Epic Wants "More Memory Than Anything Else" From Consoles

[Sir_Brizz]

Epic's European boss Mike Gamble has said that, more than anything else, what Epic wants out of the next generation of console is memory. And lots of it. Basically, Samaritan was our request to the hardware manufacturers - that's what we'd like to be able to do. Beyond that we don't really know anything. I think our biggest request from any new console will always be more memory - more than anything else, I have a hard time with memory in consoles. Even when the PS3 and Xbox 360 were coming out, you could get 2gb of RAM for nothing. It seems ridiculous to limit yourself to 512mb under those kind of conditions. Now you can practically get 8gb of memory for nothing. Will the next generation of consoles have a paltry 1gb? I sure hope not...

 

[Sjosz]

More memory would indeed be one of the things I personally would like to see way more of in any next console.

 

[Slainchild]

Yes please.

 

[GreatEmerald]

Indeed, why is there such a low amount of it there to begin with? It's not like RAM is anything specific or expensive.

Also, I agree with what Willard said about realism. It's sort of a upside-down parabola - the more realistic it gets, the better it is, up to a point where it becomes hyperrealistic and thus boring. Of course, then there is the Uncanny Valley that defies that trend...

 

[UBerserker]

I have a feeling that this matter will barely change with PS4/720°.

 

[Plumb_Drumb]

I'm guessing there will be at least 2 gigs, if not more.
I mean, the 360 has 4x the RAM as the original Xbox.

This is a longer console cycle so there's a good chance we get more than that.

That's all presuming it's a trend, though, which it may not be.

 

[Bgood]

Apparently there's talk that MS want their next console to be able to run Windows 8, so the likelihood is it'll have lots of system memory. Whether that development would be good for PC gaming is doubtful tho. It could be part of a plan to try to lock PC gamers into some GFWL/Xbox live hybrid, but that would create an outcry, not least about fair competition... but that's getting way ahead of things .

On graphics.

up to a point where it becomes hyperrealistic and thus boring

I'd agree, but I think when you look at the fantastic stuff Blur have done, the drive towards that kind of realism - in real time, going forward, is unlikely to stop. When you look at game cutscenes from as little as 5 years ago even, in game has already past that in many cases.

 

[GreatEmerald]

That's still not hyperrealism. They, as Willard said, make it look good, not necessarily realistic. For example, this is a great one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Glasses_800_edit.png

You could at first say that it's hyperrealistic, but if you think about it, it's not. It just looks good. In reality, those glasses wouldn't look as perfect as they are here.

 

[Spiney]

There also wouldn't be any lens distortions and a full dynamic range without over and underexposure for it to pass as hyperrealist.


What I want from next gen console graphics -- I know, it's not comming true, but in a perfect world:

4*MSAA (or equivalent) by default.
60 FPS average framerate with motionblur.
High resolution artifact-free normalmaps.
Stable, artifact-free soft shadowmaps.
No specular aliasing.
Fresnel on all reflections.

 

[SleepyHe4d]

up to a point where it becomes hyperrealistic and thus boring. Of course, then there is the Uncanny Valley that defies that trend...

No it doesn't.

And there's no such thing as the Uncanny Valley btw, it's just some false theory.

But yeah, realism definitely isn't boring. If anything it will incite more emotions and adrenaline. Also higher quality and definition doesn't mean that game makers still can't use cartoony or other styles such as in Mario and whatnot.

 

[Darkdrium]

What I want from next gen console graphics

I don't know about most of those thing but what I want is true unwavering 1080p 60FPS. WipEout HD's the only game that comes close so far that I've seen (With "realistic" graphics and not cartoony), but even that adjusts the rendering resolution depending on conditions like particle effects, and there are some framerate drops whenever a ship is destroyed (Though that is most likely a bug as the game did not have that problem at release.)

 

[Bgood]

That's still not hyperrealism. They, as Willard said, make it look good, not necessarily realistic. For example, this is a great one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Glasses_800_edit.png

You could at first say that it's hyperrealistic, but if you think about it, it's not. It just looks good. In reality, those glasses wouldn't look as perfect as they are here.

It's pretty certain no one will have to worry about true hyperrealism for some time. Maybe in 8 console gens or something. We're probably being drip fed tech improvements in deliberately small increments anyway. It's always amusing for instance, how each new graphics card gen release usually roughly doubles performance.

Blur trailer quality in - game may happen and how could anyone watching (say) Blur's Bioshock 2 trailer not want that quality in real time. The sooner devs have enough memory and enough graphical horsepower, that the only constraints are their own imaginations , the better.

 

[Elude]

The greatest thing in video games is the believability of a fantasy which is done best by making it as close to reality as much as possible.

 

[hal]

As god is my witness, I read Epic Wants "More Money Than Anything Else" From Consoles.

 

[213]

As god is my witness, I read Epic Wants "More Money Than Anything Else" From Consoles.

Which would also be hyperrealistically true.

 

[elmuerte]

There also wouldn't be any lens distortions and a full dynamic range without over and underexposure for it to pass as hyperrealist.


What I want from next gen console graphics -- I know, it's not comming true, but in a perfect world:

4*MSAA (or equivalent) by default.
60 FPS average framerate with motionblur.
High resolution artifact-free normalmaps.
Stable, artifact-free soft shadowmaps.
No specular aliasing.
Fresnel on all reflections.

How about actual 720p rendering? Or maybe even actual 1080p.

 

[GreatEmerald]

No it doesn't.

And there's no such thing as the Uncanny Valley btw, it's just some false theory.

But yeah, realism definitely isn't boring. If anything it will incite more emotions and adrenaline. Also higher quality and definition doesn't mean that game makers still can't use cartoony or other styles such as in Mario and whatnot.

Again, I'm talking about true hyperrealism, not better graphics. And yes there is - why else do you think you can always tell whether it's a render or a photo by looking at the faces? There is a biological reason for that, we recognise faces from far away, but we don't accept those that are imperfectly made. Or too perfectly made. I don't remember the scientific terms for that off the top of my head, but there is one.

 

[ambershee]

Kind of a funny comment, since I'd imagine Epic probably have spec sheets for the next gen by now.

 

[Retodon8]

I remember Epic telling the world they were a big part in doubling the Xbox 360's memory while they were developing Gears of Wars and showing MS the difference it would make.

Also, I agree with what Willard said about realism. It's sort of a upside-down parabola - the more realistic it gets, the better it is, up to a point where it becomes hyperrealistic and thus boring. Of course, then there is the Uncanny Valley that defies that trend...

From what I understand, hyperrealism isn't: something close to actual realism, but still not quite there.
It's actually beyond realism, or parallel to it, maybe beyond it.

Guns sound really loud in most games and films, making actual guns sound boring, even fake to the average person.
Women in game look more and more realistic, but do they really?
They look designed, designed to be as (sexually) attractive as possible to young, male gamers.
That's what hyperrealism is, not graphics/audio quality per se.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

The uncanny valley would be somewhere before true realism is reached... but I don't know if many games will even go for actual realism, and I don't think many games should.

And there's no such thing as the Uncanny Valley btw, it's just some false theory.

I don't know about the theory behind it, but it is definitely a thing.
Some characters on screen can be off-putting.
A weaker version of looking at a dead person that a slight part of you expects to start moving.

You could at first say that it's hyperrealistic, but if you think about it, it's not. It just looks good. In reality, those glasses wouldn't look as perfect as they are here.

Isn't that exactly what hyperrealism is though, or at least one thing it could be?

 

[Spiney]

Another interesting thing is animation: if you take a person's motion captured walk cycle and put it 1:1 ingame it looks totally fake.
When tweaked and exaggerated to a certain amount it looks much more natural.
The uncanny valley has the most wide range of conditions.