Incline Unreal Engine 5: final nail of Unity's coffin?

blueprints were a mistake and do nothing but fragment the ecosystem, no real game will be made using them just demos from designers

 

Funny, because i think Unreal engine games have solid lighting while Unity games all end up looking like fisher price pastel shit.

 

Is this dumb Tomb Raider "you can climb on paint" thing becoming a standard now?

The lighting is awesome. I wonder if the library of those photo-models will eventually grow beyond rocks and elaborate statues. It actually looks as photo realistic as you can get.

 

Photorealistic except there is something off with the water ripples, the colour green is not supported and when you climb you're not supposed to keep your ass away from the wall or it will pull you off. Nonetheless I was impressed.

 

Do you guys expect that the people who make dogshit in Unity will somehow become pro developers the moment they switch to Unreal?

Anyway, what they show in these tech demos doesn't really matter, I find. No game made in the engine ever reaches them, and the ones that at least get close are AAA cancer. Indie studios on a budget will always look prosperous.

 

We are reaching a point where sometimes games can look "better" than reality.

A pity most games they show are completely pointless. perhaps instead of showing us this banalshitboring Lara Croft movie they should have better made a porno.

 

what rpgcodex thinks unreal games will look like:


what most of them will actually look like:

 

I do hope that they don't go back on that shit said about being able to import UE4 projects/assets to UE5.

I am skeptical of that whole level streaming shit. Doesn't that mean systems have to handle huge amounts of data? How will mid to low end machines deal with that?

Plus one would think that ever since they added Ray Tracing to UE4 that would be kind of lighting solutions they would try to improve on with UE5.

Devs aren't forced to use them.
You can very well code every aspect of the entire game.

edit: Hell you can get UE4 source code and morph it into your own thing.

However you can make optimized systems with blueprints, and even on some aspects (like animations and materials) blueprints are more intuitive to use.

Epic acquired Quixel Megascans late last year, which has thousands of photorealistic assets with new additions everyday (which you can "combine" to make your own materials). And Unreal users have free access to that library, which I am pretty sure is where all that comes from.

However the problems with is that if devs are going with that level of detail they also need to make sure other technical departments are on par with that level of quality and if modest systems can run it. And for the most part only the top AAA studios can do that.

 

UE4 was never open source, you can get the source code but must adhere to their license.

 

There are some game changing things in here. If devs don't have to make multiple versions of objects for LOD reasons and no longer have to do baked in lighting that could save a lot on dev costs and time. Some of the other technical details sound really good similar reasons. Here's a decent article on it

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/playastation-5-demo-unreal-engine-5

 

It's not going to happen.
"Check out our $8000 computer showing a single high poly z-brush model in a tech demo"

 

Did anyone else get flashbacks to the old unlimited detail demos when they were talking about the polygon counts? It sounds like the same technology.

 

This is madness!
Graphics evolution must be stopped.

 

Wait are all those dikes really in TOW? Never seen the lineup before.

 

will this new policy apply to games developed prior to the announcement like colony ship? because it sounded good for team and games ITS size.

Vault Dweller or maybe there is fine print in the policy that they dont give out to general public? if this retroactively apply to all UE game, will studio like iron tower benefits from it?

 

HD graphics pack - 70 gigs.
Cost of game - 69.99.
Estimated time for 126 gig total game file download - 36 hours.
The feeling you have when you realize that the game is shit and you uninstall after only playing for 2 hours - priceless.

 

^^^^^^^
TRUTH.



One of the demos for UE3. Not a single UE3 game came even close to this. Not one. Some UE4 games look as nice, but not as dynamic, with far more static lights, shadows and effects.

UE5 with global illumination might reach the promise.. we were given in 2004 for the UE3.

 

That video gives me some Batman: Arkham City vibes, which I think looked that good... in the cinematics.
Plus that demo and UE3 promise of global illumination (which technically speaking they did add) are from 2011 when DX11 support was implemented I think .

Also UE4 supports ray tracing, doesn't that make it more dynamic than the ligthing shown in that demo?
At no point during the UE5 presentation they spoke of ray tracing, but the Lumen tech seems awfully similiar.

 

Which goes to the point rusty makes >engine can != will
Truth of the matter is that Crysis, F.e.a.r and Doom 3 give off more dynamic vibes than most modern games. I know some people are literally blind and can't notice the level of dynamics shown in the UE3 demo just like some other retards can't make the difference between 30 and 60 fps but the UE3 tech demo showed something really high level compared to what games actually do in practice. Whether the engine theoretically reach that level is irrelevant if games still look more static than the swan song of the PC fps era.

 

Funny coincedence: that Samaritan demo shows of UE3 subsurface scattering of light, ie when light gets reflected under your skin and it shines a little. It is specificially demo'ed when he plays with fire there.
Now the coincedence is that Outer Worlds HAS subsurface scattering, you can see it on ears in some dialogues. And it looks like trash

 

*Actual screenshots may vary.

 

Since we haven't released the game, yes. It doesn't matter how long the game was in development, only when it starts generating revenues.

 

I mean, it looks amazing and all. (I particularly like the contextual animation, feet placement has always been a bugaboo of mine. Also janky shoulders - have they sorted out janky shoulders in 3-d videogames yet? I hate janky shoulders.)

But whether actual games look good or not really seems to depend more on the artists and modelers skills' than the engine itself. I can see this leading to lots of games that have the bazillion triangle equivalent of showers of shit coming at the viewer in 3d movies, but I also anticipate some fantastic, immersive moments from the odd developer here and there.

 

When today's game devs look like the things below, don't expect beautiful graphics regardless of their actual skills, especially when designing female characters.

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler