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

At least the UE4 engine got rid of most of the glimmering, shiny plastic/metal look on everything the UE3 engine had. I remember that being real annoying. Watching Gears of War the first time the only impression I got out of it was man, that was really shiny. Been able to pretty much tell from just a glance which games used the old engine...
 
Games have pretty much sucked over the last 10 years or so. Basically the same thing repackages with a new face. Nothing really new or revolutionary....
 
Deads0uls said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not likely. Maybe 10 years. I believe a lot of CGI is done with ray-tracing/pre-rendered and recorded and we are no where near rendering Avatar or Pixar graphics in "real time"
 
I think Avatar ended up using lots of server farms to get things done to be honest. The processing power for that was actually really really high.
 
psy81 said:
Not likely. Maybe 10 years. I believe a lot of CGI is done with ray-tracing/pre-rendered and recorded and we are no where near rendering Avatar or Pixar graphics in "real time"
Click to expand...

More than 10 years. We're barely beyond Toy Story quality.
 
Derangel said:
More than 10 years. We're barely beyond Toy Story quality.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't quite say that...I watched Toy Story 1 yesterday and MAN do those graphics suck! So many glitches here and there it wasn't funny.

Having said that, I'm POSITIVE that a current high-end gaming rig could run Toy Story in real time...maybe not at the 32xAA it uses and perhaps the models are real high poly-count (though I doubt this) but it could be done...I really see no reason why it couldn't be done. We have things like 3DMark 11 and the Heaven benchmark which, by technical means are far superior and technologically advanced then Toy Story.

Now Toy Story 2 or 3? I don't know about those...Toy Story 2 obviously deployed many new technologies as even today it still looks half decent.
 
JoeUser said:
I wouldn't quite say that...I watched Toy Story 1 yesterday and MAN do those graphics suck! So many glitches here and there it wasn't funny.

Having said that, I'm POSITIVE that a current high-end gaming rig could run Toy Story in real time...maybe not at the 32xAA it uses and perhaps the models are real high poly-count (though I doubt this) but it could be done...I really see no reason why it couldn't be done. We have things like 3DMark 11 and the Heaven benchmark which, by technical means are far superior and technologically advanced then Toy Story.

Now Toy Story 2 or 3? I don't know about those...Toy Story 2 obviously deployed many new technologies as even today it still looks half decent.
Click to expand...

Umm...yeah Toy Story came out in 1995, which was 17 years ago proving my point! HA!
 
Ahhh...I read your comment wrong..."We're barely beyond Toy Story quality"...gotcha!
 
jpm100 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Woahh Woahh Woahhh. Take off the rose coloured glasses my friend :). I think its blinding you about the past: "Premium high end video cards were $300 and not $1000". It's actually quite the opposite. You can get a premium high end video card now for around $500.00. Or an SLI system for $1,000.00.

Back when the envelope was being pushed more though, you had single cards costing $800.00 for the ULTRA editions where two or three would run you between $1600-$2400. If you don't believe me, there are many forum long-time members who can post pictures of their receipts of 700.00+ of Radeon 9800 cards, etc.

shekkery said:
I think Avatar ended up using lots of server farms to get things done to be honest. The processing power for that was actually really really high.
Click to expand...

I think Avatar also was being rendered at 4k resolutions for standard theatre digital projectors "x2" for 3D. So like '8k' resolution. That's not even getting into what resolution renders are likely projected/required for an IMAX theatre screen in 3D. I think if you scaled down the graphics to either 720p or 1080p, you'd need way less horsepower akin to running a 32-monitor 1080p setup versus 1-1080p setup.
 
JoeUser said:
I mean, sure this years E3 showed some good visuals but I have to admit that nothing I saw really made me go WOW!
Click to expand...

I think the next thing that will make you go wow is realistic human movement. Some games have this now with motion capture but you can only capture so many motions. If that level of realism could be generated dynamically that would tickle my fancy.
 
geraltofrivia said:
I think the next thing that will make you go wow is realistic human movement. Some games have this now with motion capture but you can only capture so many motions. If that level of realism could be generated dynamically that would tickle my fancy.
Click to expand...

You know, that's one of my biggest problems with games now a days. I know some games touted this "procedural animation" technique (Splinter Cell: Conviction being one that I remember, though it never happened) where animations would be fluid and somewhat built on the fly without motion capture...but I've yet to see it ever done well...well, Overgrown does a DECENT job of it as does the Euphoric engine, but only on certain things like showing injuries and the like.

Besides physics and interactive A.I., animation has been a MAJOR let down. Especially facial animations.

With games like L.A. Noire using a vastly superior way of capturing facial features, it disgusts me every time I see videos showing developers using "super real" capturing techniques only to see they are using motion capture...this is NOT super real nor does it reach a level anywhere near it.

YES L.A. Noires facial capture had its faults (like the odd looking insides of the mouths) but DAMN did it make me go WOW! and made me SOMETIMES feel like I was watching a live action movie. Its truly one of those things that I'm absolutely blown away that no one else is using it or even trying to attempt to recreate (hello Microsoft Kinect!).

Obviously facial animation is a hurdle that makes games either seem "game-y" or real-life and I've yet to see a game come close to what L.A. Noire did. Granted some games look damn good (like Uncharted or the upcoming Beyond: Two Souls) but even then they don't give me that "holy crap this is amazing" thought in my head. At most they make me think "they did a good job on this!".

You can ALWAYS tell when faces are animated...and thats not because I think I'm better than most at detecting it, its just because the human brain has an inept ability to distinguish reality from non-reality, especially when it comes to human movement.

Anyways, to rap it all up I guess, animation is CERTAINLY something that needs to be focused on WAY more than it is now, because no matter how many more mo-cap balls you add to someones body or face ITS STILL MOTION CAPTURE! We need actual facial reproduction here and not what some PC see's as moving glowing balls of light.
 
1. There's to many "Casual" gamers purchasing "Casual" games.

Casual gamers don't purchase (BF3, Metro 2033, or Crysis) [H]ell let's face it Minecraft has sold more than Crysis 1 ever will. Plus Casual gamers don't have a dedicated PC machine unless they have alot of disposable income. Wii/XBOX360/PS3 cost around 250 that will get you a mid range card and maybe some ram lol?

2. Cell Phones, Laptops, and Tablets are more popular when combined than Desktops with a mid-range/High End GPU will ever be in the next 10 years.

3. MMO's have taken away (or eatin) a large portion of the original base "The Hardcore PC FPS gamer crowd". (Warcraft, Diablo, TES series did this)

4. Look at how the FPS genre has branched apart. You can have a SP designed game Rage, Crysis, Metro 2033 Or A weapons based/team based TF2, BF3) I mean back in the 90's it was simple buy Doom, buy DOom 2, buy Duke Nukem, Buy Quake, buy Quake 2, buy Unreal, buy HL. Then HL changed the FPS game forever with all the modding. Now you had HL, TF, and CS which all have different core games.

5. It's a whole different world now than it was when FPS started, to many competitors.

Is there a market for it? Sure, but with stupid economics pusehed by Bush/Obama/Politics. Well people are getting poorer and poorer, and our die-hard hobby is suffering.

I bought Team Fortress 2 in 07, BF3, Metro 2033 just trying to keep the market going. If YOU like these GAMES BUY THEM!! They will only make GAMES WE BUY in the MILLIONS so DO YOUR PART! BUY THE GAMES YOU WANT TO SEE REMADE and CONVINCE ALL YOUR FRIENDS TO BUY THEM. Or just accept a shitty fate in your hobby. Bro.
 
I agree, most companies have focused too much on graphics/visuals vs. actual gameplay. BF1942 is probably the best game of the "Battlefield" series. Graphics on that game was OK, at best, but the game itself has led to a massive game series. But, they have all went away from what made the game fun. Too much realism, too much visuals, too much of anything takes away from the fun of the game. Think about Super Mario, Contra, Zelda, etc. Probably one of the best games I've played. Simple concept and design = Uber FUN!
 
There are so few PC focused companies left.. valve, crytek, CDPR... Honestly I don't even count Blizzard anymore. They focus on PC but to the lowest common denominator.
 
Last edited:
We have to wait for the next XBox and Playstation to enjoy a big leap in PC game graphics.
 
rudy said:
*snip*
Click to expand...

So right in many ways unfortunately.


I believe there are two major contributing factors to the decline of really well made games. The first stated in quoted above. As for the second, it's two parts:
  • Production and R&D cost sky rocketed to the point where risk outweighed the reward. The result is churning out the same IP and/or game style - repeatedly.
  • Too many options with today's standards and technology. Humans don't need too many options. Instead of making the right decision we become overwhelmed and indecisive, so we make the "best" decision. In the case for gaming, the "best" decision is usually dictated by the bottom line.
 
Spidey329 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Us PC gamers have been saying that for the last few years for fucks sakes. NOW they start saying this? Consoles have been the main problem in gaming since 2008. That and COD.

But yeah, I watched some of the videos. And I am not impressed at all. I would like to see better physics, there is no doubt about that. But graphics wise, there is barely anything different from what we PC gamers have been seeing for the last several years. In comparison, the next gen consoles are going to be akin to DX11 in relation to last gen's DX10. Barely recognizable. If the new consoles don't come out next year by christmas, they might as well not even come out. Everyone is either figuring out PC gaming is where it's at in the cutting edge, or if they want casual games, they go with mobile computing. Consoles won't have anywhere near the impact with the future generation like they did last. It aint gonna happen. And that's good for us. Who here can honestly say the last 5 years have been great for gaming compared to before hand? Where in the last 5 years has there been a Tie Fighter or Half Life? All we have to show for the last 5 years is port after port of copies of COD and Gears of War type games.

Next generation of consoles are going to be the last. Watch and see. Casuals will go towards mobile, enthusiasts will go with PC.
 
Buxaroo said:
Next generation of consoles are going to be the last. Watch and see. Casuals will go towards mobile, enthusiasts will go with PC.
Click to expand...

Black ops has grossed more than 650 million dollars, That's just one game. There will be consoles for a long time, because it's the biggest money maker in entertainment now and it's only going to get bigger. Because it's a market that has been able to sustain itself and grow incredibally even in this shit economy we have.
 
Art assets and stylistic talent have NOTHING to do with how good a game looks... it's CLEARLY all related to the technical capabilities of the engine, and making it run on systems at 5 fps that no one actually owns, to show people what could possibly be several years away but won't actually turn out that way. Yep.

/sarcasm
 
You cant get enthusiasts without casuals. Basically if I had never owned a desktop and been introduced to gaming I would probably be playing on a console now. The reason I say this is because the causuals are all going laptops now days and it seems they are going for worse laptops on average now.

To me the most powerful thing a game company could do is just make a game scale really well, IE be able to look amazing like top end games such as metro 2033 and at the same time scale down to utter crap perhaps even netbooks. Then anyone could play the game and they would eventually start to see the value in upgrading and buying better equipment.
 
Really intriguing conversation, I know its a dead thread...
I think you guys all nearly hit the point- it was the industrialization of the game industry at large that has caused this sad state of affairs.

I'm a would be video game prophet- there are a few million E.T. cartridges buried in a desert somewhere because the bean-counters decided to crucify game design in the 70's as well.

It all does come down to profit, and they can make alot more money on casual audiences.
This is not new though, even in the days of Doom, most people weren't 1337 enough to play that, they played minesweepers or mario instead. So what is different about then and now, and why were companies willing to focus investment in the hardcore niche, where today they aren't?
The answer is in the force that I believe drives all demand in video-games, and that force can be called the 'next-gen' factor, which should always be at least squared with every console release. Graphics, gamplay paradigm, control paradigm, the works, all need to be increased to the current thresholds of computer power, otherwise people generally loose interest in the *shiny bobble that games are* again, and the hardcore gamers exit too because the games have been made lame.

The model of industrial standarization, which allows idiots to be pumped out of game design schools, does not work with video game marketing, it grinds the industry to a halt as soon as it is established, mark my words.

I think the good news is that after a major video game industry chill, or collapse, there will be a vacuum for creative innovation.
We must appreciate all the foundation concepts that people came up with on 16mhz processors with afew kb of ram, and that we are still using these concepts today. Just imagine what kind of new concepts could be built from the ground up with the multithreaded 4ghz plus 1,000 core GPU resources we have today?
Let the castle fall and we will build a modern structure in its place.
Minecraft is a sign of things to come, duh.
 
Because back then they were not companies, they were 5 guys who found each other online etc.... All the innovation in gaming pretty much started that way and probably continues today. minecraft, terraria etc.... The problem is back then you could be a small shop and do competitive work graphics wise, now days you cannot without a couple million bucks. This is why the small indie guys just gave up and instead decided to just forget graphics all together, even try to spin bad graphics as something good or retro.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top