Certainly does look the business. The real question though is can they make a good game with it? By that I mean one that doesn't just exist to show off how good their graphics tech is now.
First Screenshots of Unreal Engine 4
- Thread starter _Lynx
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Doesn't look "THAT" impressive to me, certainly nothing original at least (well I can see the usual Perna's style there, which is great but still..yeah it just looks like "TES"-warcraft stuff kind of), I said once that the graphic nowadays cannot really make a leap like they used to, sure you can increase polygons and particles and stuff like that, but it will not look that dramatically different. There is a point where eye cannot catch much of a difference on ultra high poly meshes you know. So there will not just happen breakthroughs on the scale they used to happen. I better go back to 700 polys a chracter, now those were the games! lol
Last edited:
Anything anyone can think of. Rendering using splines, ray-traced lighting are things that thus far have only been experimented with.
People said the same crap in 2000 - then boom, shaders and normal mapping.
People said the same crap in 2000 - then boom, shaders and normal mapping.
Alright but those are specific features, they are cool, but graphic wise not anything is improving much. It is not such a huge difference if you get what I mean. It might look smoother and more fluid and real, but still not a huge leap I believe. Also I chuckled at the MS-DOS to Windows 3.0 comparison.
Last edited:
Well if the developers get to spend less time working on lighting and particles [as outlined in the article] then they can easily put more effort into other aspects of the game.
Yes; I was thinking that it's a pretty looking screenshot but any engine is only as good as the game you design around it.
Lately all the kudos in that department have been going to Unreal licensees rather than Epic.
Talking the talk and walking the walk are two different things.
Spline based rendering would allow for sillhouettes without a single jagged edge - perfect curves. Silhouettes are incredibly important in game art. Fully ray-traced lighting would allow for far more complex, realistic lighting solutions that generate completely accurate reflection and refraction through translucent media (fog, glass or water as examples), casting the appropriate lighting on any surface it touches.
That's a colossal leap in fidelity, right there.
Last edited:
Lights fall into the physics category and that whole category is processing intensive. You won't see large strides in that area for another 10 years because processors haven't evolved that much since UE3 was introduced. I don't know why there was even an idea to render with splines. Splines are a pain in the ass to work with when modeling characters and other assets.
If Cliff mentions trying to get microsoft/sony to make the next gen consoles capable of running Avatar quality graphics UE4 must be capable of running at that quality...
Looks exactly like a regular UE3 upgrade to me.
I'm just going to guess that they are re-coding most of the previous features for convenience, or something.
EDIT: Well that explains it, consoles.
So after a long break of eye-candy pimp'in, we might likely sight the terrible visual>gameplay ratio monster once more!
I'm just going to guess that they are re-coding most of the previous features for convenience, or something.
EDIT: Well that explains it, consoles.
So after a long break of eye-candy pimp'in, we might likely sight the terrible visual>gameplay ratio monster once more!
Last edited:
Hi res versions link.
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/viewer.php?mode=article&id=283085#top_banner
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/viewer.php?mode=article&id=283085#top_banner
This doesn't look like anything more than a UE3 upgrade. Samaritan looked better.
Perhaps they're trying to work a lot more on optimization with this one, getting it to run on more devices. Makes sense, given how the market is currently developing, but it's a little boring for us PC players.
Perhaps they're trying to work a lot more on optimization with this one, getting it to run on more devices. Makes sense, given how the market is currently developing, but it's a little boring for us PC players.
Last edited:
I'm with that. We've gotten good enough at faking the baked on lighting and so on and so forth that UE4 doesn't look significantly better. A great example is those particle effects- apparently they are actually calculated as little pieces of debris floating down through the air, instead of as huge sheets of particle texture moving on more or less predefined paths. The result may look the same, but it will be much easier to make. The lighting apparently also takes a lot less faking, if the article isn't lying. I'm guessing that is what will make UE4 special- being able to make the same effects as top-level UE4 games with much less effort.
Also, the Samaritan demo was running on three video cards. The UE4 demo was running on one.
Said the parrot to the thread.
You don't say? There's absolutely no need for this #4. They could just name it 3.5, but 4 was cooler.
The number increase is not a gap but a better opportunity for newer/different platform support. We've seen this before (CE2/CE3 UE2/UE2.5).
Last edited:
