Quake3World

http://www.joystiq.com/2013/03/26/black ... s-in-moti/

Didn't think much of the first minute and thirty seconds of Primal Carnage then BAM...!

Bleh.

cool cut scene bro

UE4 looks like UE3, only now even darker with over 9000% more interior fogging

edit: oh i see it's a console game. of course it looks cliched and wank

That's going to be the very definition of the next generation's triple-A budget games: cliched and wank. Just with more polygons.

yes but look at the way the hair moves z0mgwtf!!!1111

> lol 7 year old hardware, pc looks better
> new generation of hardware with cutting edge gfx
> lol who cares about gfx

MKJ wrote:> lol 7 year old hardware, pc looks better
> new generation of hardware with cutting edge gfx
> lol who cares about gfx

Yes, because that Killzone 4 demo was superduper revolutionary and absolutely not a textbook example of "increase polycounts and be done with it"

Just compare that to something like the Transistor demo, and you'll see where the creativity lies.

Oh, and I'll be the last to fault the XBox 360 for being 7 year old hardware. I find that it can push out impressive graphics still, but more importantly, it offers enough processing power for artists to basically envision anything and more or less put that in their game. To me, good graphics aren't about more polygons, more shaders and more effects, they're about going for a visual style and making that work. Super Mario Bros 3 doesn't need hardware accelerated HD grahpics to still look superb in this day and age.

Where people who simply say "graphics don't matter" go wrong is that they kind of imply that the visuals of a game aren't important at all. The thing is, more processing power means greater freedom of visual creativity for artists. That's not always a pursuit for realism. Just take a look at this trailer for the game "140" (by the creator of Limbo). The grahpics are, on a technical level, not all that impressive, but the execution of the whole thing, the synching to the music and blending that with the gameplay is utterly brilliant. For me, that's what good graphics are about and not about teraflops and whatnot.

preaching to the choir here bromonculus. I just described a trend that I see around the interwebs. haters gon' hate.

So I am the only person who thought the lighting on this was rather good, then?

Your pretty head is missing the point. Yes, these games are pretty (but IMO not so pretty that I would say it is looking distinctly "next gen"), but my god does it all look generic, boring and completely uninspired.

I thought it might have been more of a tech thing to show off how it looks rather than the sort of game play we can expect...after all, it is only 2 minutes long?

Yeah sure, but I see it and think "meh". Is this a game I would want to play? Probably not. Yet after seeing the 140 trailer, my interest for that game is piqued, just because it looks unlike anything I've played before.

It looks impossible to play :F

The dino vid impressed me but I don't like how they cheated when it came to him actually breaking out.

This one looks incredible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... saq9O4pWPQ

^that's more like it.

http://www.joystiq.com/2013/03/29/unrea ... h-details/

OK more impressive...

O.O

bitWISE wrote:The dino vid impressed me but I don't like how they cheated when it came to him actually breaking out.

This one looks incredible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... saq9O4pWPQ

bring on LOTR

Don Carlos wrote:http://www.joystiq.com/2013/03/29/unreal-engine-4-infiltrator-video-tech-details/

OK more impressive...

Ignoring the improbability of this being sustainable under real playing conditions and the fact that daytime scenery is the holy grail for true displays of superiority in the field, this engine can easily pass as movie quality, graphically. In the sense that if you had pixar try to duplicate those exact scenes, They'd be hard pressed to make noticeable improvements. And that's a good place to be graphically...this is a graphically content level. Something that couldn't really be said till now.

I wonder how many more movies Pixar could make if they didn't have to spend so much time rendering... Just use UE4!

Eh, don't kid youself. The Croods (DreamWorks' current animation movie) took 80,000,000 rendering hours to make. Note that this doesn't mean they actually spent 80 milllion hours on it, because they have a whole rendering farm which does concurrent things (3000 servers spanning 20,000 CPU's). But it is true that if you had your home desktop PC try to render The Croods, you'd spend well over 9 years to fully render it.

Oh I must say the video bitWise posted and the Infiltrator one are 100 times more impressive than those gameplay demos (especially the one with the dino, which, at the risk of sounfing like o'dium, was animated real poorly). Remains to be seen if we get such graphics in gamex though.

FFS it's not as good as Pixar. Nerds.

Don Carlos wrote:http://www.joystiq.com/2013/03/29/unreal-engine-4-infiltrator-video-tech-details/

OK more impressive...

if you say so. it's shinier, PhysXier and z0mg polygonzz!!11one, but it essentially involves taking the cliches of the previous gen engine and exaggerating them even further: environments full of point and strip lights yet still somehow dark and gloomy and the customary indoor fog. didn't spot any lens flare, but i imagine that's in there too, along with view bobbing - neither of which are realistic but seem to be in everything these days

thing is, i enjoyed UT2/3 MP, but this looks wank