Game Movies - Far Cry Tech Demo

A few folks have mailed about the release of the ATI & Crytek Tech Demo mentioned in yesterday's Tech Bits (story), indicating the initial mention of it was a bit too obscure, so here it is again. Word on the demo is: "The ATI-Crytek demo uses same next-generation CryENGINE that will be used to create the successor to Far Cry. Since the CryENGINE enables immediate playability of a created game without the lengthy wait for compiling, enthusiasts into creating 'mods' will have an easy way to make new gaming content for themselves. The ATI/Crytek demo shows just how easy it can be, especially since it is optimized to run on ATI’s RADEON® X800 XT series and the new RADEON® PCI Express graphics boards. Download the demo and see for yourself how photo-realistic “machinima” cinematic computing will change your future gaming experience!" Also, this Videos Page (thanks Frans) has one final release in the series of cinematic movies from Prince of Persia: Warrior Within, the upcoming return of the running regent. The "Dark Road to Redemption" is a 9.4 MB download.
View : : :
48 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older
28.
 
Re: well
Dec 3, 2004, 00:37
Fum
28.
Re: well Dec 3, 2004, 00:37
Dec 3, 2004, 00:37
Fum
 
J-Bird, try turning off Refresh Rate Override in the Geforce properities - that is, if you have it on. Some of the recent nVidia drivers have been having problems with extremely low frame rates with it on in some programs (I think the ones that try to set the refresh rate themselves, but I'm not sure). Worth a shot, atleast.
This comment was edited on Dec 3, 00:39.
27.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 3, 2004, 00:29
27.
Re: No subject Dec 3, 2004, 00:29
Dec 3, 2004, 00:29
 
I think Doom 3's engine is disappointed and heavily limited to a dark low character count enviroments

Just because id chose to turn Doom3 into that type of game, doesn't mean that's all the engine is capable of. I'm sorry, but anyone who believes that a John Carmack engine is inferior to anything else released at around the same time just has no knowledge of gaming.

From what I've seen of the Source engine, its "massive open levels" are nothing more than small portions that load every 20 seconds. Quite frankly, I'll take Doom3's "small" levels (which took you an hour to play) over that shite any day.

I think each engine just focusses on different areas. I think for massive outdoor levels, you cannot go any better than the Crytek engine. It's hard to compare what the Source and Doom 3 engines do better or worse, since I haven't played Half Life 2 (I've only seen it played by someone for a few minutes). I'm sure they each have strenghts and weaknesses.

As for licensing, apart from Quake 4 and Bloodlines, I haven't really heard anyone having licensed the Doom 3 and Source engines either. I guess it's a meager time for licensing?

Impressive Crytek video. The ATI video looked ho-hum, especially the explosion at the end.

(Funny thing to note is that two years later, current day video technology still looks shittier than the Unreal 2 screenshots did at the time, which Epic (and every game magazine in existence) swore and promised were actual gameplay screenshots.)

Creston

Avatar 15604
26.
 
farcry...
Dec 3, 2004, 00:17
26.
farcry... Dec 3, 2004, 00:17
Dec 3, 2004, 00:17
 
is the community for farcry a dead one? i always thought id eventually buy that game. But if the net code is as lackluster as mentioned and no one is playing it, I see no point...



This comment was edited on Dec 3, 00:20.
25.
 
No subject
Dec 3, 2004, 00:02
25.
No subject Dec 3, 2004, 00:02
Dec 3, 2004, 00:02
 
immediate playability of a created game without the lengthy wait for compiling

This is a big draw for me. I been mucking around with Hammer for Half-life 2 and I feel I am back in 1998 again. I have a P3 3.0 machine for mapping with a gig of ram and it still can take up to a hour to BSP, VIS and RAD a map. I just can't be bothered anymore when other engines ( Farcry, Doom 3 and Unreal ) can get a map up and running in less than 5 mintues.

Also the lengthly load time for half-life 2 ( Load steam, log onto steam, load half-life 2 via steam, patch, load half-life 2 menu, load test map ) is also very annoying.

ALT-P and your playing in the editor with Farcry.

24.
 
Re: whooohoooo
Dec 3, 2004, 00:01
Ant
 
24.
Re: whooohoooo Dec 3, 2004, 00:01
Dec 3, 2004, 00:01
 Ant
 
Sixis: Run it! Just turn off FSAA! I have an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro AIW (128 MB) and Athlon 64 3200+. It's very pretty.


This comment was edited on Dec 3, 00:16.
Avatar 1957
23.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 2, 2004, 23:47
23.
Re: No subject Dec 2, 2004, 23:47
Dec 2, 2004, 23:47
 
The Doom 3 engine is WAY the fuck more powerful than Half Life 2. It'll be a couple years before we see great stuff made with it, though. Here's hoping Raven pulls it off with Quake 4.
HL2 was outdated long before release. It'll be the cheap engine to get for new developers. A year from now it will look ancient. Without the excellent use of physics we'd be nitpicking the awful textures.

The most impressive engine by far is Far Cry. There's no argument. With everything maxed it looks and runs great. Doom 3 looks great maxed out but hardly runs. And HL2 looks ok and runs amazing. Far Cry is the only one to combine everything and make it work. Too bad each patch finds a new way to break it. And with a dead community you have a real sad situation.

As far as gameplay is concerned it's a toss-up between Far Cry's originality and HL2's successful refinement of what's already been done. Doom 3 didn't improve anything.

Avatar 15920
22.
 
Re: whooohoooo
Dec 2, 2004, 23:44
22.
Re: whooohoooo Dec 2, 2004, 23:44
Dec 2, 2004, 23:44
 
Should I even try running this on my machine (Athlon 3000xp, 1 gig ram, 128 meg Radeon 9800 pro)? The new 3DMark runs terribly, and ATI's Ruby demos require the new chip, so I'm skittish of cutting-edge techdemos now.
21.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 2, 2004, 23:44
21.
Re: No subject Dec 2, 2004, 23:44
Dec 2, 2004, 23:44
 
"I think Doom 3's engine is disappointed and heavily limited to a dark low character count enviroments."

You haven't seen the previews for Quake 4 huh?

20.
 
whooohoooo
Dec 2, 2004, 23:30
20.
whooohoooo Dec 2, 2004, 23:30
Dec 2, 2004, 23:30
 
I just saw it run and i agree, the cry engine is amazing. I cannot beleive the detial and fluidity. and none of 'the project' is prerendered? i gotta say... wow.

I have a gig of ram and an x800 but a really slow cpu by todays standards (athlon xp 3000 at 333mhz bus). I am not used to saying that performance of something was flawless, but htis was. aside from a small AF glitch in the grill floor, i didnt see a need for AA. PHENOMINAL....

and yes, doom was made for kids. impressive lighting but boring in the end...

19.
 
Re: well
Dec 2, 2004, 23:16
indiv
 
19.
Re: well Dec 2, 2004, 23:16
Dec 2, 2004, 23:16
 indiv
 
Well, even windowed with no AA i still get shitty performance.

Assuming that your CPU isn't the bottleneck, run dxdiag and make sure that all your hardware-acceleration features are on. Start->Run, type dxdiag, press enter. Click the Display tab. Make sure all 3 accelerations are enabled.

Other than that, could be anything. I doubt the bad performance is because your video card has only 128 MB RAM though.


18.
 
No subject
Dec 2, 2004, 22:56
18.
No subject Dec 2, 2004, 22:56
Dec 2, 2004, 22:56
 
I think the 2 top engines out right now that would be best licensed are Source and CryEngine. They can handle just about anything thrown at them and very nicely. I think Doom 3's engine is disappointed and heavily limited to a dark low character count enviroments. Even those get boring within minutes. UE3 will definitely be the future, something to look out for, and this new Far Cry engine as well, though I'm still looking forward to UE3 more than anything. Can't wait to see what kind of card I need to upgrade my 6800 gt to, to run the UE3. Hmmm

"This my finest sword. If in your journey you should encounter God, God will be cut." -Hattori Hanzo ~Kill Bill
Avatar 16605
17.
 
Note
Dec 2, 2004, 22:48
17.
Note Dec 2, 2004, 22:48
Dec 2, 2004, 22:48
 
If you hit the space bar it'll pause and you can pan the camera around.

16.
 
Re: i don't get it
Dec 2, 2004, 21:59
16.
Re: i don't get it Dec 2, 2004, 21:59
Dec 2, 2004, 21:59
 
EQ2 has self shadows and is 'out now'. The graphics in the game can't even be turned up all the way on any system available right now. lol.

I'm waiting for someone to make another game with the Cry Engine, it puts Doom3 down and was released before it. (Didn't help that Doom3 was made for kids).

Avatar 17200
15.
 
Re: well
Dec 2, 2004, 21:56
15.
Re: well Dec 2, 2004, 21:56
Dec 2, 2004, 21:56
 
Well, even windowed with no AA i still get shitty performance. I'm using the 67.02 beta nVidia drivers, so it might just be that, but damn, that's harsh.

14.
 
well
Dec 2, 2004, 21:54
14.
well Dec 2, 2004, 21:54
Dec 2, 2004, 21:54
 
dling now hope it looks good... i haven x800xt so it should look the way a vanilla setup should.... god i hope Farcry 2 has better voice acting... it was terrible...

M

13.
 
Re: new Ruby too
Dec 2, 2004, 21:51
13.
Re: new Ruby too Dec 2, 2004, 21:51
Dec 2, 2004, 21:51
 
UE3 isn't running* on my system right now - this is

*Running on a Radeon 9000 Mobility. Counting frames is a FEATURE!


12.
 
Re: new Ruby too
Dec 2, 2004, 21:46
12.
Re: new Ruby too Dec 2, 2004, 21:46
Dec 2, 2004, 21:46
 
If we are going to talk about who the the graphics crown amongt tech not available to game on, then Unreal Engine 3 wins hands down.

-Tony!!!;)
www.Tony.Million-Dollar-Secret.com
-Tony!!!;)
my 360 user name is Robo Pop
11.
 
Re: new Ruby too
Dec 2, 2004, 21:42
11.
Re: new Ruby too Dec 2, 2004, 21:42
Dec 2, 2004, 21:42
 
OK, so it ran like shit on my 6800 (granted it's only 128MB). However, how the hell do you set the preferences? I was getting like .5 FPS or less - but i have no idea what it was playing at.

Looks nice though...

10.
 
Re: new Ruby too
Dec 2, 2004, 21:28
10.
Re: new Ruby too Dec 2, 2004, 21:28
Dec 2, 2004, 21:28
 
It's like something you could have seen two+ years ago.

I don't know what demo you were watching, but it can't have been the same one the rest of us got. Definitely couldn't have seen this two years ago.

~Steve

My music: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/imjediluke/
9.
 
Re: i don't get it
Dec 2, 2004, 21:13
9.
Re: i don't get it Dec 2, 2004, 21:13
Dec 2, 2004, 21:13
 
Is the demo an engine cinematic that uses your card to render it? I guess i've just never seen this...I'm downloading it now, so i guess i'll find out sooner or later.

yes, the complete demo is realtime graphics, nothing is prerendered.

Pay attention to the characters' self-shadowing (doom3 has lost its crown), normal mapping (I'm not sure but there is probably also some parallax mapping in it), motion blur, shader work and lighting. Great stuff

48 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older