Digital Foundry vs. Unreal Engine 4 - Video, screenshots and analysis [eurogamer]
- Thread starter mocoworm
- Start date
Lactose_Intolerant
Member
Epic will be SOL if consoles are using 2gb
This is the funniest thing ever said to any PC gamer. I'm still laughing.
Portugeezer
Member
It won't require 16GB's, that's overkill even on PC.
Most games on PC are still under 2GB's, so with these engines I expect around 4GB - 6GB (max) being utilized in the near future (which means make sure you have 8GB's just to be safe).
Most games on PC are still under 2GB's, so with these engines I expect around 4GB - 6GB (max) being utilized in the near future (which means make sure you have 8GB's just to be safe).
R_thanatos
Member
i wish i had this much on my Pc ...
Agent Ironside
Member
Hardly any games go over even 4gb's these days. 8GB would def be enough for this.
You mean like how current consoles are SOL trying to run UE3 with 512MB total RAM?
In a topic about a tech demo to demonstrate the technology for a new graphics engine and all people can talk about is the art?
Never change GAF.
It is? I have yet to play any game that even came close to maxing out my 4GB.
Oh good. 8GB I could believe, but even that's too much
Efficient and effective use of hardware on PC is a different issue tho, which is why underpowered consoles come so close to current PC games in looks
Neither have I. The fact that 16 GB of RAM costs less than 100 dollars means it's not really a great expense in a 700-1500 dollar PC...
Barkley's Justice
Member
you know...i found the final fantasy and 1313 demonstrations way more impressive.
i've watched the UE4 editor walkthrough and i understand how the advancements there are huge. but this demo is lacking, even compared to the Samaritan demo.
i've watched the UE4 editor walkthrough and i understand how the advancements there are huge. but this demo is lacking, even compared to the Samaritan demo.
AstroNut325
Member
The F***! You people are blind. The videos in the article blow away what was shown in the FF tech demo. The sheer complexity and the lighting in each scene is several steps ahead of what Square has achieved up to this point. That looked very close to modern CGI. Square's demo is close to CGI of 5 year old games.
Edit:
If the 540 and PS4 aren't able to run UE4 with most bells and whistles running...I'm going PC only. For the first time ever. And Epic... bring on the 16GB of ram requirements.
Edit:
If the 540 and PS4 aren't able to run UE4 with most bells and whistles running...I'm going PC only. For the first time ever. And Epic... bring on the 16GB of ram requirements.
The more you have, the more your system will take advantage of it. Even if it's just Windows being able to keep a large cache of recently used files without having to drop them to accommodate game data. 16GB certainly is not the standard these days though, 8GB is and only in the past year or so has it been. It will still be quite some time before 16GB kits become the best price/size value.
Forsaken82
Member
I think people are latching onto the FF demo because it looks like it belongs in a game where as the UE4 Elemental demo is just that, an obvious tech demo with all of its focus on showing of what the engine is capable of. I think Epic succeeded in spades.
Aw shucks. That horrible shadow dithering is still present. And the depth of field seems to be broken for objects close to the camera.
Oh well. If it really takes more than a year before we get to see the very first UE4 game, they'll definitely have the time to work out those kinks.
Oh well. If it really takes more than a year before we get to see the very first UE4 game, they'll definitely have the time to work out those kinks.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
Only in Human characters and art, Squarenix's particles looked like shit, and the lighting was not that impressive.
Before this demo was showned, I wrote in the Square's demo thread "After seeing this, it's impossible that UE4 looks better. This looks like top notch CGI".
Confimed...
Barrel Cannon
Member
Amazing features. I feel like people are looking at the wrong things. They aren't trying to show off a game with a tech demo. They are showing off features in their engine.
Last time I checked, UE4 was going to be used on PC's as well. The HW being utilized (minus the RAM which is due to it being a dev machine) are quite realistic over the coming years. Whether a the console versions of games are as good is immaterial.
Epic didn't state this is definitely what you can expect on the consoles. It's what you can expect on PC, and a guess for consoles ... and they openly state they don't know what trade-offs will be necessary on the consoles.
Ken Masters
Banned
Easily achievable for how much?
check the amazing high resolution screenshots
http://images.eurogamer.net/2012/articles//a/1/4/9/1/0/9/2/UE4_Elemental_Cine_screen_00014.jpg.jpg
:\
Besides the art being awful ... the massive lack of shadows makes this look pretty terrible. Obviously it's doing many things very well, but when taken as a whole ... there's a lot of current gen stuff that beats it.
(yes I realize the full engine will obviously do shadowing - just saying for demo material it doesn't look good)
Barrel Cannon
Member
This is a non-optimized tech demo. It seems realistic for a 1k build to me based on those specs.
They aren't trying to show of the art, they are trying to show off the engine's features. This isn't meant to be a wowing gamers but rather as selling points for game developers looking for a viable engine to meet their demands. The Square tech demo is beautiful but it doesn't do a good job of advertising the types of features it has. But that's because Square isn't trying to sell it though so it's more of just a show off piece to gamers. Epic and Square have two very different motives for showing their engines.
SturokBGD
Member
The standard for what? For who? Most PC games are 32-bit and can't even address that much RAM.
clutch.as.it.gets.
Member
I´m expected better texture resolutions and mapping. I really think tessellation is a little bit overrated. It needs a lot of resources and isn`t that good looking. Hope the devs go more for high resolution normal maps and parallax mapping than tessellation. High quality parallax mapping looks awesome and even saves resources.
There is plenty of lighting/shadow stuff going on in UE4 demo. Watch the actual demo/walkthrough with the dev from Epic video. I think that makes it more clear on how amazing the tech actually is.
The actual demo video looks much better, however. I don't see how you could argue otherwise.
Those shots are simply designed to demonstrate very specific engine features.
StudioTan
Hold on, friend! I'd love to share with you some swell news about the Windows 8 Metro UI! Wait, where are you going?
Those shots are taken from inside the editor.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Lol. PC gaming, yo. The Thunder of gaming.
xion4360
Member
pretty disappointing demo to be honest. I mean it looks like an evolution of what Unreal already offers more than a next gen leap. The lighting is the real deal, but aside from that they arent showing off much. The texture work is nothing special.
Its very different from square Luminous demo, where everything about it looks to be on another level from any current engine. and they also made a point to show off things like liquids, particles interacting with moving surfaces, very very impressive cloth, hair, skin.. things that really show off the tech. This Unreal demo shows a lot of rock and hard surfaces that arent impressive and in small rooms to boot. their particles are still just a bunch of dots, unlike square showing off thousands of fireflies in the middle of the scene.
Its very different from square Luminous demo, where everything about it looks to be on another level from any current engine. and they also made a point to show off things like liquids, particles interacting with moving surfaces, very very impressive cloth, hair, skin.. things that really show off the tech. This Unreal demo shows a lot of rock and hard surfaces that arent impressive and in small rooms to boot. their particles are still just a bunch of dots, unlike square showing off thousands of fireflies in the middle of the scene.
Prophet Steve
Member
You have a very, very tilted point of view.
StoppedInTracks
Member
That guy that mentioned "styrofoam" looking physics on the falling rocks nailed it. It looked fake as hell.
Also not impressed with the textures.
Also not impressed with the textures.
Gamersyde has a 1080p version to download: http://www.gamersyde.com/news_unreal_engine_4_elemental_demo-12977_en.html
pft, here is 911mb version
international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/videos/UnrealEngine4ElementalCinematic.mov
I'm pretty sure the difference between both is not that high (except the file size of course). It's been encoded from the same video you posted, I guess.
check the amazing high resolution screenshots
Uhm, i'm not liking how the silhouette doesn't get blurred out in foreground (and background) bokeh DoF, here.
Somewhere DennisK4 is jizzing his pants
revolverjgw
Member
What happened to him?
clutch.as.it.gets.
Member
I just checked Wulfens texture pack for Doom 3 and those textures look "next gen" for me.
I just saw 911mb version, it was mighty impressive. Much better then GTTV crappy version.
nelsonroyale
Member
I wonder why they showed off a tech demo with such unimpressive texturing...to me it looked like this gen texturing and modelling with next gen particles and lighting....
I thought all the particles spraying into the air for no reason actually looked really bad, and I don't care for the art style at all. It might be a technical achievement, but it's hard to be impressed by something that's so ugly.
The collapsing castle was pretty cool though. More environmental destruction is probably what I look forward to most in next gen games.
The collapsing castle was pretty cool though. More environmental destruction is probably what I look forward to most in next gen games.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Because better textures have always been possible on pretty much any engine, they just eat up more vram than whatever system they are running on has.
Its an EDITOR PC. They ACTUALLY MAKE THE GAMES ON THEM
So they need more power. And yes you will be fine with that cpu for a long while.
Well, hopefully this means my recent upgrade will be good for a lot longer than normal. How come the requirements for this are so low? Are they being optimistic with the optimisation, or were they not talking about 1080p with all the bells and whistles? I mean, a 680 can only just max out all the games out now. Except Metro 2033, for some reason.