After debuting Unreal Engine 4, the next iteration of its popular game engine, behind closed doors at the Game Developers Conference in March, Epic Games is finally letting the public have a peek at the technology's power
The company is doing more than showing what's possible with Unreal Engine 4, though; it's actively lobbying Microsoft and Sony to ensure that their next-generation systems will help games built with its engine reach their full potential.
"There is a huge responsibility on the shoulders of our engine team and our studio to drag this industry into the next generation," said Epic's Cliff Bleszinski in an interview with Wired. Bleszinski has led the design team on Epic's Gears of War franchise, which has been a showpiece for Unreal Engine 3.
"It is up to Epic, and [CEO] Tim Sweeney in particular, to motivate Sony and Microsoft not to phone in what these next consoles are going to be. It needs to be a quantum leap. They need to damn near render Avatar in real time, because I want it and gamers want it -- even if they don't know they want it."
Sweeney, who has worked on Unreal Engine 4 since 2003, added, "We're much more in sync with the console makers than any other developer is. That means we can give detailed recommendations with a complete understanding of what is going to be commercially possible."
Epic demonstrated the potential of Unreal Engine 4 to console makers, graphics card companies, and select developers two months ago, offering a demo of the engine's new features and capabilities. Wired also previewed the engine, and published details about the demo Thursday morning.
One of Unreal Engine 4's key additions include dynamic lighting based on objects' inherent properties rather than on sets of preprogrammed effects. The technology replicates real-world lighting so that surfaces show accurate reflections, "colors mix, translucent materials glow, and objects viewed through water refract."
The engine's demo, which was running on Nvidia's consumer-level Kepler GTX 680 graphics card, also showed off other photo-realistic effects with fire, lens flare, blokeh distortion, environmental destruction, and details in landscapes miles away. Epic demonstrated how Unreal Engine 4 can handle particle effects, like millions of burning embers, with powerful enough hardware, too.
Outside of its graphical capabilities, Epic discussed Unreal Engine 4's updated visual scripting tool, Kismet 2. The feature makes it so that even non-programmers can build interactive scenes, by converting code that determine in-game objects' behaviors into interactive flowcharts with pull-down menus.
Furthermore, Unreal Engle 4 has features that are designed to shorten production pipelines and lower production costs, such as allowing developers to see many of the changes they've made to a game (e.g. lighting elements) immediately, without having to wait for those edits to take effect.
Epic intends to give the public a demonstration of Unreal Engine 4 next month, presumably during E3 (June 5-7).
Personally I'd be interested to know if the skin deformation method remains untouched. Still using bones feels weird considering all you can do for skin deformations in pre-rendered graphics. A photorealistic character kinda loses its mojo when a nasty polygon pops out due to some previously-unnoticed deformation error.
By the looks of the AWFUL art they chose to "show off" their engine, Epic is well on their way to drag the industry into the PREVIOUS generation O_o
I'm sure it's a snazzy engine and all, but it doesn't matter how many quadrillion polys you can push or how fancy your shaders and lighting are if the art you chose is abysmal puke.
Have you seen the nighttime city demo? It's quite impressive. I've worked with these guys a long time back, and I know they're top-flight in the industry, on all sides. More demos will be coming to be sure. My only wish for their engine is an interactive G.I. renderer, on some level. I've been waiting for interactive bounce light in games since Quake came out.
They are talking to 2 out of the 3 console makers... Guess Nintendo is out of the loop yet again. And I agree Stephane, they really do need to think about the art they use in the tech demo's. Saying things like "Avatar in real time" and then showing a generic scene does not a cause help.
I hope Nintendo is out of the loop. At least one console maker is still more concerned with making good games than interactive cinema. If you want photorealistic graphics watch a film, or hell, go outside now and then.
As a programmer and artist I do appreciate the splendor of a grand engine and the associated AAA artwork fed into it, but I think much of the industry has lost sight of the fact that the word "game" has little to do with graphics, and everything to do with "play". It would be interesting to see how God of War, Gears of War, Mass Effect and Call of Duty would be received using effects from the PS1 era. Basically, would the games still be great due to their gameplay elements, and how badly would sales be affected due to the lack of flashy graphics? Maybe the graphics are the worm, and the gameplay is the hook?
I agree with you, but we all know what's going to happen. Game Developers are going to want to use this engine. Even though it will make their games even more expensive to make and sell. This will push consoles to similar PS3 launch prices. Putting us in the same issue the industry been his this generation. I can see more studios closing down.
I think I'm going to start archiving trite comments like this for future generations and bring them out every time there's a discussion about new consoles and someone regurgitates a boring paragraph about how the industry has lost its focus and only cares about graphics these days.
Related thought I've had: the greatest selling point for an engine these days is not the pictures it can produce. You can get pretty awesome pictures with lots of different engines. It's in how well the workflow is structured and how much the tools accelerate development progress.
This isn't just because it makes developers' lives easier. Easier iteration means more iteration loops which means tangibly better games. It's the difference between a screenplay written draft by draft in longhand versus one written on a word processor.
Did they have to use the word, "Drag?" I'm sure someone will make some phenominal.. penominal... fantastic alternative in a few years! Please don't let me down Valve SDK.
So this all makes me curious... What's Epic going to do about their "EoL" technology, like UE2.5? I'd love it if they'd follow in id's footsteps and release the code under and open license eventually.
MakeS us a new consoles where we can act like ***, I mean kings, in our new exclusive I'm cooler than you club! Then a new generation of toddlers, I mean teenagers, I mean twenty-somethings, can worship us for tEh GFX while admiring our new innovative action-figure-perspective gameplay mode; you'll be able see your own arms holding a steroid-saturated-soldier as you find cover, shoot, run, rage, scream, etc.; and if that sounds to complicated for all tEh hardcore gamer, we'll map every single action to one giant button!
Honestly, it would be great if the next gen consoles could even run UE3 games well. I remember buying Mass Effect for the 360 then being appalled at the horrible texture pop-in
God, people seem so resented against engines and the search for more advanced graphical representation techniques. Its crazy that there is such pretentiousness and prejudice in what should be the most innovative field today.
Yeah of course graphics don't make a game, real time global illumination doesn't make a game, just as much as 8-bit old school graphics don't make a game... it's obvious that a game is a mixture of many different fields, and that's why I love the endless possibilities they bring.
If we have better tools for our trade that's great! It sounds like many here are bitter against progress. And that's a really pointless battle.
I'm personally not blown away by the tech demo images, but I'm looking forward to seeing what it can do, and how great teams can make inspiring games with it.
I think you might have it a bit wrong. I'd imagine most people are just down on it because it doesn't seem like much of a leap from existing technology. As you said, graphics don't make a great game. But if the graphics aren't different and they are still using the same fundamental set of tools, then how much better is it really? Most people may just stick with a modified UE3 and still make those same great games you are talking about. People are not down on progress, they are down on the pitch that UE4 is "dragging" the industry to the promise land. Progress is always something to celebrate but we may be reaching a point where progress is going to come in other forms outside of a new engine.
Well once again thats only expectable, as when Unreal Engine 3 came out, a lot of people stuck with 2.5 until it became a standard.
It might look similar to the games we are used to, because it is being showcased in a certain way. It seems obvious to me that a regular engine with a magnificent aesthetic vision can achieve fantastic things, in the same way, this is a rather, uninspired vision of what might very possibly be a fantastic engine.
As much as Graphics don't make a game, art doesn't make an engine. We should learn to differentiate. Some of the spoken description of the engine seems extremely interesting, even if it doesn't fully come through in the images.
I imagine viewing the tech demo in motion might also make a lot of the enhancements a lot more evident. If it is much better or a slight improvement, it is to early to tell, but to me, for example, it seems that this very well could be shifting Unreal's default FPS focus.
To me the most exciting thing is what we might not be seeing, the maths behind the power. And how they could possibly streamline the creative process.
It is easy to complain just looking at images without even making an effort to understand where the advancements are being made.
As an artist I agree whole heartedly. The industry takes easy jabs at graphics all the time. For reason that have nothing to to do with any small leap this console generation represents. There is practically an army of artists that join in as well and that treat any fidelity in graphics as inherintly the evil enemy of gameplay. Recognize every instance of such lo fi trendyness. and call bullsh|t on the posturing. Any advancement is an artists responsibility to explore whether the realtime experience has no gameplay at all. ( where esther is perhaps just babysteps ) Painting the environments with richer depth and fidelity "like painters throughout history with a new true red?" In which case the painter does not second guess the gift of the pigment but pushes it for all it's worth. Otherwise why not toss in yer poly brushes and just be that indy lo fi game designer u wanna be instead. And stop using graphics technology as yer punching bag.
I think we have reached a point called "diminishing returns."
Computers continue to grow in power, but a console is still going to be tough to have the power of a fully upgraded $2K PC without giving a close price tag of the same value. Sony knew this, which is why the original price of the PS3 was the same as a large HD tv. Pretty powerful for what it could do, but damn is it expensive.
The game industry has been a race in power and graphics since its start. I suppose until more graphical enhancements are introduced that can be inexpensively implemented on home consoles, the industry as a whole needs to slow down and focus on enhancing the interactive experience through other means. Visual appeal is quite easy, yes, to advertise, but there's other senses, too.
Next Gen Consoles are in a pickle: If they up the costs too high.. they're going head to head against Laptop PC's (or even Tablets w/'good enuff" experiences) that are roughly in the same price range. If they go too low... they won't have the runway they enjoyed in the last Gen.
Next Gen Consoles are sort of DOA anyway... they're looking more like PC's all the time & or glorified expensive DVR boxes.
@Cordero - A $2k PC? I don't think people have to spend that much to have a great experience. You can build a very respectable DIY PC for $500-700. I bought my Alienware M11x for $650 (Holiday Sale).. and it plays about 90% of the games out there as well.
@Brad - I hear you - however; I think there are too many ISVs that are overly dependent on Consoles as it is. There's a huge trail of ISV tomb-stones over the last decade by a bunch of them putting too many eggs into the Console baskets. (Unfortunately they bought the hype - they paid the price) There's better 'margin' for Devs on the PC..... ISVs need to stop subsidizing Consoles with Royalties & hidden fees. Besides.. for Gamers to really enjoy your engine - and get their money's worth (~$60/game) - a smart/savvy consumer will buy a PC anyway. IMHO... boycott the Console. Get Msft to do the 'right' thing & optimize their OS... stop gouging the Consumers.
I would think presenting death to promote vile disgust and sickening offense would be a social triumph and mature advancment of the art unless we are still not old enough to take our blinders off yet.
I'm sure it's a snazzy engine and all, but it doesn't matter how many quadrillion polys you can push or how fancy your shaders and lighting are if the art you chose is abysmal puke.
Just. Awful.
As a programmer and artist I do appreciate the splendor of a grand engine and the associated AAA artwork fed into it, but I think much of the industry has lost sight of the fact that the word "game" has little to do with graphics, and everything to do with "play". It would be interesting to see how God of War, Gears of War, Mass Effect and Call of Duty would be received using effects from the PS1 era. Basically, would the games still be great due to their gameplay elements, and how badly would sales be affected due to the lack of flashy graphics? Maybe the graphics are the worm, and the gameplay is the hook?
Now if developers use the engine to make shitty games with poor gameplay, that's on them.
Related thought I've had: the greatest selling point for an engine these days is not the pictures it can produce. You can get pretty awesome pictures with lots of different engines. It's in how well the workflow is structured and how much the tools accelerate development progress.
This isn't just because it makes developers' lives easier. Easier iteration means more iteration loops which means tangibly better games. It's the difference between a screenplay written draft by draft in longhand versus one written on a word processor.
MakeS us a new consoles where we can act like ***, I mean kings, in our new exclusive I'm cooler than you club! Then a new generation of toddlers, I mean teenagers, I mean twenty-somethings, can worship us for tEh GFX while admiring our new innovative action-figure-perspective gameplay mode; you'll be able see your own arms holding a steroid-saturated-soldier as you find cover, shoot, run, rage, scream, etc.; and if that sounds to complicated for all tEh hardcore gamer, we'll map every single action to one giant button!
Whoooooooo!!
Yeah of course graphics don't make a game, real time global illumination doesn't make a game, just as much as 8-bit old school graphics don't make a game... it's obvious that a game is a mixture of many different fields, and that's why I love the endless possibilities they bring.
If we have better tools for our trade that's great! It sounds like many here are bitter against progress. And that's a really pointless battle.
I'm personally not blown away by the tech demo images, but I'm looking forward to seeing what it can do, and how great teams can make inspiring games with it.
It might look similar to the games we are used to, because it is being showcased in a certain way. It seems obvious to me that a regular engine with a magnificent aesthetic vision can achieve fantastic things, in the same way, this is a rather, uninspired vision of what might very possibly be a fantastic engine.
As much as Graphics don't make a game, art doesn't make an engine. We should learn to differentiate. Some of the spoken description of the engine seems extremely interesting, even if it doesn't fully come through in the images.
I imagine viewing the tech demo in motion might also make a lot of the enhancements a lot more evident. If it is much better or a slight improvement, it is to early to tell, but to me, for example, it seems that this very well could be shifting Unreal's default FPS focus.
To me the most exciting thing is what we might not be seeing, the maths behind the power. And how they could possibly streamline the creative process.
It is easy to complain just looking at images without even making an effort to understand where the advancements are being made.
Doesn't the industry have enough problems as it is? : /
Computers continue to grow in power, but a console is still going to be tough to have the power of a fully upgraded $2K PC without giving a close price tag of the same value. Sony knew this, which is why the original price of the PS3 was the same as a large HD tv. Pretty powerful for what it could do, but damn is it expensive.
The game industry has been a race in power and graphics since its start. I suppose until more graphical enhancements are introduced that can be inexpensively implemented on home consoles, the industry as a whole needs to slow down and focus on enhancing the interactive experience through other means. Visual appeal is quite easy, yes, to advertise, but there's other senses, too.
Next Gen Consoles are sort of DOA anyway... they're looking more like PC's all the time & or glorified expensive DVR boxes.
@Cordero - A $2k PC? I don't think people have to spend that much to have a great experience. You can build a very respectable DIY PC for $500-700. I bought my Alienware M11x for $650 (Holiday Sale).. and it plays about 90% of the games out there as well.
@Brad - I hear you - however; I think there are too many ISVs that are overly dependent on Consoles as it is. There's a huge trail of ISV tomb-stones over the last decade by a bunch of them putting too many eggs into the Console baskets. (Unfortunately they bought the hype - they paid the price) There's better 'margin' for Devs on the PC..... ISVs need to stop subsidizing Consoles with Royalties & hidden fees. Besides.. for Gamers to really enjoy your engine - and get their money's worth (~$60/game) - a smart/savvy consumer will buy a PC anyway. IMHO... boycott the Console. Get Msft to do the 'right' thing & optimize their OS... stop gouging the Consumers.
youtube.com/watch?v=R1sTonUnBUE
They'll still have to make death fake, lest it be disgusting and offensive.