Kholat based on UE4 - finally next generation PC graphics?!!

[escrow4]

Next gen is what happens when you take Unity's Paris city size and scope (minus the multiplayer locked chests and repetitive bits) and stick a dozen of those cities into a world thrice the size of Skyrim and make it as pretty as Ryse with no loading screens and mile after mile after mile filled with different stuff that are not fetch quests. Picking on RPGs here as shooters meh. It isn't hard. Next gen is immersion and content and prettyness all rolled up. Will need to be PC exclusive as consoles will never do it without compromises. Develop it around hexa cores or the 5960X and 780Ti/290Xs, really use PC hardware to the brink. Take 8GB of RAM minimum just to load as much stuff as possible into memory. Poof! Next gen!

 

[Red Hawk]

Comparing DA:I to Skyrim, I am sure DA:I looks better. However, I have to say in the context of when the games came out, Skyrim blew me away. I could walk around for hours just looking at the beautiful scenery. DA:I OTOH is just "yea, OK, looks nice but I was expecting more somehow" and it sure beats the hell out of my 1gb video card. Dont get me wrong, I think it is a good, maybe great game, but graphics wise it doesnt blow me away, although it is very good.

I dunno, man. Skyrim had a good aesthetic to it and sense of scale, but Dragon Age Inquisition feels like it blows Skyrim out of the water when it comes to detail and making a living, breathing world. More detail and dynamism to terrain and foliage, like grass swaying in the wind or feet sinking into snow. More NPCs, more vibrant lighting, better animations, etc. Dragon Age Inquisition feels more fully realized as a world than Skyrim (which makes me all the more excited for whatever Bethesda comes up with for current hardware).

It's hard to appreciate the "next gen" when you're playing on something that can't fully do "next gen", quite frankly.

Going back to the original poster's thoughts, so what if games like Unity or Inquisition are not "next gen" over Crysis 3, Metro Last Light, etc? What that basically means is that "next gen" arrived early to PC as console manufacturers dragged their feat in getting next gen consoles out the doors. Not that it hasn't happened yet.

 

[sandorski]

Looks great. Hopefully that's in-game footage and not another rendered representation done in Maya or something.

 

[RussianSensation]

O

C'mon man, I'm all for progress, I agree the improvements were not as great as we would like, but at least have a rational comment.

I don't get your point. To me Crysis 3/Metro LL/Ryse look better than FC4, and I think Unity is an average to ugly in places looking game. DAI is a good looking game for its genre but definitely not a next generation game compared to C3/Ryse Son of Rome. Next generation means that game has to look miles better than anything that came before it like Far Cry 1 or Crysis 1 when they first came out. There are no real true next generation graphics on the PC right now from what we had for years.

I don't get the hype behind FC4 and Unity. They are OK looking games, not much more than that. FC4 is basically FC3.5, and FC3 had worse physics model than even the original Crysis. In many places DAI looks good but not amazing.

Red_Hawk, if you look at the graphical leaps since Metro LL/Crysis 3, new games coming out have plateaued. Even the Crysis Warhead cut scenes are better than Unity. FC4 barely improved from FC3. Remember when everyone bashed Crysis 2 for under-delivering but people are forgiving FC4 for looking like FC3.5, why?

Looking at screenshots of AC Victory, it is using the same Anvil Next engine and if Unity is any indication, this is not an impressive next gen engine even in the slightest. Watch Dogs, Titanfall, Evil Within, all avg looking games. Where are the real next gen looking PC games? Hopefully 2015 brings something as 2014 was a very disappointing year for me wrt to PC game engine tech.

If a major developer takes advantage of UE4 tech, I have no doubt that we will see improved graphics from today's levels.

 

[RussianSensation]

Next gen is what happens when you take Unity's Paris city size and scope (minus the multiplayer locked chests and repetitive bits) and stick a dozen of those cities into a world thrice the size of Skyrim and make it as pretty as Ryse with no loading screens and mile after mile after mile filled with different stuff that are not fetch quests. Picking on RPGs here as shooters meh. It isn't hard. Next gen is immersion and content and prettyness all rolled up. Will need to be PC exclusive as consoles will never do it without compromises. Develop it around hexa cores or the 5960X and 780Ti/290Xs, really use PC hardware to the brink. Take 8GB of RAM minimum just to load as much stuff as possible into memory. Poof! Next gen!

The argument that we shouldn't compare graphics across different genres never made sense to me. Shogun 2 or CIV BE may be the best looking games of their respective types, but it doesn't mean they look as realistic as C3 or Project CARS. I think the idea behind Unity was great but the game was made 5 years too early for the hardware. Lately I have been so unimpressed by 2014 PC gaming graphics/tech advancements that I spent nearly $1k on headphone purchases to enjoy music instead. Spending $1100 on dual 980s to play Unity doesn't feel worth it to me at all given the level of graphics.

I haven't seen such stagnation in PC graphics in years. I never once complained that games like Crysis 1 or Crysis 3 beat up my GPUs but right now I am not seeing a single game worth upgrading for its graphics specifically, especially seeing how optimized and well performing games like Alien Isolation are.

I guess the law of diminishing returns is kicking in big time. I was not wowed by FC4's, Titanfall's, Watch Dogs, Evil Within's or Unity's graphics even in the slightest compared to when Far Cry 1/Metro 2033/Crysis 1/3 came out relative to PC games at that time. Obviously I am not bringing immersion and gameplay or storyline into the discussion. Strictly from a technical merit point of view, I don't see any recent games being a leap over Crysis 3/Ryse Son of Rome, and yet their performance is horrible (FC4 stuttering mess with SLI glitches, Unity is a total unoptimized failure of a game, same with Watch Dogs).

 

[showb1z]

Not sure why're you expecting Ubisoft to push graphics, the last time they did was with Far Cry, but they were only the publisher on that. Ubisoft now only releases console games, with a PC version as an afterthought, advancing graphics is not one of their goals.
Not in the way DICE or Crytek does.

 

[cbrunny]

I don't get your point. To me Crysis 3/Metro LL/Ryse look better than FC4, and I think Unity is an average to ugly in places looking game. DAI is a good looking game for its genre but definitely not a next generation game compared to C3/Ryse Son of Rome. Next generation means that game has to look miles better than anything that came before it like Far Cry 1 or Crysis 1 when they first came out. There are no real true next generation graphics on the PC right now from what we had for years.

Maybe, but that's probably because there is no new generation when referring specifically to the PC.

If we consider yearly/semi-yearly GPU improvements from Nvidia and AMD as the start of a new generation, these improvements are extremely iterative. They're not sweeping changes to new hardware after 10 years of stability as we see in the console world. There is no reason to expect a "next-gen" in PC gaming.

"Next Gen" does and should only refer to console gaming. Here it is actually applicable since we do not see yearly improvements in hardware.

PC = iterative
Console = generational

PC exclusives may be an exception, but a rare one since these are few at the AAA level. I think your expectations are just not realistic or are not framed properly.

EDIT: FWIW, I'm not saying it is not reasonable to be disappointed with where graphics are. But I am saying that to reasonably expect anything further than iterations on the PC is not rational.

 

[BSim500]

My concern isn't about graphics and generational leaps anymore (oh I've been part of that wagon for years), it's about developers not treating a PC port as it should have been especially when they had 3 or 4 years of time to work on it.

^ This. I'd put up with UE3 GFX if it meant solid PC gameplay / controls. Hell I just replayed UE1 engine original Deus Ex and it had "that PC feel" that's still sorely lacking on many "designed for controller then fed through a half a*sed mouse-to-joypad translator" modern ports. It was also obvious swapping HD texture pack on/off that GFX alone can only make an already good game great. Plenty of "beautiful boredom" tech-demos-with-a-plot over the years.

If they still can't put the effort in to get a mouse to work properly in 2014, then the answer to the question "Why don't they spend millions more making PC versions with +200% better GFX for the 2% of the market with a GTX980 SLI rig?" becomes all too obvious. Sorry to sound pessimistic but I doubt the OP will find what he's looking for until the XBox Two and PS5 come out in 2020 and lift the overall lowest-common-denominator at least beyond an "i3 + mid-range 2012 7790/7850 dGPU" that consoles will continue to be frozen at for the next 6 years.

 

[HeXen]

Bleeding edge hardware and the desires of UI's/gameplay designed for m/kb are the minority in terms of buyers. If I was to invest in making a game right now, it sure as heck wouldn't have the prettiest graphics and m/kb would be an afterthought.

 

[Stringjam]

....and m/kb would be an afterthought.

That functionality is built into every engine I've messed with (at least UE and Cryengine). It's almost like you would have to intentionally screw those mechanics up for them not to work well.

 

[HeXen]

That functionality is built into every engine I've messed with (at least UE and Cryengine). It's almost like you would have to intentionally screw those mechanics up for them not to work well.

I meant more like modern vs old school game mechanics, not control specifically. For example, Skyrim works with a m/kb but the game mechanics, UI..etc are simpler or commonly referred to as consolized. It's no Stalker or StarCraft 2 mind you.

My point was that I wouldn't go after the niche, this old school game mechanics on uber high end hardware at least not my first game or anything where I made a huge investment. Many times highly graphical games come under more heavy fire for flaws than they would if they weren't so graphically appealing.

 

[bystander36]

Glad I'm not the only one. I didn't think they were "bad" but they weren't exciting to actually play. Explore? Sure, but I essentially was unkillable in Skyrim which was boring. Fallout, well I just couldn't get into that game no matter how many times I play it, I get bored.

Also, I think targeting PC Gamers on the basis of graphics is destined to fail. To make a game in which we all will UNANIMOUSLY agree is great looking, you have to not just beat Crysis 3, you have to destroy it. You put that much effort into a games graphical side, then you STILL have to worry about making great gameplay. It's better to focus on gameplay, then just simply use the graphics you do for console gamers (who aren't crazy graphics freaks who will overscrutinize everything), and then port it to PC and say "Sorry, you don't get the graphics you're looking for, BLAME console gamers/weak consoles"

We'll see how The Witcher 3 prevails though.

Keep in mind, Skyrim is in a very popular series which has from the very beginning, been a sandbox game with unlimited options on character creation. Combat never was a strong suit of the series, and game balance is up to the player. You can't just change the formula that everyone expects, though they did to some degree on the perk tree.

While it is easy to make a character pretty indestructible after you get past the early levels, it isn't required either. It's one of those games where you are best off role playing a character, rather than making a super character. Create a concept, and stick to it. I also like to avoid crafting gear, and relying on drops to make adventuring a lot more fun.

 

[tential]

Keep in mind, Skyrim is in a very popular series which has from the very beginning, been a sandbox game with unlimited options on character creation. Combat never was a strong suit of the series, and game balance is up to the player. You can't just change the formula that everyone expects, though they did to some degree on the perk tree.

While it is easy to make a character pretty indestructible after you get past the early levels, it isn't required either. It's one of those games where you are best off role playing a character, rather than making a super character. Create a concept, and stick to it. I also like to avoid crafting gear, and relying on drops to make adventuring a lot more fun.

I didn't do anything to make my char better beyond progressing through the game. I made an assassin and after sneak is a high enough level... you just 1-2 shot everything it's insane.

Oblivion I liked FAR more because mobs level up with you.

But gaming in general has gotten easier as we have gotten to this "Everyone is a winner" mindset. Don't make anyone feel bad, I had more trouble beating SNES/N64 games (Now, since I still have the consoles), than beating these next gen games.

 

[bystander36]

I didn't do anything to make my char better beyond progressing through the game. I made an assassin and after sneak is a high enough level... you just 1-2 shot everything it's insane.

Oblivion I liked FAR more because mobs level up with you.

But gaming in general has gotten easier as we have gotten to this "Everyone is a winner" mindset. Don't make anyone feel bad, I had more trouble beating SNES/N64 games (Now, since I still have the consoles), than beating these next gen games.

To 1 or 2 shot mobs, depending on the mob of course, would require abusing the blacksmith/potion/enchanting, or mods, or playing on a low difficulty. The game can definitely be abused, even without trying. Oblivion could also, but you are right that games have continued to get easier, to appease the instant gratification generation. Like I said, Skyrim, and Oblivion, did require some self discipline.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Does everything feel like its small? Kind of like tanks in an old Godzilla movie?

 

[tential]

To 1 or 2 shot mobs, depending on the mob of course, would require abusing the blacksmith/potion/enchanting, or mods, or playing on a low difficulty. The game can definitely be abused, even without trying. Oblivion could also, but you are right that games have continued to get easier, to appease the instant gratification generation. Like I said, Skyrim, and Oblivion, did require some self discipline.

Game balance to me is just at a point where it's a "lets make sure you can't lose."
Dark Souls was touted as the "Hardest game!!!!" blah blah blah. It's like the whole Ninja Gaiden series was never made. Even on EASYMODE when Ninja Gaiden finally implemented that to appeal to the masses, that game was harder than Dark Souls.

This instant gratification just makes beating a game feel hollow. I beat Super Mario Galaxy 2 just now and it was FAR easier than Mario 64 ever was. The levels are well designed, but are extremely linear compared to the open feel of Mario 64. We're starting to regress in game design. Even XCom Enemy Unknown, great game, but the old XCom was a game that I honestly thought was a joke as a kid when I first picked it up.

But don't want to go off on this tangent anymore, I doubt we'll see many massive graphical improvements. Most people are happy with graphics the way they are, it's only PC Enthusiasts who have seen games like Crysis 3 who were expecting some type of jump in graphical performance (which isn't unreasonable), who are extremely disappointed in what we see today.

In terms of graphics, it's the modding community that's exciting, not the game releases.

 

[escrow4]

Game balance to me is just at a point where it's a "lets make sure you can't lose."
Dark Souls was touted as the "Hardest game!!!!" blah blah blah. It's like the whole Ninja Gaiden series was never made. Even on EASYMODE when Ninja Gaiden finally implemented that to appeal to the masses, that game was harder than Dark Souls.

This instant gratification just makes beating a game feel hollow. I beat Super Mario Galaxy 2 just now and it was FAR easier than Mario 64 ever was. The levels are well designed, but are extremely linear compared to the open feel of Mario 64. We're starting to regress in game design. Even XCom Enemy Unknown, great game, but the old XCom was a game that I honestly thought was a joke as a kid when I first picked it up.

But don't want to go off on this tangent anymore, I doubt we'll see many massive graphical improvements. Most people are happy with graphics the way they are, it's only PC Enthusiasts who have seen games like Crysis 3 who were expecting some type of jump in graphical performance (which isn't unreasonable), who are extremely disappointed in what we see today.

In terms of graphics, it's the modding community that's exciting, not the game releases.

I don't play games for the difficulty anymore. If its challenging I'll pass. Give me a decent story for once.

 

[HeXen]

I just like the experience, I don't like to replay the same scenes over and over and over. I just don't have the time to spend on that stuff anymore. As a kid I had the patience and time to beat games like Ninja Gaiden or Karnov but not anymore.