Unreal Engine 3 evolution tech demo (gtx 580 tri sli)
- Thread starter NZXT30
- Start date
stunning! they should release it as a benchmark
All this mention of a Blade Runner game on such an engine, it irritates me that there aren't more cyberpunk games, with Deus Ex 3 being the only recent one I can think of. It's such an untouched genre, yet one that I think so many people love. I WANT CYBERPUNK GAMES.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 4,001
- Location
- Rhone-Alpes, France
High standards or what? I'd love to see what does impress you, considering this is the most advance graphics demo ever shown.
What are you talking about? It's not even a game, its just a tech demo running on Tri SLI GTX 580.
You did read that it's running on 3 580's didn't you? So no, Crysis 2 shouldn't have looked like that, and neither will the next Batman game or ME3.
Looks pretty much like BioShock to me only with a bit higher res meshes, tesselation and a little bit more advanced, but still fairly static, shaders, still looks very heavily DX9ish and unreal style "chunky".
FFS wish some people would pull their heads out of their rears, note to OCUK please make the phrase 'console port' illegal because people just spurt it out in every single last thread. those shots look incredible, thats pretty much it! and before accusing 'EPIC GAMES' of being 'console derps' please remember they are called Epic Games, not Unreal, Unreal Engine is a game engine developed by Epic Games, and to be frankly honest they have done a great job in recent years, Gears of War looks frankly awesome, granted its a bit on the dark and 'gloomy' side but thats supposed to reflect the nature of the story driving the game, rather than what Unreal Engine is capable of doing. sure it might not be the 'best' looking game but its a damn sight better to play than any game I can think of that looks better...
pink = derps
Quite how you can compare Bioshock to Unreal Engine 3.9xx is a mystery, they look nothing alike, Bioshock looks a lot more cartoony for starters and the environment is nowhere near as atmospheric or detailed and that's only going off the steady-shaky cam footage uploaded...
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Urgh, depth of field, now i have NO issue at all with say those cigarette's being used and focused in on with depth of field in a cutscene trying to show you something or set the story, whatever its up to them. But blanket Depth of field that stops you choosing where to focus is horrible, unrealistic and just stupid.
If that was in game and the engine insists on focusing on the cigarette while you're trying to see a guy to shoot on the ground. Metro 2033 for me did the later, it did blanket depth of field, always in action it blurred the outter edges and thats just not even close to realistic.
LIke i said, in cutscenes and to a degree in something like a scope it can be fine, in a cutscene where its intended to draw your focus literally to a specific point it can look awesome, but as an "engine effect" its pretty rubbish in game. It mostly comes across as motion blur and other "optimisations" where consoles and other underpowered rubbish can just choose to render area's not in focus at a far lower res then blur it and you wouldn't see the difference, basically a way to hide a lack of power.
If that was in game and the engine insists on focusing on the cigarette while you're trying to see a guy to shoot on the ground. Metro 2033 for me did the later, it did blanket depth of field, always in action it blurred the outter edges and thats just not even close to realistic.
LIke i said, in cutscenes and to a degree in something like a scope it can be fine, in a cutscene where its intended to draw your focus literally to a specific point it can look awesome, but as an "engine effect" its pretty rubbish in game. It mostly comes across as motion blur and other "optimisations" where consoles and other underpowered rubbish can just choose to render area's not in focus at a far lower res then blur it and you wouldn't see the difference, basically a way to hide a lack of power.
Demo looks great but were does it say its running on 3 580gtxs? Nice to see what can be done on hardware thats out now.
Re depth of field, it has no real benefit to games i always turn it off,I agree its good for cutscenes tho.
Re depth of field, it has no real benefit to games i always turn it off,I agree its good for cutscenes tho.
Same unreal engine esque lighting/color tone with bias towards neon, same poor over done use of depth maps i.e. the brick wall and paving slabs just looks terrible, granted the atmosphere and detailing is a bit better than typical in bioshock but nothing mind blowingly better - the reflections are quite nice but again nothing special infact can even be done in directx 7 fairly convincingly so not sure why they are showing it off as a feature.
The hair and skin shaders are quite nice but a bit static and the face deformation looked a bit odd tho thats partly down to the choice of the artists/developer.
Its nice don't get me wrong just compared to current unreal engine based products I don't see it anything more than another step forward not a mind blowing leap...
Basically same old unreal engine, too neon, too shiny, too chunky.
Last edited:
Why do you consistently come out with rubbish like this?
I don't even believe you believe what you're saying.
Coz I'm not easily impressed by a few shiny shaders and high res meshes (that will be crunched down to 1/10th the number of polys before they came out as the version in the retail game anyhow) - look at some of the tech promo stuff for unreal engine 2 looks almost as nice but you don't see any actual products looking even close.
That directly contradicts this:
So, they're not impressive, but you imply they're 10x the poly count of what we have already, but they'll reduce it when it comes out? What?
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
that looks sod all like bioshock. Sorry, not getting that comparison at all.