Comments (26)
Rhaigun  +   1025d ago
In context: "We created a CGI trailer that can't be reproduced on an affordable machine. And, by affordable, we mean sub $4000."
sengoku  +   1025d ago
Epic still has a few kinks to work out, but i'm sure they will produce a nice 3rd party engine.

rocksteady probably will be using it to create the next batman.
which is on my (and i'm guessing a lot of other) buy on next-gen list

sure they are not the company as we kew them in there heyday but hell there not nobody either.
#1.1 (Edited 1025d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
nukeitall  +   1025d ago

"In context: "We created a CGI trailer that can't be reproduced on an affordable machine. And, by affordable, we mean sub $4000.""

Actually, a better statement is:

"We created a CGI trailer that can't be reproduced on an *cheap and dumbed down* machine. And, by affordable, we mean sub $600 and by cheap we mean PS4."

Point being, the PS4 and most likely the next Xbox will be severely underpowered in the processing power department.
Muerte2494  +   1025d ago
IF you actually read...
the article you would see that UE4 uses a technique similar to SVGOI, but not actual SVGOI like seen in the PC trailer. The only people who actually have Global Illumination in their engine is Crytek with Cryengine3. But even then even the only GI in the engine consists of the son only. The article barely mentions next gen consoles. It's more about lack of the lighting solution in UE4 period.

The Infiltrator demo did not have SVGOI in it which means ps4 and next xbox can achieve similar, if not the exact, same results. The CPU in games, mainly perform computation task such as physics. It in no way determines how games looks , as oppose to how the game runs.

For someone who suppose to be championing PC's, your lack of knowledge for something this basic is baffling.
#1.2.1 (Edited 1025d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(3) | Report
nukeitall  +   1024d ago

I did read the article and in fact the article talks about the high cost of GI and therefore uses other techniques to get a "similar" look. This isn't much different than instead of costly raytracing and uses other techniques for light.

The article also mentions the high cost of real GI and no I said nothing specific to the CPU and merely mentioned processing power, which can mean CPU, GPU or both!

Crytek 3 only uses the "son" only, with one only one light bounce that is severely limited at this point.

That still doesn't change the fact that PC can barely do it, what do you think a dumbed down and cheap console can do?

Also, if you read my comment history, I'm actually a console champion, not PC. I'm just not console blind!
IK IR Y IP T  +   1025d ago
Doesn't matter how good ur tech is, if u don't have talented people around to use it, and that's why i see epic as a failure in the future and it saddens me because gears is one of my fav franchise's but that's the industry . I see crytek becoming the new epic and epic closing shop and only leasing there license instead of developing games all of there key talent didn't leave for no reason .
jetlian  +   1025d ago
lol ha ha epic does more than make gears! it was and currently is the most used engine in gaming!

go whine as they are used by more companies this coming gen
Muerte2494  +   1025d ago
@ Jetlian,
I wouldn't be so sure about that Bioware has already confirmed that they will be using DICE's new Frostbite3 engine for all future projects. This generation DICE and Crytek didn't get into consoles until two or three years after EPIC. Cryengine3, Frostbite3, and RED engine all look to be flexing their muscle this time around. Capcom's new engine and Luminous too.

My point is I think you're jumping the gun a little bit. While I agree that EPIC dominated this gen, I'm not sure it will be a continuing trend next gen. There are alot of companies just making their engines in house.
jetlian  +   1024d ago
Bioware,dice, and crytek have ties with EA. So yea they would use their own engines. CD project red used their own on witcher 2.

Same with capcom's MT framework this gen and SQ using there own. Only one changing in your post is bioware.

Im sure it could change this gen but I dont see it happening.Like you said it is early.The two demos infiltrator and Samaritan looked badass
#2.2.1 (Edited 1024d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
mmike855  +   1025d ago
Am I the only one who wasn't blown away by the UE4 Tech Demo?
shivvy24  +   1025d ago
Killzone SF and Battlefield 4 looks way better then the tech demo
Tei777  +   1025d ago
yeah, it was a pretty underwhelming tech demo but then I guess thats because they aimed to demo something very achievable. I think the Infiltrator demo is the more ambitious," maybe we'll see games like this in a few years" tech demo. The elemental demo is what we will see developers achieving day one.
user7693958  +   1025d ago
ok, a good excuse, but a excuse after all.
@mmike855 you are not alone.. A teach demo should have gameplay next time to impress me and not some "this is what out engine can do if your game is set in a small land and only has 2 brainless characters ..
I like more the faces tech demos if you want a non gameplay tech demo.. that's where you can see how much better the new tech is.
#4 (Edited 1025d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Jughead3416  +   1025d ago
IMO, to a non technical gamer such as myself, the PS4 version looked pretty close to the PC version. There were some differences. The PS4 version didn't have some of the particle effects. But I thought the PS4's lighting was brighter and made it look more crisp. Just my opinion. The lighting was the biggest differences. To be significantly cheaper than a high end PC, PS4 still holds it's own. There's diffinately not as big of a gap as with PC and PS3. This is good for PC actually. How many PC games had to be built on scalable engines that could also work on inferior consoles? The next consoles should mean that PC can finally achieve what it's really capable of because it doesn't have to scale down so far. For example, Battlefield 3, Far Cry 3, etc.
#5 (Edited 1025d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
TemplarDante  +   1025d ago
Its funny how originally, some people "blamed" next gen XBox720 and PS4 for why they didnt include it.
They were being unrealistic for the forseeable future thinking its viable for gaming in todays market.
FrigidDARKNESS  +   1025d ago
Both Epic and Crytek really wsnt to be PC only developers, but there stockholders are pressuring them to develope games on consoles because of all the revenue they can bring.
landog  +   1025d ago
ue 4 will be awesome, cryengine 3 is already amazing, on pc at least
Soul_Re4p3rR_69  +   1025d ago
iight stop arguing on which system is better, if you have an argument on the pc, go to the pc forum, if you have an argument on the xbox go to the xbox forum...
mrmancs  +   1025d ago
hate to upset pc owners, but hasn't the more complex light solution been dropped from the pc also, due to it not being realistic to use in a open world game , it would require to much processing power that even a very high end pc would struggle with. Atleast the ps4 demo was honest to god version of what it can actually produce in game and can only Get Better(hopefully) .
PLASTICA-MAN  +   1025d ago
Not only that, but also the video people are bragging about is just a "video". When you get the real thing running real-time you even get dumbed down light effects with only one character at screen. So this SVOGI won't be feasible even on the highest upcoming machines.
Kennytaur  +   1025d ago
There will be better alternatives with improved performance. No biggie. This sounds like one of those graphical features that's not worth the performance hit.
SatanSki  +   1025d ago
"Infiltrator was a good indication of what Epic can achieve with its latest version of Unreal Engine 4, and if games are going to look that good, then we obviously don’t mind the lack of the SVOGI (as long as developers take advantage of the alternative solutions that Epic introduced to its engine)."

Thats bullshit. Infiltrator didnt impress me much at all. Offcourse if i were only console gamer i would probably like it a lot more but i also always had decent PCs and my standards are a lot higher. SVOGI may be too demanding for PCs now but not so in a few years. What makes me mad is i fear consoles will hold PC games back for another several years. God, i hate stagnation.
Dark_Overlord  +   1025d ago
"What makes me mad is i fear consoles will hold PC games back for another several years."

How is that a console gamers fault? If a dev is too lazy to take advantage of PC specs, then it's their fault you're getting a game that's not as good as it could have been.
SatanSki  +   1025d ago
I could say console gamers fault is supporting platform with ridiculously long life cycle and accepting its relative lack of power in comparison to newest technology. I could by i didnt so dont know where did you get that from. BTW this dislike is not from me ;-)
#12.1.1 (Edited 1025d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(4) | Report
Dark_Overlord  +   1024d ago
What is wrong with a 'ridiculously long life cycle'? If that console is still providing me with enjoyment, then I don't see the problem?

A console/pc/tablet etc doesn't have to have the latest and greatest hardware to be enjoyable, as long as the games are fun, who cares? :)
Anonagrog  +   1024d ago
I've always wondered how Epic were going to pull off their SVOGI. I mean, the original Cyril Crassin work that Epic based SVOGI off of highlighted just how limiting it would be even on high-end h/w. It gobbles up gpu and memory resources. That's not to detract from how innovative this real-time GI solution is though. Cyril et al. have done fantastic stuff, but I've struggled to see where they could pull back performance at the levels necessary. Excited to hear more as Epic progresses forward with their alternative approach.
#13 (Edited 1024d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login