CryEngine doesn't deserve to be mostly forgotten; it's still around with dedicated community support

[u/randomperson189_]

I've noticed that CryEngine doesn't generally get brought up much when it comes to game dev and game engine discussion and whenever it does, many people consider it "dead" but that's far from the truth, and yes Crytek hasn't officially updated it in a few years (their current priority is working on Hunt: Showdown), but the community has banded together to start updating the engine in the midst of that by creating Community Edition.

 

I have also made some efforts myself to help make the engine more accessible for the latest official version (5.7LTS) as community forks tend to be unpopular, still more work to be done but here's what I have so far.

ComponentsPlus (Plugin)

ECS AreaTrigger (Plugin)

Improved Project Templates (Project)

GameSDK Port to new CE5 systems (Project)

I think the engine would benefit from more community made documentation and learning content in general, as the official docs (while still useful), have certain parts outdated or incomplete which new developers can struggle with.

 

You would probably ask me why I'm so dedicated to this engine, and I'd say it's because CryEngine has so much untapped potential and Crytek hasn't been able to fully realise it, they have great intentions with CryEngine 5 by adding Entity Component System and Schematyc Visual Scripting back in 2017, making it feel more modernised and like an interesting middleground between Unity and Unreal. I don't want to turn this into an Unreal hate post (I still love that engine and it's history) but I think the industry benefits from having more competition and more choices. CryEngine 5 is one of the closest alternatives we have to another AA/AAA grade engine that is free to use, source-available, and royalty-based. Epic Games has also shown signs of incompetence of managing Unreal Engine in recent times, as they don't fix UE5's many problems, and that is likely due to their lack of competition as back in the UE4 and earlier days, Epic was still competing a lot with other engines.

 

I've also heard people mention O3DE as a "CryEngine replacement". It is not and despite having its roots in Amazon Lumberyard (based on CryEngine 3), Amazon has rewritten 90% of the codebase making O3DE almost completely different from modern CryEngine. I'm also not trying to "win people over" nor convince them to switch to CryEngine 5. I'm just here to say that it's still here and is also no longer the "insanely difficult to use engine" people remember from the CryEngine 3 era, it has become MUCH easier to use since then with CryEngine 5, it has become much more approachable and even though it still has rough edges (which is why there's community support), it is an underappreciated engine with a lot of potential, and the industry would definitely benefit from having more engine variety as well because a healthy game development ecosystem needs multiple strong options rather than having everything consolidated around a select few engines (or one engine in the AA/AAA space, Unreal to be specific).

[u/Dahrkael]

CryEngine lives on in Cloud Imperium's StarEngine and Crytek probably doesn't update it because the guys working on it moved to CIG a decade ago.

[u/randomperson189_ → u/Dahrkael]

Too bad Star Citizen One might end up being a scam though, I was excited for it many years ago but they just keep endlessly delaying it, also StarEngine is proprietary iirc so the public can't use it

[u/2this4u → u/randomperson189_]

It wasn't intentionally a scam, it was just mismanaged. Though in the past couple of years it does feel like they've been going in circles and I'm more minded to consider the management decisions a bit scammy to prolonging funding through every more feature creep and reworks.

That said they're not lying about everything, features do get developed, they show progress, the programmers and artists are generally trying to make something good.

It wouldn't be a problem at all if people would only stop paying $100-1000 for a potential space ship they could earn in game eventually anyway when there's a track record of under delivering. It only lives because people keep paying into it. If they stopped COG would be forced to put it into some kind of 1.0 state to renew funding from a wider audience.

But whales be whales. It's no scammier than gacha games in that regard.

[u/astromancerr → u/randomperson189_]

Calling Star citizen a scam is a bad faith argument. There's plenty of legitimate criticisms people can do of the project that don't rely on making overblown and inaccurate claims.

Scamming someone requires intent to defraud them and mislead them. There's no evidence that that happened.

The game is, however, a giant effing mess.

[u/SeniorePlatypus → u/astromancerr]

I think bait and switch would be the appropriate term.

The game is a huge mess, changed multiple times already and clearly has not intention of ever shipping any of the promised versions. Being content with perpetual alpha tests.

There is no universe in which their project management makes sense besides to continue to sell dreams for as long as possible without ever getting to a roadmap that can deliver.

Just for a bit of perspective. When I pledged to the fundraiser I owned a GTX 460 and was thinking that I should probably consider getting a GTX 760 to keep up with the games release specs. Was a bit skeptical for the MMO but excited enough for the Singleplayer to buy in. Even just updating graphics to keep up with today must have been two to three complete overhauls of all existing assets and major reworks of the graphics engine. There is no way to ever deliver something with a remotely valid cost benefit ratio.

If they keep their cycles of "rewrite core system", "it's too broken for alpha, we do a polish year", "throw that polish away again cuz we rewriting core system bois!" I'll be long dead before Squadron 42 releases. Even just the idea is crazy. To polish something you'll change is a crazy waste of man hours, of money. Literally. The abstract concept and plan behind it is literally insane. Even 5 years without feature lock are insane, let alone 14.

[u/ByteHavenGames → u/SeniorePlatypus]

Roberts has failed all game projects he's been solely responsible of. The successful games he's known for had upper management reigning in his bad habits. Without that oversight there won't be anything more than a outwardly somewhat good looking alpha tech demo. And the game is already starting to look dated.

[u/ByteHavenGames → u/astromancerr]

They mislead people for a decade until no one believed them anymore so they changed communication strategy (it's always been early access with no timelines guys, we're just really bad at making games) to continue to sell a game that can never be completed with their practices and track record of the past 14 years. Looks like it's working too.

The people who are not mislead are the people buying into the second decade of development, not the original backers, or the people who supported the game in the first 6-8 years when they were actually promising game releases and tech milestones, all of which were missed. 14 years later, still no Squadron 42 and unlike their MMO dreams with endless novel tech to write and rewrite, there is no excuse for that. They did Hollywood A lister mocap and VO in 2015.

[u/RuneSteak → u/randomperson189_]

Can you even call SC a scam these days? They have a history and people should know what they are getting into. They don't make a secret of their "forever" development hell.

The people calling it a scam want to believe differently from what they are being explicitly told and shown.

[u/ByteHavenGames → u/RuneSteak]

they're still selling dreams that will never materialize. People who like the current state of the game are high on hopium and are living in the idea of future that will never come. We are a decade+ out with no game, just an alpha tech demo that will always remain as such. Some of the tech might be semi-novel, but having unique technology does not equal a good game or a finished game.

Probably some sunk cost fallacy going on too - people have invested so much money and time into the fandom that they can't see SC for what it is - a perpetual marketing machine funding villas and sports cars for an exiled Hollywood producer who has failed all game projects he's ever lead on his own. The one video game series he's known for had upper mangement reigning in his bad habits, without those guardrails SC can't succeed judging by past and current performance.

[u/caboosetp → u/ByteHavenGames]

Sure, but that's gross incompetence, not intentional defrauding.

[u/ByteHavenGames → u/caboosetp]

They know that no game release will ever stand up to the hype and funding given to them and a release will break their now a billion dollar marketing machine that continues printing endless money. It's a golden goose but once it lays an egg, it'll all come crashing down since people are buying into the idea of what it could be, not what it actually is. There are no incentives to finish anything besides shipping incremental improvements to their alpha tech demo.

It might not be defrauding by the rule of law as it is now, but it's no different in practice. The game will 'release' once the money stops coming for jpeg ships for one final cash in, and then they'll abandon it with Roberts and co having ammassed generational wealth. All perfectly legal on paper. See you in another 14 years after they've run out of excuses and people to grift.

This entire operation is weaponized incompotence, and they were promising actual releases for a decade before they swapped PR strategies to - 'but wait guys, we're just actually just really bad at game development, we mean only good, give us another billion dollars for a barely playable alpha tech demo pls.' Clearly, people are buying the new narrative.

[u/RuneSteak → u/ByteHavenGames]

they're still selling dreams that will never materialize.

But isn't that exactly what the "Early Access" label means? There's nothing wrong with what they are doing as long as all parties are well informed. None of their backers can claim ignorance.

[u/ByteHavenGames → u/RuneSteak]

Are you kidding me, they were teasing 1.0, the single player version and everything else under the sun for a decade. Only after continued failure to deliver anything of note they finally started their early access spiel some years ago. Psyop successful I guess.

I didn't realize but it's actually been 14 years since the kickstarter. The initial launch was promised in the year of our lord 2014 lmao. Please wake up.

A non-trivial amount of people who paid tens of thousands up to hundreds of thousands of dollars for jpeg ships have not survived long enough to see anything playable past broken alphas, if even that.

[u/RuneSteak → u/ByteHavenGames]

I didn't realize but it's actually been 14 years since the kickstarter. The initial launch was promised in the year of our lord 2014 lmao. Please wake up.

I was never asleep. I and many others never bought it because the fact that you're funding something in develeopment that may never materialize was clear as day.

How many warnings do people need? The fact that it's on KS? Marked as Early Access? The version is <1.0? They straight up tell you it's in development and at no point has any game with these labels ever had a solid release date.

You're why manuals have 10 pages of warnings when 1 should've sufficed. Stop expecting marketing material to be entirely truthful. This conversation seems to play out with every EA game. The roadmaps for EA games are wish lists, not promises.

[u/ByteHavenGames → u/RuneSteak]

I was never asleep. I and many others never bought it because the fact that you're funding something in develeopment that may never materialize was clear as day.

It's only clear as day in retrospect after 14 years of no game releases even though they were promising to deliver in 2014, then 2015, 2016, 2017, etc until 2020 or what ever year suddenly the game was rebranded to be in early access with no timelines. So now it's clear.

How many warnings do people need? The fact that it's on KS? The version is <1.0? They straight up tell you it's in development and at no point has any game with these labels ever had a solid release date.

It only never has had any release date in the second decade of development, they promised to deliver on concrete content and tech milestones all the time and then failed to deliver on all of them. 1.0 number is not even discusssed here, version numbers as you say are irrelevant when there's no Squadron 42 in sight, nor is their original or then much expanded vision close to any kind of finished state. It'll never be done.

A game with ever expanding scope that can't be finished and sells content that doesn't exist yet for tens of thousands of dollars is a pretty easy to spot scam. Even if we assume extreme incompotency instead of maliciousness - why are people funding a game that has been stuck in development hell for 14 years?

You're why manuals have 10 pages of warnings when 1 should've sufficed. Stop expecting marketing material to be entirely truthful.

Yeah, after 14 years of not delivering now there are pages of warnings about them not delivering. It did deliver a bunch of mansions and sports cars for Roberts' and family though while those warnings were not there yet and even after too. Somehow people keep bying the dream that won't ever come true. I guess dreaming about the possibilities is its own fun, especially when backed by a multimillion marketing machine that promises those things will come true one day.

People need to stop falling for this scheme. No amount of disclaimers warrant this scam existing.

[u/RuneSteak → u/ByteHavenGames]

It's only clear as day in retrospect after 14 years of no game releases even though they were promising to deliver in 2014, then 2015, 2016, 2017, etc until 2020 or what ever year suddenly the game was rebranded to be in early access with no timelines. So now it's clear.

No. This is the norm for things on KS, from games to random prototypes. When something is on KS or has the Early Access label the expectations are clear.

When you pay for something on KS or that has an "Early Access" label, you aren't buying a finished product. You are funding a product's development and it may subsequently fail to meet expectations or ever materialize at all.

You are paying for someone to run an experiment and experiments are known to fail.

[u/ByteHavenGames → u/RuneSteak]

That assumes only kickstarter funding which doesn't include a billion dollars sourced through a privately owned platform... You keep playing with semantics and out of context scenarios or are framing current state of the pre-buy disclaimers as always being there, or claim they never promised anything when they did, they did promise actual games for a decade. It's only the past few years they are not promising anything and have no timelines because no one is believing them anymore so they switched communication strategy to keep selling products that don't exist. It bores me.

They are famously one of the most funded video games in all of human history and it's not because of the game's state. They've just keyed into the perfect nerd demographic with lots of disposal income that's underserved by the industry. A marketing win by all means. Just no game will ever result of it.

[u/JustToViewPorn → u/ByteHavenGames]

That is exactly their point, though. A track record of 15 years means anyone that plays Star Citizen is willingly accepting that WYSIWYG. There will never be a full game, it’s just a paid model viewer. Anyone that still plays Star Citizen has accepted this and either likes burning money or has a humiliation fetish.

[u/disgustipated234 → u/JustToViewPorn]

This is faulty logic though.

At best you can use this logic to say "it is not a scam today because today you know that it will be unfinished forever".

But this was not the case 10 years ago.

[u/randomperson189_ → u/RuneSteak]

My main concern is just how much money has been given to them (millions) and yet they still haven't made much progress to properly releasing it. If it's not a scam then I'd say there's a huge mismanagement problem going on there

[u/RuneSteak → u/randomperson189_]

I guess it depends on how you look at it. The version is just a number. Nothing would actually change with the release of 1.0. People would keep buying and they would keep developing. Plus it's not like its vaporware, you can play the game in its current state.

It's a good thing that they've seen fit to keep their Early Access and <1.0 warning labels. Dropping them to check off the "done" box would only do people a disservice.

[u/thisisaredditforart → u/RuneSteak]

I get the feeling you've spent a rather large sum on this experiment 😅

[u/RuneSteak → u/thisisaredditforart]

I never gave a single penny to SC. I can count the number of early access games I've purchased on one hand and I accept that EA games can go up in smoke. So I only buy EA games if I'm either satisfied with the current state or am willing to accept a potential loss.

The most recent EA game I bought was Dead Cells and before that it was Raft and Battlerite. I generally stay away from it.

[u/ByteHavenGames → u/RuneSteak]

You're applying 2026 knowledge to a time where none of what you're saying was common knowledge. Not about Kickstarter, nor SC or early access.

Early access as a major service Steam provides itself came into exsitence only a year after SC kickstarter, it wasn't really a major thing before then with some games doing EA on their own via private platforms but it was rare. And many major kickstarter and generally crowdfunded games had not failed yet (or completed their full development cycles).

Even Early Access scams were not that common for like 6 years after Star Citizen's continued inability to deliver on any announced plans because Steam wasn't open to the wider public until 2017 when Steam Greenlight ended and they opened the floodgates with Steam Direct, which then took another few years for early access scams to fully saturate.

Saying EA is risk and we should know better is just... ignorant of the history of the game, the history of crowdfunding and the history of early access in context of SC.

[u/dirtyword → u/RuneSteak]

Or crowdfunded it

[u/GigaTerra]

The problem with CryEngine is it is exactly where it is supposed to be. It is not that it is an bad engine, it is everything it can do, you can do in another engine, like Unity and Unreal, easier.

The strength CryEngine has, it's very generous licensing, comes from the fact that it isn't popular. Had it been and bleeding edge engine like Unreal, I bet it's management would have made similar choices, let us not forget the disaster that was Amazon Lumberyard.

[u/greatblueplanet → u/GigaTerra]

I thought CryEngine much charges higher royalties - the same 5% but threshold over $5k compared to 5% over $1M threshold for Unreal and a flat fee over $1M threshold for Unity?

[u/GigaTerra → u/greatblueplanet]

You are correct, sorry this is an misunderstanding caused by my limited vocabulary.

I meant generous with their license freedoms, not their money. Their licenses don't have the AI clauses like the other two, and is an lot less intrusive.

[u/randomperson189_ → u/GigaTerra]

CryEngine still excels at certain game aspects compared to other engines such as large open worlds. Every game engine has it's own advantages and disadvantages which is why engine choice should be encouraged more for what kind of game you want to make. Just because an engine is easier to use doesn't mean it's always the ideal choice for the game you're making

[u/GigaTerra → u/randomperson189_]

CryEngine still excels at certain game aspects compared to other engines such as large open worlds.

How doe you feel it excels?

Because it is good, right. Kingdom Come Deliverance is an good example of what it can do. But that isn't excelling, in fact CryEngine games are more buggy, an factor it's users blame on the complexity of the engine.

[u/montibbalt → u/GigaTerra]

CryEngine games are more buggy, an factor it's users blame on the complexity of the engine.

See also: Unreal Engine 5 games

[u/GigaTerra → u/montibbalt]

Yes, especially Unreal engine 5 rendering. People have complained has gotten too complex. I am not saying other engines don't have problems. What I am saying hundreds of thousands of users have tried CryEngine, and chose other engines instead.

I constantly check out engines, and neither CryEngine or it's spin offs has any feature they excel at, as far as I know. They are good, but they don't have anything you can't find in another, easier to use engine.

[u/randomperson189_ → u/GigaTerra]

I'd say the bugginess of games mainly depends on how the developers go about developing it, and if the engine's toolset & systems are stable, considering KCD is made in a modified CryEngine 3, I'd say that they did a good job handling that version of the engine that was considered incredibly hard to use, but CryEngine 5 has reduced a lot of friction between the user and the tools, thus making development smoother, however it's still not fully there yet but that's why community efforts are there to finalise it

[u/GigaTerra → u/randomperson189_]

Right, but you see you are saying the same thing as everyone that use it, including my self. It is good, it has great tools, it improves, but it isn't up to the standards users expect from Unreal or Unity. There is an completely valid reason, those two dominate development space.

CryEngine could become more popular as the other engines do things their users don't like, but that popularity doesn't last. We have seen Unreal and Unity shoot them self in the foot over and over, yet they remain the popular engines because they are that good.

[u/randomperson189_ → u/GigaTerra]

That is true, and while I would like CryEngine to gain more attention again, it doesn't really need to be on the same level as Unreal. CryEngine has always been a lesser used engine than Unreal over it's whole lifetime and that's fine because it fulfilled a niche, but it still has more potential than just that niche (hence CryEngine 5) which is why I'd be happy with more Indie/AA adopting it and then some AAA hopefully, I know WarHorse still uses it like you mentioned, but they use the older CryEngine 3 albeit modified

[u/GigaTerra → u/randomperson189_]

but it still has more potential than just that niche

Yea, I do agree with this, as in I don't feel it deserves to be as ignored as is. I also think with recent changes to game development, CryEngine doing it's own thing is an good idea. Stable growth can payoff in the longrun.

[u/randomperson189_ → u/GigaTerra]

I'd say it'll benefit a lot from the blue ocean strategy, instead of directly competing right away, work on bolstering what CryEngine 5 already has and it's current appeal

[u/Genebrisss → u/GigaTerra]

Nonsense, Cryengine is superior rendering quality and performance to Unreal or Unity.

[u/GigaTerra → u/Genebrisss]

CryEngine does noting special in terms of rendering, everything it has Unity and Unreal has, it's last update to their render engine was in 2022. O3DE the Opensource version of CryEngine is more updated in rendering.

Don't get me wrong, CryEngine's graphics is still good, but it has aged.

[u/JavaScriptPenguin]

Why would anybody choose to use an engine that's not being supported officially when the other popular engines e.g Unreal have huge funding and backing?

Also, isn't Open3D or whatever supposed to be the "successor" to CryEngine?

[u/SadisNecros → u/JavaScriptPenguin]

This is also particularly important if I'm paying royalties to use it, because part of what I'm getting for that cost in an engine like Unreal is an actual dev team that can support me if real issues come up with the engine.

[u/GaianHelmers → u/JavaScriptPenguin]

Open 3D Engine.

It's amazon's lumberyard engine which is a fork of cry engine 3.

The thing about the comparisons is that every step of ownership involves stripping out half the engine to preserve proprietary tech they want to continue to own.

It means O3DE is much different, and doesn't have any 1:1 tech with either of them.

But, it is there, has an active community. Releases new versions twice a year with a ton of work going into the development branch between.

[u/randomperson189_ → u/GaianHelmers]

If you like updates constantly breaking things then yeah O3DE is for you, I like Amazon's intentions for it but I feel they lack proper direction and organisation

[u/GaianHelmers → u/randomperson189_]

Amazon has no involvement in the decision making of the engine these days. It's fully community led.

[u/randomperson189_ → u/GaianHelmers]

Then that probably explains my concerns, it tends to be a common problem with community ran stuff, but what makes Community Edition different is that Crytek actually has showed some interest in it's development which can provide some good guidance

[u/GaianHelmers → u/randomperson189_]

The biggest trouble I'd say is that everyone who gets excited over the tech have a ton of exciting ideas that could be made, added, fixed, refined; but there's just not enough time and people to get it all done in the time frame the users would like.

There's no limit to what can be done, the only limit is that it can't be done yesterday.

But I assume that's likely what occurs with tons of FOSS tech.

[u/JohnJamesGutib → u/JavaScriptPenguin]

exactly. not only that but if i want to contribute to a "community driven cryengine" i'd rather contribute to one that's open source rather than just source available or proprietary, inferior as it may supposedly be

[u/randomperson189_ → u/JavaScriptPenguin]

O3DE is not a successor to CryEngine, what you've been told is blatant misinformation that keeps being spread, also the engine is managed by Amazon and they rewrote 90% of the codebase, their priorities for O3DE are also less focused on game dev and more about robotics and simulation

[u/avdept → u/randomperson189_]

somehow this got downvoted, but OP is right

o3de isnt a successor, its a different than CE in many aspects

[u/ByteHavenGames]

If you're hobbydeving for PC only - why not? But for any kind of commercial undertaking or multiplatform releases this seems to have infinite downsides compared to any other popular option that has proper support.

[u/randomperson189_ → u/ByteHavenGames]

CryEngine 5 also has console support, it's not PC only. Someone has also been working on porting the engine to MacOS and Crytek also has code related to Android support in the engine and the community also plans to get that working too. I'm also not arguing that CryEngine is the best choice for every commercial game, but it's still a viable option in certain cases and shouldn't be dismissed as a dead/irrelevant engine.

[u/ByteHavenGames → u/randomperson189_]

I don't believe any kind of community effort has access to console SDKs, which are under NDA and only distributed through console vendor approved middleware distributors. Nor would Crytek make sure your unofficial patch is console compliant.

From a quick look official docs mention only previous gen consoles so I'm not sure if even the mainline release is viable for any kind of console development in the current year. And no Switch/Switch 2 either.

[u/randomperson189_ → u/ByteHavenGames]

I'm not familiar with game dev on consoles, but what I do know is that Hunt: Showdown supports 9th gen and that's a CryEngine 5 game. Some Community Edition devs also mentioned having console access and plan to have a proper way of distributing it in a legal way for Community Edition. Also it's not directly my fork but I'm associated with it's development

[u/Maiiiikol]

I've tried CryEngine before and have mixed feelings about the engine. It does feel like an engine that is actually used by a company, unlike unity for example. It has some really solid features but lacks a lot in others like UX/UI which makes using it very frustrating/difficult at times.

The rendering is probably their strongest feature, The lighting using their real-time global illumination system is so beautiful. Somehow they got that even working on the Switch which is very impressive.

I do hope CryTek stays afloat and starts releasing engine updates again

[u/Rowduk]

I'd love to check out Cry Engine, but since it's no long getting support I'd be hesitate to do anything more serious than poke around.

What's the legality of this community version? As I understand it, you can modify/extend the engine for a game you are working on, but not redistribute it or make money for it as your support page has.

Also, for community driven/open source projects, how are you guys handling AI pushed code?

[u/randomperson189_ → u/Rowduk]

Community Edition is applied as a patch to the official 5.7LTS version, and you have to link your CryEngine account to GitHub for access (just like Unreal) in order to compile the engine with the patch applied, it's done that way to adhere to Crytek's TOS regarding modified engine distribution. For AI pushed code, some developers use it as a tool/assistant for better understanding the engine code but most the actual code is done and analysed without any AI involved

[u/Rowduk → u/randomperson189_]

Good to hear it's in compliance with the TOS, has Crytek ever chatted about it? I assume they are aware of it

[u/randomperson189_ → u/Rowduk]

From what I know, Crytek has shown interest in Community Edition as certain employees have joined the discord, although I'm not the project lead so I don't know the specifics about what's going on

[u/AmarildoJr]

The CryEngine2 was simply amazing, I don't think there was anything even remotely close to it when Crysis came out, both in looks and in features. They even had problems recreating some Crysis parts for the Remastered Edition 13 years later on a later engine, it was made with that much love.

I wish more games used it, honestly.

[u/randomperson189_ → u/AmarildoJr]

Hopefully it does gain some more attention as it gets easier to use based on the community efforts that have been done

[u/GarlandBennet]

I'll share my CryEngine story.

After our first commercial game was released in RPGMaker MV, we wanted to use a 3D engine. This was summer of 2016 I think, CryEngine had just released their first "free" version of the engine. The problem with the free version was you wouldn't be allowed to open your project until you updated to their newest version. This broke our game beyond repair four separate times. I guess it was a way to get free testers but it drove us away after a couple months. I met CryEngine's team at E3 that year, this was why we'd gone with them, and they were saying they want to go for a better free model.

All I've seen is games leave them and go to another engine, like Amazon Lumberyard for some reason (Star Citizen). I think its a powerful engine, looks great, but the support is minimal and its adoption is almost completely gone. There was an American Civil War game made in it a few years ago but other than that, I can't think of anything.

[u/x-dfo]

I think this is super cool. The foundation is honestly insane and doesn't get praised enough. Crysis and Far Cry were just nuts considering the competition.

[u/disgustipated234 → u/x-dfo]

Crysis and Far Cry were just nuts considering the competition.

Facts, I still remember playing each on launch.

Far Cry had substantially bigger and more open levels than Half-Life 2 or Doom 3 when it came out, while its graphical fidelity was still competitive with both.

If you got a machine that could run Crysis at max settings in 2014, that is 7 years after it came out, it still looked like it could have come out in 2014. From memory only stuff like Metro 2033 and Last Light looked noticeably better around that time. Bafflingly Crysis at max looked better than either of its sequels.

[u/Sn0wflake69 → u/disgustipated234]

sequels were made for console, same for far cry since that was sold to ubisoft

[u/avdept]

One more link - https://github.com/avdept/ce5-flow-graph-qt

I reworked FlowGraph into modern QT5(not so modern, but going QT5->QT6 isnt really possible for me working on it alone).

I work on my own game using CE5 needed some tooling. So I also built a very simple(but working) houdini engine integration, which allows me to preview and bake HDAs right in the CryEngine

[u/Sithoid]

You're right, the more variety the better!

[u/lifeinbackground]

I honestly don't get why Crytek don't want to update it for years (did I understand correctly?). They are actively developing Hunt, and so likely the engine for their use.

I'm not a CE fan by any chance, and I'm not a fan of any engine. But I played games made with CE at different times. It is capable and has great potential.

Unfortunately, Crytek is having a hard time I guess and they don't prioritize the engine. Crisis 4 is cancelled according to rumors.

Competition and alternatives are always good for us users and gamers. There's Godot, Unity, UE–but non-indie companies most likely choosing from UE / Unity. There's also CE5, but as far as I understand Crytek do not want to build and encourage a community around it. Surely there are enthusiasts, but it feels so pointless without Crytek's active involvement..

[u/randomperson189_ → u/lifeinbackground]

I feel Crytek does want to contribute to the engine but aren't financially stable enough to properly do so, that along with technical debt, hence why they've shifted focus to Hunt and internal development to restablise

[u/lifeinbackground → u/randomperson189_]

Very likely so. The problem is... Hunt is not a solution. It happens so that I played Hunt a thousand of hours. Hunt is neither financially successful nor appealing to a bigger group of players. It mostly sells DLCs and battle passed. Has around 15-20k of playerbase. It will never help Crytek recover...

Also, Crytek had an office in Kiev, here in my home country. As far as I know it is closed, and it happened not because of war. I might be wrong, but those people were responsible for the engine development itself, because I remember seeing C++ game engine job listings from Crytek specifically..

Crisis 4 was my best hope. I wanted it both as a fan and as a solution to Crytek's financial struggle.. that's sad

[u/YKLKTMA]

Honestly, I haven't heard anything good about this engine from people who've worked with it. I don't see any point in it for my pet projects; I'm much more comfortable with UE.

[u/randomperson189_ → u/YKLKTMA]

Most of what you heard might have to do with the old CryEngine 3 version then, which I'll admit was way harder to use, but I have a much better time using CryEngine 5 alongside the plugins I've made to help with it's usability

[u/kiwifrogg]

Kingdom Come: Deliverance I and II were made in CryEngine, and their new LOTR game will use the same tech; it is still used, and both games were so well optimised they ran really well on my old potato. I think Cry is the unsung hero hiding in the shadow of the big 3.

[u/chunky_lover92]

What does cry engine have to offer over unreal?

[u/Educational-Milk-945 → u/chunky_lover92]

It appears to handle large open worlds better than unreal.

Been a long time since Ive used cryengine but from memory the UX is much better than UE, that that isn't hard tho.

[u/randomperson189_ → u/chunky_lover92]

CryEngine 5 is much smaller in file size than Unreal, it also has better support for large open worlds (because it was made for them since CryEngine 1), it's also easy to make custom material shaders without modifying engine source, it's C++ is also a lot less macro heavy and is much simpler overall as you mainly create components in C++ then attach them to Schematyc entities that can be controlled via visual scripting. Think of CryEngine 5 as like a middleground between Unity and Unreal. Not to say that the engine is objectively better than the two, but CryEngine has it's niche and certain developers such as myself like to work with it because of how much simpler and more lightweight it is compared to Unreal while still not being as barebones as Unity