All game engines pretty much look the same now

[desura]

Back in the day differences in rendering techniques made for different looks, but now it seems that they all implement the same directX calls with similar lens flare, bump mapping, etc.

 

[JeffMD]

At this point I am still waiting for all the special effects I saw in demos 5 years ago (I'm looking at you.. unreal 3 tech demos) to be used. Current games still haven't created scenes as rich as the Samaritan demo. And Dynamic Global Illumination is still a pipedream as far as developers are concerned.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I think there has been a plateau in the last couple of years where there is barely any games that really stand out and put everything else to shame. I have no problem with how the games look today, but I have noticed the boundaries haven't been pushed. As JeffMD said, tech demos 5 years ago had a lot more detail. Go back and look at the PS4 tech demos running on PS4 hardware at the E3 announcement. Those visuals have not been achieved in actual games.

 

[Sabrewings]

Detail takes time, and there's diminishing returns on time spent. I think that's going to be a huge sticking point for mass improvements in the future. Someone has to create that detail, and labor is expensive.

As for engine differences, on something as abstract as DX11 they're all going to end up in roughly the same place. With DX12 coming, and most studios not willing or capable to work that close to metal on so many different architectures, I foresee a lot more use of baked engines like CryEngine, Unity, and Unreal. Those engines' DX12 implementations I think will set them apart from each other again. Also, VR is already showing strengths and weaknesses between them, though they're probably going to move to feature parity there as well.

 

[ksheets]

I would think that, but then something like DOOM comes along and the engine seems incredibly robust and scales nicely over a wide range of hardware.

 

[desura]

At this point I am still waiting for all the special effects I saw in demos 5 years ago (I'm looking at you.. unreal 3 tech demos) to be used. Current games still haven't created scenes as rich as the Samaritan demo. And Dynamic Global Illumination is still a pipedream as far as developers are concerned.

To be honest, for the most part I haven't seen much which is as impressive as Half Life 2's facial animations, I'm dead serious. Half Life 2 from like 2005.

Instead, most games have taken the same models and map boxes that they've always had and simply used DX calls for more painted layers, more brush strokes basically of effects. But underneath it all there isn't really much intelligent interaction, it's just more heavily painted with different effect brushes.

 

[darkswordsman17]

The problem isn't the game engine (which, by the way the thing you think you're complaining about is actually a good thing as it shows that robust change to the game engine market has made them offer feature/quality parity, and I think there's actually more game engines now than in the past; IDtech and then Unreal dominated, but now we've got Unreal, Unity, CryEngine, and I think a few others, and then of course some companies do their own like Dice/Frostbite, Valve/Source, etc; and game engines are now more versatile so they get used on more variety of games), its the game/art/visual design. Larger game development has become more conservative, which has lead to rampant problems (looks, design, story, characters, etc). Companies aren't willing to gamble on tens of millions in development cost on doing something really unique and interesting.

I would think that, but then something like DOOM comes along and the engine seems incredibly robust and scales nicely over a wide range of hardware.

It will be very interesting to see if Doom will have a profound industry wide impact, or if it ends up just being a standout that ultimately doesn't alter things. I don't see it having the impact the original can (which granted few games feasibly could), and in many ways, the reason it is so good is because its a shining example of the old way of doing things, and so I wonder if it might be a last hurrah before we see a truly transformative change. But, there's a lot of things about it that seem very forward thinking. Excellent game engine and game design, that I think will actually fit in excellently with say VR (where the visceral nature of the game will get further enhanced, and the physical toll will play right in with the gameplay in that it is about fighting off an overwhelming horde of demons).

Ultimately I think it will be in between, but also the most optimistic. Simply put, there is place in gaming for the old and new, at the same time, and that many of the old ways were fun not because that's all we had, but because there are basic elements that make them fun.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I think there has been a plateau in the last couple of years where there is barely any games that really stand out and put everything else to shame. I have no problem with how the games look today, but I have noticed the boundaries haven't been pushed. As JeffMD said, tech demos 5 years ago had a lot more detail. Go back and look at the PS4 tech demos running on PS4 hardware at the E3 announcement. Those visuals have not been achieved in actual games.

I would agree, but that's been the case for a very long time (since what the N64 era I think? Where they show off impressive stuff and then take years to live up to it, usually not long before they start trumpeting the next major advancement). I think we're actually starting to see them get there now (there has been a pretty significant improvement to the base level of graphics in the past year or so, granted its still not up to the tech demos, but also remember its not been 5 years since those tech demoes), which is faster than I recall that happening with the previous gen, and I think shows that Sony and Microsoft were smart to take the route they did, even though there's been disappointment and other issues. I think it will pay off longer term as well (being able to keep your gaming library longer, the social constructs longer, and making less of a big deal about each new system and thus can mitigate tech failures like Nintendo staying with cartridges for the N64, and costs of the systems with the PS3 especially).

The gaming market is fickle, companies try something major and get trashed. But then they get trashed for not trying enough. Gamers have a horrible problem in not understanding how gradual the market has been for its entire existence. And I think that's easy to explain, namely that people grow up (which for human development means something pretty radical, the changes from say 5-25 is pretty monumental), they game from early youth through adulthood, and so their lives transform while gaming took a more gradual evolution. It can never live up to whichever era was the golden age for them, but as they get older it also changes faster and in ways that people have trouble accepting. Gaming essentially saw the same changes that movies, music, and technology all have seen, combined with the change that social media brought.

 

[brianmanahan]

game developers won't spend time on many cool features until consoles support those cool features

 

[desura]

Well, there definitely ought to be improvements in load times at least. With all of the extra painted layers load times take forever. I think that graphics now are good enough and they need to work on making it seamless, or more objects on screen at a time.

 

[StrangerGuy]

If you ask me, just on consoles alone, there is too much diminishing returns of the economics and complexity of game development and utilizing hardware to improve visuals, let alone the far more fragmented PC market.

Well, there definitely ought to be improvements in load times at least. With all of the extra painted layers load times take forever. I think that graphics now are good enough and they need to work on making it seamless, or more objects on screen at a time.

I for one don't find today's games impressive in terms of visuals to hardware requirements myself.

 

[bystander36]

I think there are two different effects which are making the differences seem small. 1) There are fewer game engines. Far fewer developers use in house engines anymore as they are getting far more complex. 2) As graphics improve, the less those improvements stand out.

 

[Bubbleawsome]

At this point I am still waiting for all the special effects I saw in demos 5 years ago (I'm looking at you.. unreal 3 tech demos) to be used. Current games still haven't created scenes as rich as the Samaritan demo. And Dynamic Global Illumination is still a pipedream as far as developers are concerned.

As much as I distrust the devs, Star Citizen may look like it pushes all that. Especial with the lighting engine. Right now if you can get it running at 4k maxed out and sit still (because motion blur is horribly broken) it looks like one of those tech demos IMO. Except the people.

If they can get it all ironed out it will be an incredible game. Their in-engine renders obviously look even better and those are mind-blowing.

 

[Stringjam]

I'm fine with the way games look now - I would rather money and time be spent improving AI systems, which have seen far less improvement and milestones since the mid-2000s than graphics quality.

That doesn't seem to be what people want to see in a tech demo, though...just giant roaring monsters covered in fiery particle effects. I would rather see a group of NPCs in an untextured room showing advanced navigation and interaction behaviors.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I for one don't find today's games impressive in terms of visuals to hardware requirements myself.

This is a problem too. There are games that simply hog resources on the PC for no reason. I always blame it on lazy developers. For example there is no reason quantum break on the PC should be requiring 980ti and 6core CPUs for ultra settings which look almost the same as the game is on Xbox one. It's a little ridiculous sometimes.

 

[sweenish]

I think that since games that like Gears of War, Rainbow Six Vegas, and Lost Odyssey all ran on Unreal 3; this topic moot.

Games look as different as the designers want them to, regardless of engine.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I think there has been a plateau in the last couple of years where there is barely any games that really stand out and put everything else to shame. I have no problem with how the games look today, but I have noticed the boundaries haven't been pushed. As JeffMD said, tech demos 5 years ago had a lot more detail. Go back and look at the PS4 tech demos running on PS4 hardware at the E3 announcement. Those visuals have not been achieved in actual games.

I agree, games aren't photo realistic but its uncertain we want them lime that. Most have 1080p monitors and games look and play good enough. We'll see the next big upgrade when 4k screens or VR become the norm.
I'd prefer to see "smarter" AI and more destructible environments in most games.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'm fine with the way games look now - I would rather money and time be spent improving AI systems, which have seen far less improvement and milestones since the mid-2000s than graphics quality.

That doesn't seem to be what people want to see in a tech demo, though...just giant roaring monsters covered in fiery particle effects. I would rather see a group of NPCs in an untextured room showing advanced navigation and interaction behaviors.

Oops I missed your post I agree. I still can't understand why games still aren't able to have that many things doing stuff on the screen at the same time. Why do units stay clumped up and move in blocks in rts games, why are shooters (PC only) still have trouble with more that 32/64 players, why are NPC's so stiff and unreacting.
I play 7 days to die, I'd love to see tons of zombies on the screen at once instead of waves of 10-20. I'd love to be on a tower and see hundreds of zombies shambling forward toward my base.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I agree, games aren't photo realistic but its uncertain we want them lime that. Most have 1080p monitors and games look and play good enough. We'll see the next big upgrade when 4k screens or VR become the norm.

I'd prefer to see "smarter" AI and more destructible environments in most games.

You can still do more with 1080p resolution. There is plenty of room for pushing the limits with higher polygon counts and more detailed textures among other things from purely a visual standpoint.

 

[Midwayman]

You can still do more with 1080p resolution. There is plenty of room for pushing the limits with higher polygon counts and more detailed textures among other things from purely a visual standpoint.

Heavy vegetation especially. Still never seen a jungle or forrest that really looks right.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

You can still do more with 1080p resolution. There is plenty of room for pushing the limits with higher polygon counts and more detailed textures among other things from purely a visual standpoint.

I get it, I'm really just saying good enough is good enough. I agree with the above poster better vegetation would be good but I have noticed the added vegetation in some games make them more tedious.

 

[norseamd]

I want to see RPGs that look like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fs-4Kvp2nM

 

[cmdrdredd]

I want to see RPGs that look like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fs-4Kvp2nM

Not impressed. Some of the scenes in The Witcher 3 and Metal Gear Solid 5 already look close to that and that and the video looks nearly static with almost nothing going on.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I get it, I'm really just saying good enough is good enough. I agree with the above poster better vegetation would be good but I have noticed the added vegetation in some games make them more tedious.

I just meant that we don't need 4k and higher resolution won't necessarily improve how games look. Low resolution textures and environments with 2D looking trees will still look that way in 4k.

 

[desura]

I just meant that we don't need 4k and higher resolution won't necessarily improve how games look. Low resolution textures and environments with 2D looking trees will still look that way in 4k.

And many assets look smaller too and dont scale worth a damn.