Looks like Epic has Unreal Engine 4 ready to go. I'd really like to see all the new stuff it will be doing.
Printable View
Looks like Epic has Unreal Engine 4 ready to go. I'd really like to see all the new stuff it will be doing.
Wired's four page article doesn't detail specifically what the new UE4 will do. It does talk about some of the demo just as a viewer and talks about Epic's past and potential for the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wired
thread needs a real-time demo video or something, maybe at e3
The Unreal Engine threads always start with just screen shots!!! :)
Sounds like they showed it behind closed doors at GDC and will show it publicly at E3. So we have a few weeks to wait.
Can't wait for nice, high-quality videos. Samaritan was already pretty exciting.
Rendering talk doesn't excite me like it used to. Games on current gen systems still look amazing, and I'd expect a true next gen game to look like cgi.
I'm more interested to hear about what this can do in terms of gameplay, how it can facilitate very large or streaming environments, interactivity, streamlining of development... things that are ultimately going to matter more than bokeh depth of field.
From the sound of it, it'll bring more realistic physics to the small details that are currently treated as superfluous eye candy.
Texture pop in....
Behold, gaming's last generation.
And by that I mean the last generation where graphical fidelity alone will be the primary selling point of an upgrade.
Except that MS and Sony will skimp on something stupid like RAM and cause the games to not look like that and run at 60fps at the same time. God I hope I'm wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
The next gen of consoles will have weaker gpus than whats available now and whats available now couldn't run that at 60fps. I mean get consoles for exclusives and shit, but skimping on RAM won't be the problem this coming gen, GPUs weaker than current 6 series cards will be what holds them back.
What Sony and MS do from now on should be zero concern to you from now on, the gap is just going to get bigger and if you want that demo you're only going to find it on PC for the next ten years.
Intellectually, I know that's true, but I don't want to ever find myself in the situation where I have to choose between supporting Windows 8+ and being stuck with half assed console versions of games. Maybe Apple will figure out that games matter between now and when Windows 7 is sunset.
If Prometheus is to be believed we'll be using Windows 7 for another 70 years.
Attachment 66104
I figure just use 7 until 9 comes out, skip 8 like most people skipped ME and Vista.
:lol: That's awesome.
Epic wouldn't be out there pushing this shit if they thought future consoles couldn't run it. That's where the customers are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
And since they know the specs of the consoles, they obviously know it can be done.
It doesn't matter. They're going to get in the ballpark to where the difference will look slight to the average user. Yes, things like RAM and storage will become a bottleneck at some point, and this will affect things like the size of worlds and the ability to stream large areas in and out of memory and such. But strictly in terms of rendering fidelity, we're reaching the end of where upgrades feel like they're worth $400.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
On a related note, Square has put out a "next gen" demo of what their stuff will look like on new consoles.
Is it indistinguishable from cgi? No. But would I pay an extra $400 if it were? Not a chance.
We're in a thread about graphics, and people don't know how to use the youtubehd tags.
They pumped their last engine before the 360 and PS3 came out and nothing shown in their video is possible on those systems at 60fps, 1080p with AA on. Don't even pretend it is. Game will look like that video but either lower native res or lower FPS, but it will not be exactly like that. The power just won't be there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I call bullshit on the Sqaure one also. The next consoles are using GPUs that have already been designed and are weaker than what I have in my computer and my computer sure as shit can't run that FF thing in real time. Unless the next gen of consoles are like two thousand dollars, I just don't see that video possibly being a reality.
PCs have overhead that consoles don't. You can't run a game like Gears of War 3 on a PC with a ATI X1600 and 512 megs of RAM.
But you don't have to either.
Disregarding the issue of current tech having the ability to run these engines, how many studios are going to have the manpower and budgets available to create entire games with the graphical fidelity like what was shown? Everyone's already lamenting the fact that development costs are ballooning. I imagine one or more of these compromises will eventually have to take place:
Games are going to become much shorter.
Games will have even longer development times: 30+ months on average (I'm not sure of the development length of the current generation, so that number may be far off)
MSRP of games will increase to cover the [perceived] costs. $69.99 will be the new standard.
There will be an even bigger consolidation of studios where the majority of all games will come from the big publishers: Ubisoft, EA, Activation, etc.
The graphical boundaries won't be pushed to the level shown on these videos until "economies of scale" occur, maybe a few years after the tech is available.
The indie industry does exist parallel to any of this, but those games won't convince Joe Blow to upgrade to a next gen console or video card.
This is all obviously conjecture, of course, and I'm just pulling all of this out of the air. I hope it won't be this drastic.
Assets are what's expensive. Engines can be utilized in other ways pretty cheaply. But as I have said before, we are getting to the point of diminishing returns unless the world is going to be something like 10 ultra-high budget games and then your average game will be 'indie'.
Yeah, that's what I was really getting at, the assets these engines will allow to be created.
You're missing some of the key points of what Epic is trying to do. At least from the video shown, they designed this engine to make games look better faster. It sounds like (I haven't messed with the unreal 3 editor) there is a lot that the engine takes into account for. As well as the editor being improved to speed up development.
Engines are amazing because they do work that you were going to do anyways, and have taken care of it. It's part of why Japan has problems is because they insist on a new engine everytime. (A lot of them, not all!)
The only way this would increase development time significantly is for companies that aren't going to use an engine but try to match it graphically.
The Unreal engine kind of pioneered the whole "make things look good faster" thing back in 1997 so it's not like UE4 doing that is a surprise. Obviously UE4 has 'caught up' to modern development but so did every other Unreal when it was released. And during all that time game development has continued to get more and more expensive.
Those links don't work on my iPad so I stopped using them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Square has good artists. I don't think their DX11 demo is bullshit. It's obviously running on ridiculous hardware and even then probably not at 60 fps, but I do believe it's realtime.
Did someone say it wasn't realtime?
Opaque is just complaining that it's running in realtime on hardware that we'll never get to use it on. That's what he means by bullshit, though that last sentence is worded kind of confusing.
Realtime or not, scripted cut-scenes are so far off from actual gameplay it is silly.
It would not be a shock to see some of the first next-gen games STILL using UE3, just getting more out of it than a 360 or PS3 can and with a good number of modifications. Some devs may not want to pay the higher license fees that UE4 may require. WRT game prices, I think $60 could still stand as the usual game price- but it wouldn't surprise me to see shorter games with DLC getting pimped.
While Square's demo is impressive, I'm skeptical. Geometry cuts could be needed to get it to fit into PS4/Xbox Whatever specs. We'll have something that still looks impressive, but probably not to this point. Surely, ingame graphics will still be distinguishable from prerendered cut scenes.
I'll be interested to see how the animated film Deep turns out, being made with the HL2 engine and a $19M budget.
Valve's Source Engine being used for Brown Bag Films/Shane Acker feature film "Deep"
New UE4 Infiltrator tech demo from GDC 2013
How in the hell did every one of those bullets miss?
Neat!
UE4 on WiiU question laughed out of GDC.
Delicious tears ensue.
lol next gen. First frostbite 3 and now this.
I think they are making a mistake, but so far this generation is delivering the lulz
those games aren't important anyway, I don't want military shooter 503 give me mediocre platformer 3911 instead
I thought you meant this was in the video above. I can't get those four minutes back!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzo
Nintendo deserves everything they get. Those tears are exquisite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzo
What are the lulz? I don't get it.
Reggie was all like "Don't worry bros, we'll have 3rd party support, it won't be like the Wii".
Third party engines are all like "lol nope, enjoy no support son".
Ah ok. You were referring to lack of new engines supporting Wii U. Thought you were just referring to new engines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chux