Unreal 4/Frostbite 3 engine demos have me excited about pc gamings future now

T

tybert7

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
2,763
frostbite 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBSVyWrkius


unreal 4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dO2rM-l-vdQ


That last in particular looks more like a cgi rendered clip than real time rendered footage.



I know the pc could do this for awhile now, but the fact that these modern engines will FINALLY be used for cross platform titles for the next gen consoles means we will have the first party titles that are released on more platforms with better graphics.


Frostbite 3 is supposed to be used for the next ME and DA, Mass Effect looked good for what it was, but the original DA looked like ASS. Imagine the new versions of those titles on these modern engines?


Crysis 3 is not a top end game as far as gameplay and story goes, and thus far big franchise games have been tied down to the standards of consoles, those constraints are finally being lifted, and at least for a brief period of time the pc will benefit.


EDIT:

the last game I've played was bioshock infinite, an absolutely beautiful game, but if the baseline was the new consoles then some of the lighting effects could have been more spectacular, and NOW we will finally get that because of the adoption of these new engines. The dark age of pc graphics is coming to an end (because the consoles are finally being replaced).
 
Definitely looking forward to the future especially since new consoles will use PC like architecture.
 
The problem is, videos like this have always been around. It's just up to the developers of games to actually utilize all that power....which they rarely do. I could dig up a tech demo using all engine game play from 2008 and it would still look better than what we have today.
 
An engine is only as good as the games made on it. We've yet to see a worthy successor to the original game that gave the Unreal engines their name.
 
John Stamos said:
The problem is, videos like this have always been around. It's just up to the developers of games to actually utilize all that power....which they rarely do. I could dig up a tech demo using all engine game play from 2008 and it would still look better than what we have today.
Click to expand...

Not to mention there's a world of difference between a glorified cutscene and a truly interactive game. I mean, I think the Unreal one looks phenomenal (the Frostbite one is a bit meh), but replace the carefully choreographed camera and mocap with player-control and AI and suddenly it won't look nearly as polished.

Still, very pretty.
 
As much as I like the graphics upgrade we won't be seeing top notch graphics in too many games for a while.
 
Litfod said:
Not to mention there's a world of difference between a glorified cutscene and a truly interactive game. I mean, I think the Unreal one looks phenomenal (the Frostbite one is a bit meh), but replace the carefully choreographed camera and mocap with player-control and AI and suddenly it won't look nearly as polished.

Still, very pretty.
Click to expand...

frostbite 3 was showing off more realtime gameplay, that is probably why it looks less impressive compared to that more staged show with unreal 4, I am not an expert so who knows.
 
John Stamos said:
The problem is, videos like this have always been around. It's just up to the developers of games to actually utilize all that power....which they rarely do. I could dig up a tech demo using all engine game play from 2008 and it would still look better than what we have today.
Click to expand...

It's like taking a shit and covering it in topping and showing it to a bunch of cheering monkeys who get disappointed once they eat it and find out it's shit, BUT THEN 2 YEARS LATER the same fucking monkeys cheer just like they did first time when a new piece of shit is covered in slightly more delicious looking topping.

The definition of insanity?
 
I mean graphics went up slightly, yay. I'm happier more due to most developers leaving dx9 than these new engines. I mean yay, we can now have more particle effects. That will be a game changer!
 
There will always be a gap between tech demos and games, but why isn't that gap getting smaller? Graphics engines now run entirely on the gpu, cpu's are 10x more powerful with multiple cores, and we haven't really seen even a 2x increase in AI or game logic. So a properly coded game should be able to have those graphics with game logic running on the cpu.

I think its simply because on the pc, developers don't even come close to maximizing the hardware, whereas on consoles they do.
 
ME and DA are useless pieces of shit.
The sooner the franchise's die, the better.
I look forward to new IP's not fancier graphics.

AI is where we need to focus, graphics are fine.
Look at Bioshock Infinite, it's incredible and on such old tech it's not even funny.
 
The problem is the time it takes for asset creation. If there is some method discovered to streamline the process and time it takes to make "lifelike" graphics/textures you'd see a whole lot more of them.

Plus you have to remember what the vast majority of peoples PCs are actually like...
 
to the OP ..... I for one am all for the next gen graphics and hopefully all of the PC crowd gets to see theirr hardware pushed now. I remember the days I bought a new video card top of the line the first day and it STILL couldn't run some games at acceptable frames on max settings. Anyways add this one to the bunch .....Activision via IGN. BTW I hate what CoD has become since CoD CoD2 and the first Modern Warfare.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOYKzoIllR4
 
John Stamos said:
The problem is, videos like this have always been around. It's just up to the developers of games to actually utilize all that power....which they rarely do. I could dig up a tech demo using all engine game play from 2008 and it would still look better than what we have today.
Click to expand...

This. It's sad but that's how reality is.
 
dgz said:
What lighting effects? Looks like something 100% achievable in UE3. I bet frame rate would be a lot better, too.

The "game" looks terrible in every respect...
Click to expand...

Eh I'm going off what the developer said; I'm not a game developer, I have no idea.

Looks like a beautified version of Amnesia.
 
Yea, I found nothing graphically impressive in that Daylight (UE4) game demo... but that game might be fun.
 
bigdogchris said:
Proof that graphics is what sells games.
Click to expand...

I always laugh when people make this comment, like it's something that proves how people don't know what a good game is anymore.

It's silly, juvenile type mentality. People want games to look nice. The PC gaming scene for the most part has always been about pushing for the maximum graphic quality that is possible at any given time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and that is not what ultimately decides that the game will be bad.
 
Gameplay is always the first thing I look at when playing games, but if graphics are bad enough it will make me not want to play the game. When I was younger I didn't care about graphics, but the older I get the more importance I give it.
 
bigdogchris said:
Proof that graphics is what sells games.
Click to expand...

Yes and no; it comes with a caveat (for me).

Being 35 and having grown up on the NES (but played the 2600, 5200, Colecovision, and Commodore64 before it) - I've played a helluva lot of games in my life.

Games nowadays typically fail to bring something new to the table; that's just the nature of the beast. When that happens - I look for something else to earn my hard earned dollars; grpahics are typically at the top of that list, because that's something fairly easy to see and take advantage of.

However my first inclination is not to buy games specifically for graphics. I bought a ton of worse-looking better-playing shooters before I ever bought Crysis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top