My Pick in.... CryEngine 1 FOR : Expansive outdoors, vegetation rendering, great water, shaders, Heat haze, Self shadowing & HDR AGAINST : Plastic looking people, terrible lip synch & scalability at the cost of gameplay. Source FOR : Stunning facial expressions, great water, incredible textures & scalable without affecting gameplay & HDR AGAINST : Looks dated at times, restrictive outdoors Doom 3 FOR : Mind boggling indoors, gorgeous lighting & shadows & heat haze AGAINST : Suspect outdoors(this is after playing Quake 4), plastic people & resource hungry Jupiter Efx(F.E.A.R) FOR : Best water, heat haze & particle effects AGAINST : Plastic people, white skin color, restrictive environment & extremely resource hungry
Regarding Doom3, that has to be the engine that uses the least out of all engines, it looks awsome but it doesnt require the Shader power FarCry needs or the CPU power Sourcen needs and doesn't require the amount of ram that Jupiter EFX needs.
I know its not there but i pick the Unreal 3 engine for its new facial expression, resolution capability, physics and system reqs(J/K) And yeah, the CRYTEK 2nd engine(farcry1) coz it was inovative and i could play it without much problems even in my G4MX440
All time best engine goes to the Quake III engine imo. Dozens of games have been made with that. The Unreal 3 engine will probably be the next standard in the next half year.
That's the Source (Half-Life2) engine. I don't think it's fair to vote for UE3. Based on what I've seen yes, it will stomp anything out currently, but it's not used in any released game.
I vote for Source. Despite that fact that it can look a bit dated, I really prefer an engine I know is extremely flexible. It's awsome how Source can go from a killer FPS like Half Life II and turn into a sweet RPG like Vampire Bloodlines.
Doom 3 isn't resource hungry. But anyways for me it's a tie between the CryEngine and the Doom engine.
The only real fair way to test the engines is to have each one make a tech showcase which shows just what the engine is capable of. A showcase to show all the features possible. Most people are swayed because they rate engines based on what they saw in the games that were made with them.
I beg to differ! Id say its definitly up there, it really needs some juice flowing into it to get it nice and smooth when everything is maxed. But, its playable at lower levels with some pretty bad specs, so i can see where it balanced out. I think its a tough choice... im a sucker for vegetation ans so on, so i relaly like cryengine for that, but physics are qually important, so source get that part of the vote. Also, Fear's warer was some of the best around. So, throw those 3 together, and youve got an amazing engine! (Or, you could use the UE3 *drool*)
Physics based on the Havoc engine does not count(Source) as it is developed by a 3rd party & hence is not game engine dependant. It can be licensed for use with any engine. Heck even the good old Quake 3 engine can implement havoc based physics! U may consider physics built into game engines like CryEngine & Doom 3 albeit somewhat limited. I don't know whether F.E.A.R uses the Havoc physics engine.
Ok I may have to take Back my previous statement and go with the Engine in Chronicles of Riddick. (why not)