Sounds like he is getting worried, a new major engine in to run with UR4 would definitely be nice, especially if the Cryengine 3 can produce the same amazing graphics and good physics much more efficiently than Cryengine2.
I will admit that I like UT3's graphics more than Crysis', regardless of how `technically better` CryEngine may be. It will definitely be interesting to compare the two engines whenever products utilizing them are available.
As for Unreal 3, if it's anything like Unreal 2, then heck no. I'd rather play the first Unreal again.
What? Larrabee? Someone hasn't been reading the news.
At "Does Unreal play Crysis", check out the demo map from the newest version of UDK. Not quite there yet, but it's getting close. I think the biggest downfall of Unreal Engine 3.5 right now is probably lack of antialiasing.
It will be interesting to see what happens with Unreal 4, though this kind of annoys me. Last we heard, they were angling towards consoles, now they seem to flipping and talking about PCs. Perhaps the rage of the PC Gamers is getting to them.
It sounds like maybe he shouldn't have been quoted for the whole world to see his words. Sounds more like a personal conversation he would have had to someone in his level. People talk like this all the time. Why would he publicly bash another game developer? Just doesn't make sense. Who cares. Let Crytek do their thing and focus on your own damn development. His comments remind me of some of the comments here on Tom's... way too opinionated.
[citation][nom]maigo[/nom]CryEngine looks nice but it doesn't work as well and it sure as hell isn't proven like Unreal[/citation]
If you run Crysis on medium settings, it would run just as well as Unreal while looking the same or slightly better.
The reason why Cryengine2 doesn't "work as well" maxed out because it is leaps and bounds better looking than the Unreal engine and the vast majority of computers can't handle it.
This is the first time hearing about Unreal Engine 4. i only bin reading about CryEngine 3 I hope to see a comparison. i like that their is competition between the 2 bringing us faster into the future, better for consumers both are pretty good at what they do. Which one is easiest to work and develop with, only time will tell.
As long as every UR4 game doesnt look the same the way every UR3 games does i dont really care, personally more engines the better, if developers used their own engines we'd see a great deal more graphical diversity. I realise the obsticals to this but even so, bring on C2 and C3 and UR4, frostbite, valve etc.
would like to see more multi thread games to use the extra strength out of my cpu but nothing i really bin said. i would make it easy to build and develop so people would like using my software, thinking about the playstation 3 where it was difficult to develop for.
I was gonna say the CryEngine isn't so bad, but then I just read that Far Cry 2 wasn't Crytek, and since I never felt like dumping a couple grand into a machine that could play Crysis, I guess I've never actually seen the engine. So, uh, why is Epic bashing an engine that powers a whopping total of 1 games? I don't even think that counts as competition. Is Epic just upset Crytek didn't license the Unreal engine for Crysis? Then all those "but can it play crysis" jokes would be directed at their crappy engine.
I wanna know why the Serious Engine never took off. Back in the day Serious looked much more impressive than Quake and Unreal (no CryEngine or Source back then obviously).