Anybody else feel let down by next-gen game engines?

JoeUser

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
3,919
Wheres to photo-realistic facial animations? The real time hair and cloth? The super realistic physics and destructible environments?

I mean, sure this years E3 showed some good visuals but I have to admit that nothing I saw really made me go WOW! Yeah Watch Dogs and Beyond looked good, but even with Watch Dogs I noticed pop-up, muddy textures, etc. Beyond only looked really nice because I was taking into consideration that it was a PS3 game.

Even using Beyond as an example! Look at those graphics! Unreal in a lot of ways and yet its using 6 year old technology. I was expecting something at E3 that would be our current generation PC technologies version of Beyond, ya know?

All we got was a seemingly easier to use Unreal 3 engine with extra effects, a engine from Square Enix that was just a tessellation overload demo and really nothing else (except insane motion blur), and basically the rest looked like stuff that we have now.

My point is this. Think about it, every demo there was run on PC, even new console games and they all ran flawlessly at max settings...hell, even the Unreal 4 Engine was using a SINGLE GTX 680...which BASICALLY means that you'll be able to run even NEXT-GEN console games at max settings on the PC you CURRENTLY OWN (most of us at least).

I don't know...just let down...were you impressed by the visuals shown at E3?
 

piscian18

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
11,021
I used to be a massive graphics nut but not so much anymore. I've found that recently some of the most beautiful looking games bored me to tears. I was playing this game called BIT. TRIP RUNNER and I could not tear myself away from the fucking thing and it was ugly as hell. I mean I could not get up to pee if it meant not finishing the level.

I wish AAA studios cared more about gameplay actually. Graphics may be moving at a glacial pace but gameplay, I mean a game that the developer will actually sit and play themselves its so good. That's Dead and gone. Man it feels like Indies are the only ones focused on it anymore.

I feel you though. I wanna upgrade my system I really do its more than a year old but I really have yet to find a single game to sell me on upgrading. Thats just sad.
 

jamesrb

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
1,051
Technical improvements in games have reached the point of diminishing returns in my opinion. There are still gains to be had but only the smartest computer engineers and coders can get those gains. The funding and development time isn't there any more.

Most gains seem to come from gameplay and presentation these days.
 

German Muscle

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
6,649
Cryengine 3 looks good. Unreal 4 i dont find impressive. I didnt see anything better over Unreal 3.
 

DeathPrincess

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
18,205
My point is this. Think about it, every demo there was run on PC, even new console games and they all ran flawlessly at max settings...hell, even the Unreal 4 Engine was using a SINGLE GTX 680...which BASICALLY means that you'll be able to run even NEXT-GEN console games at max settings on the PC you CURRENTLY OWN (most of us at least).

So a single GTX 680. We're probably looking at >1% of the PC gaming market being able to run something, not even the majority of [H] members own something as good as a single 680.

But stop the presses! They should make it so no one can run it! They should test and run it on imaginary hardware, and then turn around and sell it to imaginary people! Although it would be great to sell games only 1% of the gaming world could play, it probably wouldn't be very viable long term. :p
 

socK

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 25, 2004
Messages
4,215
They're moving away from pre-baked and towards real time, dev costs / time are getting too high. Like with UE4 they want you to be productive, not sitting there for 15 minutes just to try a change. But it's probably not good to expect enormous differences in graphics any more. We're moving away from really hacky approximations and getting more towards having it be more physically correct, not completely introducing a new effect never before seen.
 

polonyc2

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
21,682
which BASICALLY means that you'll be able to run even NEXT-GEN console games at max settings on the PC you CURRENTLY OWN (most of us at least).

and you're surprised by this?...you were expecting next-gen consoles to be more powerful then today's high end PC's?
 

Bman123

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
5,087
Doesn't matter next gen console games will be medium settings on pc at 1280x720. Factor in 19x10 and max settings you'll need a needy rig to run it. I wont buy a next gen console til I can get it for $299 and im talking ps4 at $299.99

We wont see the difference we saw going from ps2 to ps3 that's for damn sure. Im perfectly fine using my ps3 for a couple more years, hopefully they do like they did with ps2 and keep making games for it.
 

Q1DM6

Gawd
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
713
Technical improvements in games have reached the point of diminishing returns in my opinion. There are still gains to be had but only the smartest computer engineers and coders can get those gains. The funding and development time isn't there any more.

Most gains seem to come from gameplay and presentation these days.

^This. We're on a plateau in regards to graphics for awhile because it simply costs too much to develop some games already (20 and 30 million isn't uncommon), and with the world economy in the trouble it's in currently the bar is going to be set lower for the next generation. Don't expect leaps and bounds, you won't get it.

But graphics aren't everything, as other people have noted in other threads, I would rather have better AI, physics, story lines, voice acting. We're at that point of "good enough" for awhile. Perhaps just being older makes me much more appreciative of the incredible graphic quality I see out there already, I don't know.
 

Stiler

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 4, 2002
Messages
10,538
I wish next gen would focus more on AI and actually changing how things within games "interact."

I'm more interested in physics/AI in games then I am about "how high res can the texture go!"
 

Spidey329

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
8,683
I think the improvements are less seen now because it is stuff we've had in a "faked" way. Like light maps and sprites/etc. - but it is now being done in real time.

I was impressed. The quality is nearing render quality. You just need to look at what is actually happening in real time.
 

Godmachine

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
10,472
Not really. I feel let down by developers/publishers more than who they've licensed there game engine from.

I think nearly all of these intense graphic games for the PC in recent years have been so riddled with problems just to get them run right the gamer has had to put up with a lot of shit.

I also blame video card manufacturers , they release cards with immature drivers for features they advertise happily that don't actually work in a majority of games correctly (surround monitor setups).

I think the blame can be spread across many different causes but I don't think that game engines are one of them. We live in a "ported" time line for PC gaming , many of the games we play are "ports" and for that reason they suffer , aren't optimized properly and often are aren't patched to completion.
 

mas

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
1,230
there's no new console hardware coming out within the next couple years, not sure why you expected anything out of the ordinary. the improvements you should be looking for here are having more to do with the experience than the visuals, which you can't really see from a bunch of stupid presentations and fan service to impress the kids and investors. basically all they're trying to do here is keep console gaming on life support, that's why they're so terrified of mentioning pc games really.

ue4 is actually some pretty big news though, maybe not for gamers at first glance but ground breaking for the dev community, which translates into a better experience for future games. those not privy to the dev process really won't "get it" until we start noticing improvements to mechanics and effects, that may seem minor at first but will really start to add up once they get going with it. this is not dependant on any platform, so it's kind of irrelevant to your "next gen" concept.
 

Q1DM6

Gawd
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
713
We live in a "ported" time line for PC gaming , many of the games we play are "ports" and for that reason they suffer , aren't optimized properly and often are aren't patched to completion.

This is what is really keeping me from buying a 'bigass' video card. Certain games are HORRIBLE ports, like the first Transformers fps. What trash. They didn't even allow you to assign keys for movement.
 

Spidey329

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
8,683
there's no new console hardware coming out within the next couple years, not sure why you expected anything out of the ordinary. the improvements you should be looking for here are having more to do with the experience than the visuals, which you can't really see from a bunch of stupid presentations and fan service to impress the kids and investors. basically all they're trying to do here is keep console gaming on life support, that's why they're so terrified of mentioning pc games really.

ue4 is actually some pretty big news though, maybe not for gamers at first glance but ground breaking for the dev community, which translates into a better experience for future games. those not privy to the dev process really won't "get it" until we start noticing improvements to mechanics and effects, that may seem minor at first but will really start to add up once they get going with it. this is not dependant on any platform, so it's kind of irrelevant to your "next gen" concept.

It was said in a few of the interviews that UE4 will not run on current gen consoles. It's designed for next gen consoles/games. Although they will eventually make it scalable all the way down to mobile support.

Heck, I think one of Square Enix's people said that Sony/MS need to hurry up and release new hardware. The current gen is holding back the industry.
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,704
I think there are several factors playing into this.

1 The rise of apple, yes alot of young people are buying macs, ipods, ipads. None of these things are very good gaming devices. Most of them cannot afford the top end macbook pros that have decent graphics and even those take screwing around to get them working and have a very limited library of games.

1 laptops, the mass consumer is more and more choosing laptops, this means the whole option of dropping a video card in later is out the door if they do not choose it up front. It also means that the power and ability of the average system has basically gone backwards about 2 years. As if it was not bad enough we have a huge trend in ultra portables where people are probably more like 3 - 4 years behind in capability.

Consoles, PC gaming companies have largely turned to consoles and consoles a stale, old and extremely outdated.

Phones, and tablets, ya alot of people who might have bought a desktop are now just living with either a phone or a tablet.

Its not any one of these killing gaming but it all ads up. For instance now days a game studio is going to find it more profitable to spend time developing for a new platform. Basically in the past PC game devs could code for windows and know they were hitting 98% of the market. But now they need to think about tablets, phones, apple, google, xbox, PS3, wii. And no porting to all those different platforms does not come free.

On top of that the one company that should have been the biggest pusher of hardcore gaming, microsoft, now has a conflict of interest in the slow outdated xbox 360 and more or less everything in PC gaming is suffering because of this.

It is going to take many years for this to sort out, perhaps it never will.
 

hfk

Gawd
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
847
We don't need better graphics right now we need devs who understand what's fun and what isn't fun.
 

wonderfield

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,396
I also blame video card manufacturers , they release cards with immature drivers for features they advertise happily that don't actually work in a majority of games correctly (surround monitor setups).
What would you propose graphics card manufacturers do about this? Pay developers to build in support for features that a minuscule percentage of PC gamers use?
 

Deads0uls

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
289
The UE 4 demo was pretty impressive to me. I would say in less than 5 years we will have real-time Avatar-like graphics.
 

Stiler

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 4, 2002
Messages
10,538
I will never have a multi monitor setup for gaming, until they can find a way to make bigger/surroun dmonitors in of itself, placing two monitors side by side and having the huge black monitor borders in the middle of oa screen would drive me nuts. I already hate over stylized/huge UI's in game, I don't see how people can stand having the monitor borders going up through the picture.
 

vallonen

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
70
I'm not hung up by graphics at all and don't think we need better graphics either, when I play games I want them to be UNREAL, I do not want graphics so good that they blur the lines between fiction and reality (the visual part). I don't want that.

What I want in a game is A: great story line B: innovative C: challenging E: atmospheric and F: fun.

New games are severely lacking and falling short in all those areas. This is just my opinion, even though I know many share it.

I rather play a 10 year old game with somewhat dated graphics as long as its fun, than play the latest "visual porn fest" on the market. And when that "visual porn fest" is utter soulless, brain-dead, hand holding-we-have-seen-it-in three-previous-games-and-this-is-the-forth-sequel...that kind of deal.

No, fuck that.
 

Litfod

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
1,465
But stop the presses! They should make it so no one can run it! They should test and run it on imaginary hardware, and then turn around and sell it to imaginary people!

You're right, they should only target lowest-common-denominator, 10-year-old systems like WoW does. Who needs progress?

There was a time not so long ago when PC games were applauded for daring to push the boundaries and in the process bringing high end machines to their knees (Far Cry, FEAR), and they still managed to be commercially successful. But these days developers are considered to be at fault if some kid's antiquated, supermarket shitbox can't run everything maxed out.
 

djsb

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Messages
396
Targetting current high end $500 hardware is lowest common denominator now? Okay.
 

DeathPrincess

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
18,205
You're right, they should only target lowest-common-denominator, 10-year-old systems like WoW does. Who needs progress?

There was a time not so long ago when PC games were applauded for daring to push the boundaries and in the process bringing high end machines to their knees (Far Cry, FEAR), and they still managed to be commercially successful. But these days developers are considered to be at fault if some kid's antiquated, supermarket shitbox can't run everything maxed out.

As sad as it is at some point economics come into play. If you want to make a big budget title with high production values with multiple millions invested, you need to be able to sell to millions. You can push boundries, but you have to push boundries realistically, otherwise you just go out of buisness. Theres a difference between targetting the high end, and targetting beyond the hard end, and targetting 10 year old systems.

Both of those games ran on equivelent to 680 level hardware at the time, exactly like this does. It wasn't as if nobody at all count run it at all. Which is what was suggested. :p
 

Flopper

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
1,642
visual is to create mood.
bogging down the computer to 5fps seems unfair to those who dont want/have cuttin edge.
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,696
Pushing the envelope was fine when the premium high end video cards were $300, not $1000. I'm not surprised its gone that way since raw horsepower increase in the same-old stuff is the only way to improve.

Anyway, those kind of price ranges will never be pandered to exclusively by game makers since they are such a minority.
 

FearTheCow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
6,055
Targetting current high end $500 hardware is lowest common denominator now? Okay.

As sad as it is at some point economics come into play. If you want to make a big budget title with high production values with multiple millions invested, you need to be able to sell to millions. You can push boundries, but you have to push boundries realistically, otherwise you just go out of buisness. Theres a difference between targetting the high end, and targetting beyond the hard end, and targetting 10 year old systems.

Both of those games ran on equivelent to 680 level hardware at the time, exactly like this does. It wasn't as if nobody at all count run it at all. Which is what was suggested. :p



visual is to create mood.
bogging down the computer to 5fps seems unfair to those who dont want/have cuttin edge.

PC games should have a thing called "graphics options" which allow people with different configurations to play a game. Even if it takes a 680 to play at high now, what about in 4 years when the engine is still being used?

Why not make the engine scalable so that developers can pick the level they want, instead of being forced to use the lowers level?
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,871
We'd be a lot further ahead if it weren't for consoles.

No. We'd be a lot further ahead if PC gamers bought enough games to make it worth the development cost to make engines and games that push boundaries.
 

FearTheCow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
6,055
No. We'd be a lot further ahead if PC gamers bought enough games to make it worth the development cost to make engines and games that push boundaries.

Who says that PC gamers doing buy enough games? if PC games weren't profitable, developers would create them at all. The problem is that it is a lot easier to just shove crap down our throats that has been ported from a console.
 

theNoid

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
7,441
Engines and graphics don't matter as much to me now as they did 10 years ago when graphics sucked. If anything I appreciate the slower progression because its easier on the wallet.

Currently I can play just about all PC games on high with my several year old PC and my 360 keeps getting better and better looking games due to platform standardization. Just look at the Halo 4 stage demo and you'll see what I mean. Shit like that running on 2005 hardware? Its wizardry.

We'd be a lot further ahead if it weren't for consoles.

Look at it this way, Consoles are the V6 Mustang to to the GT or higher spec'd models. The higher spec'd models only exist because of massively high V6 sales. A gaming industry without consoles isn't a gaming industry at all. PC elitists should be grateful for consoles and what they do for the industry as a whole. Sounds like blasphemy I'm sure around these parts, but its the cold hard truth and it if burns... welp it burns.
 
Last edited:

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,704
You mean the halo 4 stage demo that was running on a monster PC?
 

IcePickFreak

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
1,673
I'm happy with todays graphics and much prefer they now put some focus on the areas that are waaaaaaaaay more lacking, like actual gameplay.
 

LeninGHOLA

Vladimir Hayt
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
18,416
No. We'd be a lot further ahead if PC gamers bought enough games to make it worth the development cost to make engines and games that push boundaries.

We do, silly. Even Crysis 1 sold enough to turn a large profit, even though half the internet said it wasn't even a game, but a tech demo.

Skyrim and Diablo didn't push any graphical boundaries, yet we bought the fuck out of them, too.

There is a truckload of money to be made.

For me, I prefer art direction and style over being able to see every pore in someone's skin. But, if I can have cutting edge + great art direction, I'm sold.
 

PrincessFrosty

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
5,905
E3 is showed off games targeted at hardware which is now 6 years old, what did you expect?

Console graphics hardware (the GPUs specifically) have never been very impressive for their own generation, more midrange PC equivalents with a few custom tweaks. The next gen consoles have GPUs built on mid range AMD 7xxx parts which are nothing like the kind of horsepower you can put in a PC even today, not when SLI 680s are an option...much less what will be available late 2013 or 2014 when these consoles are rumoured to launch.

Simple fact is there's no games or even tech demos which are truly next gen orientated, Unreal 4 engine and tech demos are aimed at DX11 which has been "current generation" for a number of years now.
 

michael.pa2

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
2,998
I'm at the point where I'd be satisfied with current engines if the games themselves were good. Especially when it comes to FPS games,too many linear,on rails shooters with unimaginative stories and the same old run n' gun gameplay that are over in a few hours.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,871
We do, silly. Even Crysis 1 sold enough to turn a large profit, even though half the internet said it wasn't even a game, but a tech demo.

Skyrim and Diablo didn't push any graphical boundaries, yet we bought the fuck out of them, too.

There is a truckload of money to be made.

For me, I prefer art direction and style over being able to see every pore in someone's skin. But, if I can have cutting edge + great art direction, I'm sold.

Wasn't Crysis 1 rumored to cost something like $20-30 million and a lot of it ended up being covered by deals with Microsoft and Intel? Either way if that number is right it is insanely cheap compared to modern development costs. It "only" sold somewhere in the 3 million range as well, not a hell of a lot for what was supposed to be a AAA title.

Diablo 3 sold amazingly well and yes Skyrim sold well but what we're seeing still is that we're not a big enough market to risk $60-70 million games on and that is the kind of budget we'd probably be talking about for a game that really wants to push all the boundaries.

Agreed. I'm not overly fond of all the shit-colored "realistic" looking games these days. Too many games look exactly the same.
 

LeninGHOLA

Vladimir Hayt
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
18,416
Selling over 3 million copies of a game is a massive success, especially with that budget. And, considering it was technically a downgrade in gameplay from FarCry.

Witcher 2 was done for under $11 million.

I think part of the real issue is the false perception that a game has to sell 10 million copies and has to cost $80+ million to develop.
 
Top