Ok, so this looks like next gen (Get Even)

[VulgarDisplay]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dnw9dWISvw

Not sure if CGI or not, but if it isn't then wow.

 

[Sable]

Not sure if CGI or not

Err...?

Looks great. Hopefully it's IN GAME footage and not just dolled up CUTSCENE footage.

 

[Stringjam]

3D scanning.

I remember seeing this environment in the Thorskan demo.

 

[BrightCandle]

The environment looks lovely, as did the character animation. There are a few frames with some face in it and those don't look quite so amazing but there wasn't really enough to go on.

I like the photorealistic effect.

 

[Bateluer]

Remember, you'll need to be playing on the PC to get that. You won't see it on the XB1 or PS4. Not enough GPU oomph in those boxes.

 

[Face2Face]

Very impressive

 

[TechBoyJK]

Only thing new (which is cool) is how they scanned a real environment to build a 3D model they could use in game.

Everything else I've seen in UDK and CryEngine for half a decade. I have a feeling both companies could integrate this tech quickly and easily.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Remember, you'll need to be playing on the PC to get that. You won't see it on the XB1 or PS4. Not enough GPU oomph in those boxes.

Proof? Or just speculating? Current consoles are still being held back by the previous gen.

 

[mizzou]

It's a sterile environment, but it is beautiful in detail.

 

[arkcom]

Don't think it's game footage. From the description -
"This teaser contains few live-action shots. It was meant to show how reality can mix with in-game elements"

 

[TechBoyJK]

Don't think it's game footage. From the description -
"This teaser contains few live-action shots. It was meant to show how reality can mix with in-game elements"

Wait.. so some of the footage I saw, which I thought looked 'almost as good' as in game stuff I've seen from UDK and Cryengine, isn't even in game?

 

[Fire&Blood]

I posted about this few weeks ago: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2359964

I don't think they are attempting to mislead, considering the demos.

Assuming the demos are representative of the finl product, I'm under the impression that it's hard to leap ahead of established top engines without some caveats. Even if they can do magic with in game physics, interactions and real time shadows, it strikes me as limited to on rail shooter with small map sizes. If this tech is indie devs friendly, I'm all for it and it opens up possibilities for amazing stuff but in terms of traditional FPS shooters I'm leaning towards waiting for GPU performance to increase significantly to open things up there rather than embracing photogrammetrics as a way forward.

 

[Dankk]

It's a Farm 51 game. They're one of my favorite developers. I'll probably buy it Day 1, whatever it is.

 

[JeffMD]

Remember, you'll need to be playing on the PC to get that. You won't see it on the XB1 or PS4. Not enough GPU oomph in those boxes.

Seriously? What did you see that was titan worthy? Know what I saw? Some great texture work at 720p. Enclosed environments like that are easy peazy. Infact xbox360/ps3 could probably pull it off with a hit on texture resolutions. The scaleable shader work would be chump change compared to open world environments.

 

[Stringjam]

The annoying thing about that trailer is that there is almost not a single second of it that isn't post-processed and obscured.

I would trade the whole thing in for a 10 second video of the character walking real-time through the environment.

I would have to say that I'm not a big fan of scanned environments or photorealism in games. I think scanning is a valuable tool for asset creation, but I don't find scanned environments interesting at all. They come across in a very static, sterile kind of way. I have no problem with games looking and feeling like games...not 3D photographs.

 

[TechBoyJK]

The annoying thing about that trailer is that there is almost not a single second of it that isn't post-processed and obscured.

I would trade the whole thing in for a 10 second video of the character walking real-time through the environment.

I would have to say that I'm not a big fan of scanned environments or photorealism in games. I think scanning is a valuable tool for asset creation, but I don't find scanned environments interesting at all. They come across in a very static, sterile kind of way. I have no problem with games looking and feeling like games...not 3D photographs.

Crytek's CEO said in an interview they find that the more photorealistic a game is, the more critical a gamer is of the graphics.

 

[XiandreX]

Proof? Or just speculating? Current consoles are still being held back by the previous gen.

I would tend to agree with the comment about the PS4 and Xbox1 not handling that. Regardless of the 8 Cores in the new systems the graphical subsystem is nothing high end. I guess time will tell.