game engine. It was released prematurely ofc, but now it's pretty good. I also know that Frostbite is pretty user friendly and easy to work with.
Fallout 4 is an excellent example here, seeing as the graphics are not great. They focused on other stuff, and the world is so large and there are so many objects and details in it that if they were to develop it to an insane standard of graphics, it would require an equally insane effort. Not to mention it would make the game way too big and demanding for consoles and PC. Bet it was developed for console in the first place, which means they had to tone the graphics down initially. In their case it's a little different though, because the community will probably release new texture packs for them, so that anyone who wants to sacrifice another 60 GBs of space can play it in full glory.
I totally agree that all over, the Frostbite engine is a step ahead right now. Of course, Battlefield 4 was so full of bugs it literally made me crazy at times, but consider its achievements. 64 players on relatively large maps, enabled for water, land and air vehicles, destruction, bullet registration over large distances with bullet drop. Just tons of shit. The stuff they had to pull off was perhaps the most DEMANDING task to ever ask of a game engine. It was released prematurely ofc, but now it's pretty good. I also know that Frostbite is pretty user friendly and easy to work with.
Ah yes oligod gets it, the code behind frostbite 3 is truly magnificent if you can see things on a broader scale so to speak. The amount of information needed to transfer from server to player, back to server then to other players is just staggering and all happening in near real time. Don't think any other game engine can come close let alone the beautiful graphics that you get with it.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram