[url]http://www.jamesbambury.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/unreal3_0002.wmv [/url][url]http://sanbjoe.home.online.no/nv40/unreal3_0002.wmv[/url]
I think they are the same video.
its pretty amazing stuff.
I found some pics of the demonstration...its even more impressive in high quality, i would love to watch it like this.
Im suprised not many people have commented on this thing.
[img]http://www.airliedesign.com.au/images/post.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.airliedesign.com.au/images/unreal3.jpg[/img]
The vid shows a few brute force enviros, some pretty shaders on cubes, some lighting effects, and the before said scary monsters with more polys and another texture pass.
Yes, it all looks lovely; nice and moody, good art, but my point is that this trend is getting old. Just a personal thing, but it doesn't work on me anymore.
edit: just wanted to add, that this is my personal feelings towards this trend - I know it won't go over well, but the hyping of "The Next Big Thing" just doesn't work for me anymore. It's just gotten old.
There is a lot more going on there than some more polys and better textures. While I was working at Epic I saw the engine first hand. We are talking completely dymanic per pixel lighting here. The game look better than most prerendered stuff I have seen.
No doubt someone will come along in a few years and better it, but I don't think you will see such a damatic leap in visuals for a while, considering just how time consuming it is to make a game with that level of visual quality. You see that fountain at the start of the vid? It took one month just to make that model! Some companies may well drown because of this technology.
I think that the technology that is being created now will give people extra things to think about when deciding what engine to use. it will be no longer what kind of technology does it use, but how long will the art take to create so that the technology will be utilised.
Right now I hope that Epic create some damn good tools to use with the latest engine, because if they don't then it will be horrible!
nothing shows of realtime high poly rendering better than a cool highly detailed scary monster or and an awesome higly detailed enviroment...the whole games industry(and movie as well) is all about having the "Next big thing" to showcase, because technology can only get better, and it is was is keeping the games industry growing. Its sad if your not excited about where it is going, especially if it is your career.
I personally love every new thing.
Thankyou for proving my point Rahnem [:)]
I am a cynical prick. I've been burnt as both a consumer and a developer on this same thing for the last 4 years.
Obviously I was over exaggerating with my comment of a few extra passes and poly's -- but my point stands. Of course it's a shit load more through-put, of course it has a better more physically accurate lighting model, of course it affords how many ever times more complexity assets to be spit out. It is a lovely technical demonstration for the geforce 6. I look at this stuff as both a consumer and a developer -- as a consumer I go "yeah, cool, looks awesome, it'll be good when it's available" and as a developer I think "aww shit, not another 2 years tacked onto development because the hardware and market demand the content."
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great job they're doing, it looks awesome, but I'm cynical of the trend it presents.
quote:Originally posted by J.I. Styles
as a developer I think "aww shit, not another 2 years tacked onto development because the hardware and market demand the content."
From a business point of view that is a bad thing, the hey days of the games industry have passed, but from an artist/design point of view it should be exciting.
Meh, I like my games to look like games. Yes, thats right, I dont care if you think thats stupid, but there is somthing I like about low poly models with a nicely painted texture wrapped around them. I dont care if the lightining isnt mathmatically correct or that it doesnt look life like.
As a piece of art it certiantly looks good, but I guess Im just old fashioned.
Production time and costs are going to go through the roof as well.
Better put on my flame protection suit.
[/rant]
actually makk i understand where your coming from. I remember in PSone 64 days and the characters and enviroments in those games were far from photoreal and i just loved it. Dont quite know why but theres actually something cool in a total realisation that its not real. I dont go against the above photoreal type technology though.
Cripes indeed!
Simply, that was the most awesome game thing I?ve ever seen! [:D] Just think of the possibilities with an engine like that? revolutionary stuff.
I am sooOOoo looking forward to the future of computer games! It?s stuff like this that reminds me why I love games and want to work in the industry so much.
*tries to ignore negative comments*
(err.., no, I can?t resist responding)
*Puts on flame retardant suit*
[;)]
It?s just that I don?t think we have to worry about losing other types and styles of games just because the latest technology has been developed. Personally, I?m a fan of various games from various eras. Some of my favourite games were made 20 years ago! However, I?ve always enjoyed the new technologies that come along, they have always been fun new aspects of gaming to explore, but I don?t think they ever completely replace the old stuff.
Yeah, it will probably be a massive venture to produce a title with this technology, but I guess that means many teams will continue to develop titles on a budget (as with all new technology ? not everyone uses it). And the few projects that can afford the time and the technology will create an exciting new realm of computer gaming!
I don?t see how any gamer could look at this demo and not be awestruck and excited. This is the future of games. Though don?t worry, we?ll still have low-poly gaming.
Of course I have never worked in the industry, so I am certainly no authority (and this is just my opinion), but I do love games. I just hope working in the industry doesn?t diminish my enthusiasm very much when/if I eventually make games professionally.
hehe, just like half-life 2 promo stuff running on the latest radeon was the future of gaming, making "a reality more real than this one". And before that, Farcry, which "revolutionises the way we play games". And before that Doom 3 which "brings games to life with a truly cinematic experiance".
It's all very nice to look at, but it doesn't really excite me in the way the hype used to around the quake 2 and 3 days -- I'll be excited when I have zbrush 2.x, a Geforce 6, and a copy of Unreal 3 running on my home system.
The way I feel about it, is we haven't even seen doom3 or half life 2 yet, which used to be the "Next Big Thing" to be excited about, and now there's a replacement to look forward to in the distant future. Now hl2 and d3 is old news, just like unreal 3 will be when the next big thing is previewed well before its release. Yes, the future is looking bright, but I'd prefer to be rooted in the present. Maybe I'm a cynical prick, but I'd prefer to be excited over something I have here and now [:)]
or maybe I've been influenced too much by a certain realist... [;)]
god damn. When I saw this I was impressed to see how far realtime rendering has come and it is a taste of the next generation of video games, but it is also overwhelming, the amount of art content that will have to go into these games. I don't think many developers are going to be able to handle the load of artwork that will be required to take advantage of this technology.
One interesting thing Carmack said at the GDC relating to this explosion in art content, is not mking all new art content for every game, but sharing lots of common items. The exapmple he mentioned iirc was things like barrels or crates. Are they so specific to a game they need to be done all over again?
He mentioned that iD is sharing quite a few "common" Doom 3 art assets with Raven (Quake4) to help reduce workloads.
It's entirely possible (especially with the "5 major studio's that will do all the games" theory), that studio's might have dedicated art teams that produce common art to be used in the various 50-100 games that the studio is working on at any one time.
There are already plenty of independant companies i believe that do things like this, although i'm not totally sure about what i'm goign to say...but things like SpeedTree, VirtualMechanix (is that name right? :P). I mean, how many ways are there to model a porche 911 if you want it to look realistic. ONE! Because all porche 911's look the same (except for pain, accessories etc.), well, i don't know a lot about cars so please don't execute me if i'm wrong and there are 10 different 911 porche variations or something :) But you get the idea.
CYer, Blitz
PS. Haven't watched the video's yet, but those images don't really look anything better than Doom 3...please excuse any ignorance.
More jobs = more money spending for develepors though.
Not only that, but due to high production costs there maybe some developers who wont take the risk to make something fresh and new, and instead use the tried and true gameplay mechanics they know that poeple like.
Ok, Im being really negative arent I!!!
more art = overworked artists? :)
If companies do start sharing assets, you will probably see a dramatic drop in the originality of gaming worlds. Why create a game on the planet Zeebunger 6, when, for a fraction of the cost, you could set your game in a warehouse full to the brim with 60 different types of crates?
This is an exaggeration, of course. In reality, this probably just means that photorealistic games will become the norm (which would be a bloody shame).
Interesting to hear that Doom3 and Quake4 will share assets... i guess that means they will look kinda similar. Not a surprise really.
cheers
quote:Originally posted by Makk
there maybe some developers who wont take the risk to make something fresh and new, and instead use the tried and true gameplay mechanics they know that poeple like.
Exactly - the tried and true methods of makeing games will stay around, as everyone here has pointed out, there will still be plenty of room for "traditional" games (as opposed to photorealistic games) in the market place.
The problem will be for smaller developers, or an indy developer. There's no place in the market at the moment for 'non-blockbuster' style of titles. Especially on the PC, every game has to use the latest tech, otherwise you might as well be making a console game. What can an indy developer hope to achieve these days? I think the escalating costs will dramatically change the expectations that a small/indy developer will strive for and I guess with all this 'professionalism' the industry has been gravitating towards this all the time.
Don't get me wrong, the new tech looks awesome. But much like every movie can't have Matrix-esque special effects, not every game will be able to look photo-realistic. Here's hoping distributors/publishers/marketers can get their heads around it.
My biggesr worry is with all this technology, tech might become the focal point of the games industry, instead of gameplay it will be about graphics. As far as im concerned, i agree with makk. Just give me game play and non-photorealistic GFX and im happy.
EDIT: unless you can get both, then i'll be permanently smiles [8D]
With regards to technology....on the film side, Lord of the rings set a new benchmark with technology, and it was a huge acheivment. They showed that you can do that, without degrading it, and still tell a great story. I think it depends on who is making the game(or film) and their dedication to the story...alot of companies just rely on the tech to sell the game.
Examples of upcoming games that will have a good story, plus pretty graphics: Half Life 2, STALKER.
Example of an upcoming game that will be relying on the tech, thus pretty graphics: Doom 3.
looks amazing indeed.
wish the video was a better quality-