Back to Article

  • hypopraxia - Friday, March 29, 2013 - link

    Wow. That is more than impressive. Just, wow. Reply
  • T1beriu - Friday, March 29, 2013 - link

    I think this is a joke compared to what Frostbite 3 can do in Battlefield 4 and not a big improvement over Unreal Engine 3. Reply
  • szimm - Friday, March 29, 2013 - link

    What exactly do you mean? These are the same types of effects used in the BF4 video. Same post processing; same DoF, same bloom (i.e. drowning us in anamorphic lens flares...), same physics particles, same bokeh, same motion blur. The only demo I've seen so far which goes above and beyond is the CryEngine3 demo with stuff like realtime area lights, etc... I did lol at some of the very Doom3 inspired art design is this Unreal demo... Haven't we come further in all those years? ;) Reply
  • Sabresiberian - Saturday, March 30, 2013 - link

    While I think calling it a joke is a little strong, I have to agree, it doesn't look as good, to me. And, this isn't game play, it's a video.

    The Unreal devs are still focused on console quality. While they are looking forward to better consoles and Unreal 4 is obviously better than Unreal 3, that's what they primarily code for (by their own statements), and that's what has long held Unreal back, in my opinion.
  • Margalus - Friday, March 29, 2013 - link

    I think you reversed that, Frostbite 3 is a joke compared this UE4. Just look at the water dripping down from the ceiling/pipes.. Looks realistic in UE4 demo here, in the BF4 demo it is just plain pathetic..

    Of course that is only one part of the engine. Until both are out in games, I'm not gonna say one is better than the other. Videos like this are too limited to judge much about overall quality, imo. I'm sure they will both be good and have a place in the gaming industry.
  • szimm - Friday, March 29, 2013 - link

    ...And no developer in their right mind would ever dream of doing a simple water drop effect with anything other than a simple, old-school, billboard-style particle effect... ;) That kind of detail in a game engine is honestly a waste. What counts more than anything is lighting, post processing and particle density/physics. In addition, simple rendering power when it comes to having huge visibility ranges (avoid pop-in) and large amounts of dynamic meshes onscreen at once (crowds, flocks of birds, etc.). Reply
  • T1beriu - Friday, March 29, 2013 - link

    I remember getting goosebumps when I saw the Samaritan Unreal Engine 3.5 demo, I got the same feeling after Frostbite 3, but after watching UE4 I'm not impressed or moved at all. :) Reply
  • Thud2 - Sunday, April 14, 2013 - link

    "Frostbite 3 is a joke compared this UE4..... Until both are out in games, I'm not gonna say one is better than the other."

    Too late.
  • B3an - Sunday, March 31, 2013 - link

    Your comment is stupid and you're stupid. Reply
  • Operandi - Friday, March 29, 2013 - link

    Man, in the future apparently bad guys are really dumb and don't know how to aim.

    Very impressive however considering it was running on single 680. Not that it really matters since I don't plan on buying a console I wonder if the PS4 and 720 will be up running at that level.
  • MonkeyPaw - Friday, March 29, 2013 - link

    Don't you know? Most bad guys attend the Storm Trooper School of Accuracy. Reply
  • eddman - Friday, March 29, 2013 - link

    Tell me about it. A person, running away from you in a straight line, is the second easiest target to shoot down. The first would be a person running towards. :D

    If unreal 4 games also manage to run this good on a single 680, I'd sell my 560 Ti right now, borrow some money and get a 680; but I doubt it.

    "Heavily optimized demo, to run on a specific card"


    "Crappy console ports that few developers care to optimize for PC, and even if they do, they'd still have to do so for a big range of cards."
  • Thud2 - Sunday, April 14, 2013 - link

    I their defense it is even kind of hard under pressure to hit a guy running away from you, even if he's running in a straight line away from you ... but it shouldn't be hard for FOUR GUYS WITH MACHINE GUNS to hit a guy running directly away from them. Reply
  • wurizen - Friday, March 29, 2013 - link

    my only question is, which part is the actual gameplay footage? Pre-rendered CG doesn't count. Reply
  • CaedenV - Monday, April 01, 2013 - link

    This is a real-time rendered video. Meaning it is obviously not gameplay, but it is also not some sort of pre-rendered footage that took them 2-3 weeks to crank out. It is simply a matter of them opening up their platform used to create or load this scene, and then pressing play.

    I was mostly impressed with the scope and world detail. Also I love that character detail for characters other than the main character have been boosted dramatically. Also the lighting was pretty good as well... but I think we have seen better with other engines recently.

    The real takeaway from this for me were the glaring disappointments. While there is some obvious physics processing going on, things like hair still seem stiff. While it was cool that the hovering truck things had some movement on their own, I find it unbelievable that they would spaz out like that when moving in a straight line at a constant speed. Also, when the elevator colum is being shut down and you see these 'wires' hanging between the center spiral and the outer ring, and when they move they don't behave like a piece of sagging rope, they still move in odd little chunks.

    And why does the optical cover not get disrupted when the soldier's food goes through it, but then it gets messed up with water?

    Maybe most of my complaints are more art-direction issues, and not issues with the actual rendering engine, but if they are going to spend that kind of money on this type of project then you would think they would pay that kind of attention to detail. And maybe it is just me, but this dosn't look a whole lot better than the 3.5 demo. Perhaps what is impressive is that they are running it on a single card instead of a multiGPU setup? Something has been lost in translation for me as to why I should care about the demo, and as a long time Unreal fan I find that a little disappointing.
  • MasterMason - Friday, March 29, 2013 - link

    It's hard to believe that this demo was actually ran using only a single GeForce GTX 680. Well, according to NVIDIA:

    Optimized code perhaps?
  • Thud2 - Sunday, April 14, 2013 - link

    Without a doubt and you can't really blame them for it, this isn't a benchmark. Regardless, looks great. Reply
  • danjw - Saturday, March 30, 2013 - link

    Yes, looks about like what you might expect from a 4-way GTX Titan SLI rig! ;-) Reply
  • surt - Wednesday, April 03, 2013 - link

    What are you talking about. The bad guy kills like a dozen people. Reply
  • Thud2 - Sunday, April 14, 2013 - link

    I think he meant the storm trooper like guys were the bad guys Reply
  • IAmRandom301982 - Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - link

    PC gamers sure are paranoid right now that the upcoming consoles will be comparable lol.

    Seems every PC game article of a future title has some mentioning of the PS4.

    We'll see. But I have a feeling developers are cheering right now knowing they will not have to build 2 different teams ( perhaps even 3 ) because a console has architecture completely different then that of the main PC build.

    And just to note something. That " demo " actually looks worse then the live gameplay of Killzone on PS4. Just sayin.
  • Joelioto - Tuesday, June 04, 2013 - link

    I saw this playing in real time in NVIDIAs demo lab. They were running off of like 1 680 I believe (although they did have a quad Titan rig sitting on the side ;D). It's an amazing demo, especially when you see it in wireframe view and see how densely packed the screen is of polygons. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now