Support NeoGAF

[cgcg]

Looks like wired added several more pics, don't remember these being posted when the article came out:

Damn very unimpressive shots. Can't believe how angular/blocky some of the stuff looked. And Epic wants more powerful hardware lol.

 

[sp3000]

Damn very unimpressive shots. Can't believe how angular/blocky some of the stuff looked. And Epic wants more powerful hardware lol.

Most of these pictures are showing off tessellation and other effects. It's not really meant to be impressive.

Of course, it looks even less so because we have already seen all these effects in other engines.

 

[iamshadowlark]

It seems like this is mostly a feature set demo. It was probably not a good idea to release these kind of images, since they do not have the production values of something like Samaritan.

Well considering the demo was meant for developers, most of it is to be expected. This is simply a report on the embargoed GDC demo with screencaps probably from that demo. People need to realize this. The E3 demo could be alot different.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Well considering the demo was meant for developers, most of it is to be expected. This is simply a report on the embargoed GDC demo with screencaps probably from that demo. People need to realize this. The E3 demo could be alot different.

It better be a lot different.

Or show something tangible. Right now? This isn't worth the money necessary to make it feasible.

 

[alexandros]

The issue is, you need more and more power to create small leaps.

You're not going to see a massive jump in still images next-gen at all. The changes will come in motion, and that can act against them very easily.

I truly hope so, but based on those pics I have to say that Unreal Engine may be falling behind. Frostbite already looks phenomenal on PC, Crysis 2 DX11 is simply beautiful. Could it be that Epic rested too much on its laurels?

 

[cgcg]

Most of these pictures are showing off tessellation and other effects. It's not really meant to be impressive.

Of course, it looks even less so because we have already seen all these effects in other engines.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the purpose of tessellation is to make objects look more detailed/rounded then it really is? I mean look at this shot. The rocks from the ceiling look horrendously blocky.

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/wp-content/gallery/ff_unreal4/f_unreal4_14_ss.jpg

 

[iamshadowlark]

It better be a lot different.

Or show something tangible. Right now? This isn't worth the money necessary to make it feasible.

I believe you are getting ahead of yourself. There is quite alot in these few pics that show huge improvements. A next-gen game with this engine would look phenomenal.

This pic alone shows so much thats its staggering.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

I believe you are getting ahead of yourself. There is quite alot in these few pics that show huge improvements. A next-gen game with this engine would look phenomenal.

http://i.minus.com/i6dLdfqZ7UhCC.jpeg[IMG]

This pic alone shows so much thats its staggering.[/QUOTE]

I disagree vehemently. Put that up against a cluttered Uncharted scene, and the differences aren't huge.

 

[Father_Brain]

Looks like wired added several more pics, don't remember these being posted when the article came out:

Wow. Every one of those pics looks much less impressive than the initial set.

Granted, there's lighting effects there that will look quite a bit better in motion, but I could easily mistake any of the latter shots for a PS3/360 UE3 game.

 

[sp3000]

I truly hope so, but based on those pics I have to say that Unreal Engine may be falling behind. Frostbite already looks phenomenal on PC, Crysis 2 DX11 is simply beautiful. Could it be that Epic rested too much on its laurels?

Yeah, this is what a lot of people can't seem to understand. Epic sat on UE3 for far too long. I mean even before this generation really started Cryengine blew away anything on UE3, but was ignored by most people because it was PC only. Unreal Engine 3 is FAR behind
Frostbite and Cryengine at this point. The only impressive thing Epic has put out is Samaritan and that was just a tech demo. Not a single UE3 game that looks anywhere near it.

Epic has a lot more competition now then it did at the start of this gen.

I honestly wasn't impressed by anything Epic put out in the UE3 tech demos since I saw the Cryengine 2 techdemo in 2006. That's the last time I thought a true generational leap was in progress.

 

[iamshadowlark]

I disagree vehemently. Put that up against a cluttered Uncharted scene, and the differences aren't huge.

au contraire. Uncharted pales in comparison. Maybe you're eyes are untrained but its wholey apparent.

 

[XOMTOR]

I believe you are getting ahead of yourself. There is quite alot in these few pics that show huge improvements. A next-gen game with this engine would look phenomenal.

This pic alone shows so much thats its staggering.

It probably is but I'm distracted by the bloom and lens flare. Sorry, but I just really hate those effects.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

au contraire. Uncharted pales in comparison. Maybe you're eyes are untrained but its wholey apparent.

The only difference is higher precision shadows, an overabundance of tessellation (sloppily used by the looks), and lighting (which we can't appreciate because it's in a static image).

Things you'd expect using an engine developed for 2012 hardware. Things you'd expect on engines developed in 2005 hardware permitting. Not worthy of the expected $500 consoles it's likely tied to.

 

[Nirolak]

Alright, updated the OP with the new shots and the captions.

 

[Stallion Free]

Epic has a lot more competition now then it did at the start of this gen.

But Unreal still has a massive user base of devs who are use to it and their dev platform has now caught up with any of the previously more appealing alternatives.

I don't know why they showed this to anyone other than devs because everyone who has never touched dev tools seems to be missing the whole point of this. Every single feature shown here is just screaming out to the devs who used UE3, "don't bother switching because we can do everything they can do, more efficiently (single GPU), and you are used to working with us."

The Wired write up is so obviously ignorant.

 

[IcyBlueStrawberry]

I disagree vehemently. Put that up against a cluttered Uncharted scene, and the differences aren't huge.

Uncharted looks good, but you can't be serious.

The amount of geometric detail, the lighting, the particle effects... This easily looks like it could be from a CG trailer for a current gen game. Even if if looked similar, which it doesn't, the earlier screenshot of the mountains was MUCH more detailed than any background in current gen games. Have you ever looked off into the distance in an Uncharted game? The background in the UC3 cutscene when you first arrive at Yemen(?) is atrocious. Why do people always overestimate what current gen games look like?

 

[specialguy]

Not nearly as impressive as I hoped. Maybe in motion it's better.

The other thing is they say 14 people made it in 3 months or whatever? Yeah, i dont know if you can compete with teams of hundreds that actually make video games, with only 14 people.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

Unreal Engine 3 Demonstration (2004)

Can't wait to see UE4's.

The only difference is higher precision shadows, an overabundance of tessellation (sloppily used by the looks), and lighting (which we can't appreciate because it's in a static image).

So you list three MAJOR components of the renderer and just call it "the only difference" -_-'

 

[Bloodrage]

So much for "makes Samaritan look like crap", LOL. THAT looks like shit.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Uncharted looks good, but you can't be serious.

The amount of geometric detail, the lighting, the particle effects... This easily looks like it could be from a CG trailer for a current gen game. Even if if looked similar, which it doesn't, the earlier screenshot of the mountains was MUCH more detailed than any background in current gen games. Have you ever looked off into the distance in an Uncharted game? The background in the UC3 cutscene when you first arrive at Yemen(?) is atrocious. Why do people always overestimate what current gen games look like?

This is supposed to show us tech that isn't possible. So far all we're seeing is a bunch of effects being used in tandem that offer limited improvement (especially in the way being depicted here) for a large cost.

Does that look like a huge difference compared to the best of this past generation? Not even remotely. In motion it may sway me, but as of right now... no. It looks better, but by about as much as you'd expect 2012 hardware to look. Those screens don't even show off their purported generational differences. In the lighting.

You've got sloppy tessellation, higher precision shadows, higher res textures, higher res normals. They might be doing in realtime lighting effects that can only be achieved prebaked on current consoles, but it's not like we'd be able to tell.

So you list three MAJOR components of the renderer and just call it "the only difference" -_-'

No I'm saying they aren't a big enough difference for a $500 console.

 

[GrizzNKev]

The particles, guys. The particles. Particles have never impressed me. These do.

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

The environments look like miniatures.

 

[iamshadowlark]

The only difference is higher precision shadows, an overabundance of tessellation (sloppily used by the looks), and lighting (which we can't appreciate because it's in a static image).

Things you'd expect using an engine developed for 2012 hardware. Things you'd expect on engines developed in 2005 hardware permitting. Not worthy of the expected $500 consoles it's likely tied to.

Um ok.

From that shot alone you can see emissive materials, thousands(probably millions) of high resolution particles, real-time GI, probably thousands of active physics objects, as you said way higher resolutions shadows, accurate lens flare(notice the embers in the bottom left) and specular reflections. Note that Epic added Image base reflections too(Samaritan). There isn't any game available now with this much going on at the same time at this precision.

It may not pass your eye test but please don't go diminishing what is easily one of the most impressive game tech showcases in a long while.

Unreal Engine 3 Demonstration (2004)

Can't wait to see UE4's.


So you list three MAJOR components of the renderer and just call it "the only difference" -_-'

He must game on Pixar render farms.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Um ok.

From that shot alone you can see emissive materials, thousands(probably millions) of high resolution particles, real-time GI, probably thousands of active physics objects, as you said way higher resolutions shadows, accurate lens flare(notice the embers in the bottom left) and specular reflections. Note that Epic added Image base reflections too(Samaritan). There isn't any game available now with this much going on at the same time at this precision.

It may not pass your eye test but please don't go diminishing what is easily one of the most impressive game tech showcases in a long while.

Right now you're talking about things purportedly in the engine that we can't see in the screens. Real-time GI? You can tell by flames leaving hued lighting on objects and those objects in turn altering the lighting on other objects. Could easily be prebaked until we see it in action.

Screens will tell us less than nothing. It will tell us what we want to see, more than we actually do see.

Geometric complexity isn't exactly huge. Not much larger than scenes we see anyway. Tessellation is another wash until we see it in action. That demon is really low poly in comparison to him up close. Most of these changes are barely noticeable in screens. The entire image might be comprised of them, but until seen in action your mind is filling in the details that aren't there.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Obviously I have to wait until I see this in motion, but so far like most I am not impressed. We truly are heading toward the route of diminishing returns in games.

UE4 demon doesn't look so hot now, does it?

Am I the only one who feels that the guy in the middle looks fucking weird? Like the head model doesn't belong with the rest of the body? It looks more detailed and his skin tone and the head's size...

 

[-SD-]

Meh... need to see video.

one of the ugliest trends in gaming graphics, random massive spot of colour. It's like you've just finished staring at the sun for 10 minutes then started playing a videogame. Do not want.

SO. VERY. TRUE.

Let's create amazing backdrops and characters and bury it all under stupid fucking post processing effects.

 

[subversus]

yeah, new pics in OP look alright but I wouldn't buy Mass Effect 4 on this engine. I mean graphics aren't mindblowing enough to make me play a shitty game. And if graphics aren't mindblowing enough to make me play a shitty game they aren't a big step above.

 

[iamshadowlark]

Right now you're talking about things purportedly in the engine that we can't see in the screens. Real-time GI? You can tell by flames leaving hued lighting on objects and those objects in turn altering the lighting on other objects. Could easily be prebaked until we see it in action.

Screens will tell us less than nothing. It will tell us what we want to see, more than we actually do see.

Geometric complexity isn't exactly huge. Not much larger than scenes we see anyway. Tessellation is another wash until we see it in action. That demon is really low poly in comparison to him up close. Most of these changes are barely noticeable in screens. The entire image might be comprised of them, but until seen in action your mind is filling in the details that aren't there.

Say what?

You can easily see everything I just noted and we have a report saying that it is real-time. And what are you on about the demon being low-poly? Do you actually know what to look for or are you just trying to play the tough critic role to be cool?

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Say what?

You can easily see everything I just noted and we have a report saying that it is real-time. And what are you on about the demon being low-poly? Do you actually know what to look for or are you just trying to play the tough critic role?

I'm looking at an image that could be approximated by modern hardware. With no way of knowing if effects are being rendered in realtime. As of today? This still image isn't a huge jump. If a jump at all.

We can't see Global Illumination in a static screen. We can't see these amazing particle effects, what we see is achievable in an engine developed in 2005. Until seen in action, with Bokeh, GI, all of these bells and whistles it isn't impressive to me. It looks like a game made in 2012 on UE3.

 

[subversus]

lol, nothing in this demo is low poly

 

[specialguy]

Some further thoughts. These are the two more impressive screens. This one looks good to me, and a step above what we play in real time currently:

This one seems underwhelming at first, but I think the point is to show all far off scenery will now be real polygons instead of bitmaps, which will be impressive in reality

If you're worried theres no more graphics gains to be had, just check out Crysis 3 trailer and be soothed. That already looks almost next gen to me.

Also, some of the screens look terribly low quality compressed. That hurts too.

Funny though that no matter what, gamemakers get right back to demonic imagery and symbols. In 2050 when they're doing hologram graphics, it'll be the exact same shit, a demon and some pentagrams.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

Pics look good but really need to see a video .
Also if this engine helps cut down on dev time that will be great .

 

[Thunder Monkey]

lol, nothing in this demo is low poly

Well, low poly in comparison to the close up shot of the demon. Which is how tessellation works. Like a LoD engine on steroids. Fluidly moving polies where necessary. Get close enough (if modeled that way) and pores should be viewable.

You can't see their biggest improvements in static screens, making the release of them useless.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

Well, low poly in comparison to the close up shot of the demon. Which is how tessellation works. Like a LoD engine on steroids. Fluidly moving polies where necessary. Get close enough (if modeled that way) and pores should be viewable.

You can't see their biggest improvements in static screens, making the release of them useless.

They're not useless at all. They actually show a lot, you're just complaining because it's not a video.

 

[iamshadowlark]

I'm looking at an image that could be approximated by modern hardware. With no way of knowing if effects are being rendered in realtime. As of today? This still image isn't a huge jump. If a jump at all.

We can't see Global Illumination in a static screen. We can't see these amazing particle effects, what we see is achievable in an engine developed in 2005. Until seen in action, with Bokeh, GI, all of these bells and whistles it isn't impressive to me. It looks like a game made in 2012 on UE3.

YOU can't see global illumination in the screen. I know how to look at the main light source for the scene and see how it accurately bounces throughout the whole VP. I can see the color bleeding and what looks to be indirect lights.

But ok you're right a 2012 UE3 game lol.

 

[LoftyTheMetroid]

au contraire. Uncharted pales in comparison. Maybe you're eyes are untrained but its wholey apparent.

It may not pass your eye test but please don't go diminishing what is easily one of the most impressive game tech showcases in a long while.

To me, that's kind of the point. With every previous iteration of the Unreal Engine, the visual improvements and features were noticeable and obvious to even the layman. That's not happening this time, a sign of diminishing returns.

I'm sure that the demo is a technical marvel, impressive to those that can appreciate the complexity going on behind the scenes. Those people, however, are a minority.

The engine looks nice, but if it requires more horsepower beyond what even Sony and Microsoft intend to offer, I can't imagine the price would be worth it. At least, to me personally.

 

[sp3000]

Part of the reason is that they just chose a really bad scene to showcase all of this.

The engine gets hated on enough for being brown and overused with lens flares

I would have preferred to see something like this

 

[iamshadowlark]

To me, that's kind of the point. With every previous iteration of the Unreal Engine, the visual improvements and features were noticeable and obvious to even the layman. That's not happening this time, a sign of diminishing returns.

I'm sure that the demo is a technical marvel, impressive to those that can appreciate the complexity going on behind the scenes. Those people, however, are a minority.

The engine looks nice, but if it requires more horsepower beyond what even Sony and Microsoft intend to offer, I can't imagine the price would be worth it. At least, to me personally.

I say you are jumping the gun. This demo is intended to show features to developers(i.e those with trained eyes) The E3 demo will probably be alot more consumer friendly.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

YOU can't see global illumination in the screen. I know how to look at the main light source for the scene and see how it accurately bounces throughout the whole VP. I can see the color bleeding and what looks to be indirect lights.

But ok you're right a 2012 UE3 game lol.

YOU can't see the GI either. Until viewable in realtime these screens are useless. You're mind is filling in the blanks that a screenshot cannot convey. You see no movement of the lighting, you see no interplay in the lighting, you see nothing but what you "think" you see.

Only when lights are bouncing in action can you say you're watching GI in action. And even then we've gotten damn good at approximating it.

 

[i-Lo]

Looking at games like Uncharted, GeoW, GoW etc on current gen systems, we can find various very clever tricks that have been employed by the devs to maximize visual impact while staying within the bounds of console limits. The experience and ingenuity are two key factors that have led to evolution of graphical fidelity on a closed system. Eg: Graphical difference between Uncharted 3 and 1.

So far, as impressive as the underlying tech maybe behind these screens, I feel it to be missing that "wow" factor. Of course, it is reasonable to assume that 1. in motion things will be looking up significantly and 2. as the engine evolves and so do the skill and experience of devs utilizing the engine, we may see things truly remarkable on the next gen consoles.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

YOU can't see the GI either. Until viewable in realtime these screens are useless. You're mind is filling in the blanks that a screenshot cannot convey. You see no movement of the lighting, you see no interplay in the lighting, you see nothing but what you "think" you see.

Only when lights are bouncing in action can you say you're watching GI in action. And even then we've gotten damn good at approximating it.

LOL. We can get a general overview of the quality of the lighting with these shots. We could even compare it to Lightmass to see how close it is to it. After all, some lights like the sun could be static on a scene while others are moving (muzzleflashes or whatnot).

 

[IcyBlueStrawberry]

YOU can't see the GI either. Until viewable in realtime these screens are useless. You're mind is filling in the blanks that a screenshot cannot convey. You see no movement of the lighting, you see no interplay in the lighting, you see nothing but what you "think" you see.

Only when lights are bouncing in action can you say you're watching GI in action. And even then we've gotten damn good at approximating it.

GI isn't about dynamic/changing light sources, it's about the way the light "bounces" off of objects. GI can definitely be seen in screenshots.

 

[LoftyTheMetroid]

I say you are jumping the gun. This demo is intended to show features to developers(i.e those with trained eyes) The E3 demo will probably be alot more consumer friendly.

That might be true, so I suppose we should wait until E3 to see how much end value the engine will provide consumers. I'm not terribly optimistic, but I'll keep an open mind.

At the very least, though, this should explain the somewhat tepid reactions you're seeing.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

LOL. We can get a general overview of the quality of the lighting with these shots. We could even compare it to Lightmass to see how close it is to it. After all, some lights like the sun could be static on a scene while others are moving (muzzleflashes or whatnot).

And that is all you are getting. Until I've got a video I'm not going wow either way. I will argue that this isn't something to be used as a reason for the tech to exist. Until we've seen it in action. Right now I'm seeing menial jumps. Impressive in their own right, but until I see differing colored lights playing with one another, these particles breaking down, and flowing in the wind, or their interesting approach to liquids I can't say this is a huge technical breakthrough.

Because those screens look like something that can be approximated in a 2005 engine.

GI isn't about dynamic/changing light sources, it's about the way the light "bounces" off of objects. GI can definitely be seen in screenshots.

The common depiction is of separate colored spheres altering the light bouncing from one to the other. But we approximate that through prebaked lightmaps. Until altered in realtime we could just be looking at one of those approximations.

This is my only argument. So yes, technically I'm bitching that we haven't seen it in motion.

 

[NBtoaster]

It looks amazing and a clear step over this gen. Don't know what some people were expecting.

 

[Satchel]

Samaritan looks shitloads better than that.

If someone told me that was UE3 running on 360, I'd completely believe them. Just judging by the screens.

 

[gogogow]

Part of the reason is that they just chose a really bad scene to showcase all of this.

The engine gets hated on enough for being brown and overused with lens flares

I would have preferred to see something like this

http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/142/4/9/Crysis___Game_Environment___06_by_MadMaximus83.jpg[/IMG[/QUOTE]

I agree, the empty mountains are just boring to look at. If it was the Samaritan guy looking over a huge detailed city, I think most people would be impressed right away.

 

[pottuvoi]

GI isn't about dynamic/changing light sources, it's about the way the light "bounces" off of objects. GI can definitely be seen in screenshots.

The image with hammer on a floor is very clear example of proper GI solution with emissive materials and it is very impressive.
I would love to know how they render the images, I can almost guarantee some sort of voxel/surfel presentation of world for things like reflections/specular and GI.

If the lighting itself isn't impressive, the ability to change things with instant feedback really is.

 

[george_us]

Looking at games like Uncharted, GeoW, GoW etc on current gen systems, we can find various very clever tricks that have been employed by the devs to maximize visual impact while staying within the bounds of console limits. The experience and ingenuity are two key factors that have led to evolution of graphical fidelity on a closed system. Eg: Graphical difference between Uncharted 3 and 1.

So far, as impressive as the underlying tech maybe behind these screens, I feel it to be missing that "wow" factor. Of course, it is reasonable to assume that 1. in motion things will be looking up significantly and 2. as the engine evolves and so do the skill and experience of devs utilizing the engine, we may see things truly remarkable on the next gen consoles.

I think this sums up my feelings much better. I'm sure the tech is freaking amazing under the hood but the visual results in screens don't wow mean.

I'd love to see this in motion and, most importantly, I want to see at least a fully playable tech demo. The beginning of this generation burned me as far as tech demos go.

 

[USIGSJ]

One more new pic.