I'd go with CryEngine 2.

http://www.entropiauniverse.com/movies/crytechflash/CRYENGINE_DEMO.html

Which others are good?

Does the COD4 one have a name?

Unreal 3 is very easy to work with and quite powerful.

Does the COD4 one have a name?

Wiki says its just a "proprietary" engine, so, no.


I'd go with the Source engine.

Im going to have to second the Source engine, its super flexible.

Meh, it's actually a huge pain in the ass to work with and I don't think the results people get out of it are all that impressive. Even it's trademark games, Gears and UT3 are plagued by texture pop-in. They've both also got that blurred, vaseline all over the screen look. About the only UE3 game I think actually looks good is Mirror's Edge.

I'd say Source has been an amazing engine all around. Runs well without much horsepower, is quite stable, and still looks good over 4 years later. It's also got some of the best character models and animation, and it's very versatile.

The engine COD4 runs on is a very heavily modified Quake 3 engine, which is a testament to John Carmack's genius. So many games were made on that engine from a wide variety of genres, and the fact that it was still be using 8 years after it's creation is just amazing. Then when you consider the fact that people were calling COD4 one of the best looking games of 2007, that shit's just mind blowing.

Fuck Unreal Engine 3. Shit is ugly as fuck. Every single game made from it is bulky and bad. It's what every shit-developer makes their shitty game for. Fuck it.

Source is mah favorite.

I'd go with CryEngine 2.

http://www.entropiauniverse.com/movies/crytechflash/CRYENGINE_DEMO.html



id like to see more games on that engine

i like the euphoria engine (gta4)

has so many posibilities

Source... After screwing around in Garry's Mod it's easy to see just how incredible it is for something 5 years old. Then again it utilizes Havok Physics or w/e it's called so I guess that is the engine? I don't know, I've always called it source.

It's hard to describe... the source engine is so complex, but all the different elements fit and work together very cohesively...

Does the COD4 one have a name?

Yeah Its a modded Quake engine

I like the source engine and its physics, still very good IMO.

The Capcom FrameWork MT engine is spectacular. The code is written on a main PC engine and then they port the code over to the consoles and optimize the crap out of it. Check out DMC4, Dead Rising and Lost Planet (Dont know how they fucked up the PS3 port though)

The UE3 is a massive steaming pile of shit.

id go with source too. though one of my favorites is the original unreal one

This thread is beyond stupid

No one cares what you think you no-legged fuck.

No one cares what you think you no-legged fuck.

You obviously care or you wouldn't have replied, assbag.

You obviously care or you wouldn't have replied, assbag.

Yes, it took an inordinate amount of caring to tell you that no one gives a fuck what you have to say.

Now put on a new pair of legs and walk the fuck out of this thread, we don't want you here.

How so?

I like the Source engine. It's brilliantly done, how it still looks good mostly unmodified almost 5 years later. I don't mind UE3 so much. It doesn't run as nicely on lower end hardware but it looks decent I think. CryEngine 2 is the most powerful game engine out right now I'm sure, but it sure takes a hell of a lot of power to run it well!

I'm sure we'll see more CryEngine 2 based games in the future, when hardware able to fully use it's potential is actually affordable. Right now a budget gaming PC can really only run CryEngine 2 games at mid settings, when the same PC can max pretty much every other game out.

Euphoria

with Source in second place because IMO it is starting to show it's age.

A few years ago I would have said Source, but it's REALLY showing it's age. It's still pretty buggy, apparently not very flexible because all Valve games seem to play the same, and it doesn't handle large expansive environments very well. Plus, the dev tools for it are extremely buggy and difficult to use.

Left 4 Dead is a great example of why the engine is old, it feels like playing Counter-Strike.

Again, you're an idiot.

Are you actually being serious? You think playing L4D feels like Counter-Strike? You must be a fucking idiot seriously.

Are you actually being serious? You think playing L4D feels like Counter-Strike? You must be a fucking idiot seriously.

Yeah, I nominate this guy for new dumbest poster in GPP.

It doesn't have a cheesy name for me to laudingly throw around like a fanboy, but I'm in love with the engine in Forza Motorsport 2. Apparently (thrown in so you don't think I'm the one who's saying so ;)) It's got the most accurate and the most powerful physics engine in any game released on console..

..and it shows. Pick it up.

That's my favourite, anyway. I can spend hours at a time just experimenting with tuning and drifting and throwing cars around tracks. I can't wait to see what Forza 3 brings (I have resigned hope for GT which while awesome tends to be more arcade-y).

But Forza 2 has shitty graphics.

Are you actually being serious? You think playing L4D feels like Counter-Strike? You must be a fucking idiot seriously.

You're goddamn right it does. Go load up Counter-Strike and play a round with 3 friendlies vs 30 terrorists with knives. That's L4D. Even the footsteps sound the same. The characters move the same, the guns handle the same, you still have to select grenades to throw them (what the fuck?), and it just doesn't feel like anything more than the same Source game with new models.

Go load up Counter-Strike and play a round with 3 friendlies vs 30 terrorists with knives. That's L4D.

I've heard some truly ignorant shit on this forum, but this might take the cake.

This is right up there with Quake 3 being a third-person shooter.

That it does. It doesn't quite matter so much with circuit racing games like Forza, where breathtaking graphics are very unimportant, but it sure does make the game so much better when they're great. GT5 (Prologue, technically) has pretty good graphics. Undeniabley kilometres ahead of Forza 2, and also includes beautiful in car views and animations, but then you feel like there was a compromise* in the development to get those graphics, when you go to race around a track.

In offroad titles, like Colin McCrae: DiRT and Pure (great to breathtaking graphics), graphics are definitely close to paramount in the experience. Everything has to be beautiful, and they tend to be a lot simpler cameplay wise - but not neccessarily less fun. Both of those titles are excellent games that anyone can enjoy. Especially Pure, which I cannot fucking believe is a Disney game. It's a little short, but it does get pretty difficult on the way to the end, which stretches it out some. But more on Pure in a different thread. (http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?p=10895515#post10895515)

I agree with you, but won't hold Turn 10 to ransom if Forza 3's graphics aren't top notch. There are many other things I would love to see them put some sweet development time into (unfortunately I've been to busy/slack to compile everything into an email to lob to them, and now it's too late in the cycle for any of that to make it into Forza 3). Everybody loves pretty graphics; who the fuck seriously doesn't?

*It wasn't a compromise though, Codemasters were after that arcadey sim feel with a relatively easy** learning curve, and they executed it well.

**Relative to rival titles, i.e. Forza, wherein you basically have to learn to drive again.. ..and then some considering how far you push the limits, and the range of physics of each tune for each car for each corner for each track is more dynamic than can be possibly counted or catalogued. This is probably the largest reason why Forza Motorsport is so rewarding and addictive - if you're the type of person who can get into racing sims.

..And where the fuck is my GT5 already?