This is next gen: Unreal 4 Vs CryEngine 3 Vs Luminous Studio demo (Squarenix)

I liked the demonstration by CryEngine 3 as it showed the engine being used in a proper situation. It wasn't a pre-rendered trailer or anything. The water effects were fantastic and nuanced. Those guys are seriously techno-wizards

gotta go with FF engineeboyishere

While I know that the Unreal Engine probably has more dynamic features, I am hoping somehow this new engine will help Square Enix create a good RPG, I know the engine doesn't have much to do with quality of the game... but I have hopes, that Square Enix will start to get some new ideas brewing.

[QUOTE="eboyishere"]gotta go with FF enginespinecaton

While I know that the Unreal Engine probably has more dynamic features, I am hoping somehow this new engine will help Square Enix create a good RPG, I know the engine doesn't have much to do with quality of the game... but I have hopes, that Square Enix will start to get some new ideas brewing.

The engine showed also a possible hint to the next FF. It featured a more urban gritty style then the usual FF.

SquareEnix engines are not really for rendered gaming. They are more focused on cinematic cutscenes, but even then, only in certain cases. Alan Wake, a cinematic Xbox innovator, if it ran on the Final Fantasy XIII engine, it would look worse than now during gameplay. You could even say the same thing for another Cinematic that also had decent innovation, Uncharted 3. SquareEnix will need more to convince people, then maybe their engine might be widely used.Dr-Brilliant

i agree on the first part, it is more for cinematics. Same goes for the uncharted engine. ND said after UC2 they were asked by many studios for the engine, yet ND said "it only works for in house projects"

But dont forget the FF stuff was apparently in game.

for pc maybe i dont see consoles being able to handel this. a cheap gaming pc is 600$ + which would be a major fail for a console to cost that much. maybe if ps4 gets really good deals on parts and sells at 400$ at a 100$ loss it might be able to run this engine on lower settings. They got it to run on one gtx 580 so i guess it could happen just as long as they dont use a 6670.

theres no way in hell nex gen games will look like that. if they do i will buy whatever system has these kind of graphics twice

theres no way in hell nex gen games will look like that. if they do i will buy whatever system has these kind of graphics twice

Mario1331

I dont think these companies are investing all this time, money, and effort into engines that arent going to be utilizied within the next 10 years.

theres no way in hell nex gen games will look like that. if they do i will buy whatever system has these kind of graphics twice

Mario1331

How so? It seems like a believable leap if you ask me.

Can't see why people don't believe it. If you look at the leap PS2 games had to PS3 it's about the same if not more

[QUOTE="Mario1331"]

theres no way in hell nex gen games will look like that. if they do i will buy whatever system has these kind of graphics twice

crimsonman1245

I dont think these companies are investing all this time, money, and effort into engines that arent going to be utilizied within the next 10 years.

epic already said nex gen systems are not where they want it to be so ill take their word for it. well this wont be in-game probably cgi cutscene if anything

[QUOTE="Mario1331"]

theres no way in hell nex gen games will look like that. if they do i will buy whatever system has these kind of graphics twice

OB-47

How so? It seems like a believable leap if you ask me.

Can't see why people don't believe it. If you look at the leap PS2 games had to PS3 it's about the same if not more

yea but that was SD-HD it was a format leap and etc much different case and you see how that leap got developers in financial troubles and still are.

i think this could be cgi this will not be in game i dont see it happening maybe pc no way in hell for consoles unless they want to keep selling at a loss.

I was most impressed by Unreal 4. We've never seen anything that even comes a fraction of the way to the particle effects they showed off.

I was most impressed by Unreal 4. We've never seen anything that even comes a fraction of the way to the particle effects they showed off.

Phoenix534

I agree. We have never seen particles done so well and dynamically. They actually react to the world around you. Imagine sparks and dust/smoke going all over the place because of winds and stuff like that. Or a plume of smoke being swirld around because something flew through it. I can't wait to see some of this stuff in games

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]

Someone posted this old Square-Enix FF7 tech demo on gaf.

Considering how more recent PS3 (snip: wasn't a demonstration for 360 so why include) games compare, hopefully these tech demos are at least a indicative of future console visuals and effects.

casharmy

hmm..first of all I thought the demonstration only said for PS3? also...

FFVII demo...

KZ2

UC2

GOW3

KZ3

UC3

what do you mean by, "Considering how more recent PS3 (snip: wasn't a demonstration for 360 it shouldn't be compaired here) games compare"?

Are you saying that what SE showed on PS3 wasn't possible, or that SE simply didn't do it with any of their games?

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!

Are you serious?

Those are the most obvious bull shot sI've ever seen. I've played this game ona PS3. it DOES NOT look like that.

That's what it would look like on PC, and it's obvisouly where those bull shots come from - a dev workstation.

After looking at the Unreal Engine 4 Developers Video, I can honestly say, they've only just caught up to CryEngine 3's features. They tout things like per-pixel lens flare, which Crysis 2 had in 2011, and real time editing, which Crytek had back in 2007. They also show things like real time global illumination and time of day changes, but once again, Crytek had this stuff in 2010. The only thing impressive here are the particles and the actual artists who made this. Everything else is just playing catchup. ocstew

[QUOTE="ocstew"]After looking at the Unreal Engine 4 Developers Video, I can honestly say, they've only just caught up to CryEngine 3's features. They tout things like per-pixel lens flare, which Crysis 2 had in 2011, and real time editing, which Crytek had back in 2007. They also show things like real time global illumination and time of day changes, but once again, Crytek had this stuff in 2010. The only thing impressive here are the particles and the actual artists who made this. Everything else is just playing catchup. navyguy21

The water seems alright to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X1vFVGAlwk

Not perfect but not terrile. Cryengine 3's water isn't all that much better really. It has some sweet spray effects from waterfalls and particle shadowing but the water itself (especially underwater) looks worse to me than it did in CE2. Crysis 1's water is certainly better than Crysis 2's

[QUOTE="Desmonic"]

Peronally I liked the feel of Square's demo more. Especially if they can make it look exactly like that in next-gen platforms.

However, Unreal 4 looks pretty good aswell! I like how the Elemental demo looks almost like a Blizzard CGI in real-time :D And this will be the engine of choice for many games next-gen along CryEngine 3. Overall I think we are well served for next-gen :P

seanmcloughlin

The thing people keep forgetting is they said these demos were running on high end PCs with powerful GPUs. The UE4 one was on a 680 and we don't know what the FF one was on but maybe something similar. But consoles next gen can't afford those kinds of GPUs and still make the console affordable for the average customer. So it's still up in the air as to how they will look on next gen.

I'm still annoyed that we're waiting for consoles to come out before we can see this stuff when it's already right there working on PC parts.

[QUOTE="navyguy21"][QUOTE="ocstew"]After looking at the Unreal Engine 4 Developers Video, I can honestly say, they've only just caught up to CryEngine 3's features. They tout things like per-pixel lens flare, which Crysis 2 had in 2011, and real time editing, which Crytek had back in 2007. They also show things like real time global illumination and time of day changes, but once again, Crytek had this stuff in 2010. The only thing impressive here are the particles and the actual artists who made this. Everything else is just playing catchup. seanmcloughlin

The water seems alright to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X1vFVGAlwk

Not perfect but not terrile. Cryengine 3's water isn't all that much better really. It has some sweet spray effects from waterfalls and particle shadowing but the water itself (especially underwater) looks worse to me than it did in CE2. Crysis 1's water is certainly better than Crysis 2's

I think the Wii:U will be missing out, loads.

I need a new PC and not just the PS4 and 720. ;)

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="navyguy21"] And THAT is the truth lol. Also, why didnt UE4 show water? UE3 had terrible water effects aside from the gears 3 underwater level http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c6A2CwgD1A&hd=1ocstew

The water seems alright to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X1vFVGAlwk

Not perfect but not terrile. Cryengine 3's water isn't all that much better really. It has some sweet spray effects from waterfalls and particle shadowing but the water itself (especially underwater) looks worse to me than it did in CE2. Crysis 1's water is certainly better than Crysis 2's

I'm not saying CE3 renders 3D water worse technologically, I meant the outcome looks worse. But that is going by the two Crysis games and Crysis 1 had an advantage because it wasn't all muddy and polluted and had perfect pristine clean water on a tropical island.

CE3 is definitely the better engine over CE2 but Ce2 still has some areas that still wow me more than the stuff in CE3. There is something about CE3 that I don't like for some reason. Maybe it's the extremely harsh lighting or something.

[QUOTE="casharmy"]

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]

Someone posted this old Square-Enix FF7 tech demo on gaf.

Considering how more recent PS3 (snip: wasn't a demonstration for 360 so why include) games compare, hopefully these tech demos are at least a indicative of future console visuals and effects.

Kinthalis

hmm..first of all I thought the demonstration only said for PS3? also...

FFVII demo...

KZ2

UC2

GOW3

KZ3

UC3

what do you mean by, "Considering how more recent PS3 (snip: wasn't a demonstration for 360 it shouldn't be compaired here) games compare"?

Are you saying that what SE showed on PS3 wasn't possible, or that SE simply didn't do it with any of their games?

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!

Are you serious?

Those are the most obvious bull shot sI've ever seen. I've played this game ona PS3. it DOES NOT look like that

Alan Wake, a cinematic Xbox innovatorDr-Brilliant

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]

Someone posted this old Square-Enix FF7 tech demo on gaf.

Considering how more recent PS3 (snip: wasn't a demonstration for 360 so why include) games compare, hopefully these tech demos are at least a indicative of future console visuals and effects.

casharmy

hmm..first of all I thought the demonstration only said for PS3? also...

FFVII demo...

KZ2

UC2

GOW3

KZ3

UC3

what do you mean by, "Considering how more recent PS3 (snip: wasn't a demonstration for 360 it shouldn't be compaired here) games compare"?

Are you saying that what SE showed on PS3 wasn't possible, or that SE simply didn't do it with any of their games?

Are you implying that any of those PS3 games pics are anywahere near close to technically being in par with the top tech demo pic? I'll give you a hint, that one single character in the tech-demo probably has more poygons than all those ps3 games' characters together.And this is the fallacy of using 'looks' and 'resized' pics to compare visuals, most people don't know what they're talking about. Just like some people thought the KZ2 game looked anywhere near close (or even better) than the pre-rendered trailer, you can say something factually about this, and that is that the people who say that have no clue how computer graphics work.

As for the engines and their demos, we can't really say much except for UE4 which looks phenomenal and we know it's using some pretty neat tech, such as real-time GI (finally) and highly detailed shadows with near ray-tracing (still need to read up on this).

Here's the difference between the FF7 tech demo and the new FF tech demo.

When FF7 tech demo was shown, the graphics in the demo was already present on PC 2 years before the demo, and a reasonably decent PC was capable of displaying graphics like that. A couple years later Crysis 1 released and destroyed everything else in terms of graphical fidelity for many years to come. Another thing to note is that when 360/PS3 launched, they were using "close to" the top of the line GPU around the time of their release, this is less so in the case of PS3, but Cell was able to compensate to some degree. 360's price was around the price of its PC-equivalent GPU, while PS3 was a bit more expensive due to Cell.

What has been shown in the new FF tech demo can only be achieved by top of the line PC hardware (still off the shelf, but very high-end). So, is it possible for the next gen consoles to have great graphics? Of course, it's all about the hardware, so if the next gen consoles indeed get equivalents of the top of line hardware currently available on PC, then without a doubt the tech demo will become a console reality. The problem though is the price.

Since Wii-U is on the verge of release, and we have both information on its specs and price, it will be in Microsoft's and Sony's interest to compete against that price. Yet it's virtually impossible to stay close to the Wii-U price while offering significantly superior hardware, unless Microsoft/Sony like to make even larger losses on hardware sale. Here's my predication for next-gen console: 720p + 60 fps + UC3 graphics or 720p + 30 fps + Crysis graphics

GhoX

Square Enix hands down has the best looking next generation engine.-Renegade

[QUOTE="ocstew"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

The water seems alright to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X1vFVGAlwk

Not perfect but not terrile. Cryengine 3's water isn't all that much better really. It has some sweet spray effects from waterfalls and particle shadowing but the water itself (especially underwater) looks worse to me than it did in CE2. Crysis 1's water is certainly better than Crysis 2's

seanmcloughlin

I'm not saying CE3 renders 3D water worse technologically, I meant the outcome looks worse. But that is going by the two Crysis games and Crysis 1 had an advantage because it wasn't all muddy and polluted and had perfect pristine clean water on a tropical island.

CE3 is definitely the better engine over CE2 but Ce2 still has some areas that still wow me more than the stuff in CE3. There is something about CE3 that I don't like for some reason. Maybe it's the extremely harsh lighting or something.

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]

Someone posted this old Square-Enix FF7 tech demo on gaf.

Considering how more recent PS3 (snip: wasn't a demonstration for 360 so why include) games compare, hopefully these tech demos are at least a indicative of future console visuals and effects.

casharmy

hmm..first of all I thought the demonstration only said for PS3? also...

FFVII demo...

KZ2

UC2

GOW3

KZ3

UC3

what do you mean by, "Considering how more recent PS3 (snip: wasn't a demonstration for 360 it shouldn't be compaired here) games compare"?

Are you saying that what SE showed on PS3 wasn't possible, or that SE simply didn't do it with any of their games?

EPIC seem to brag and brag about their engine..sure the simplicity is there, but the cryengine just looks better to me. The FF demo destroys both.

FF demo looks leaps beyond the other ones and is playable on a current PC as they confirmed

Also this is true next gen, it is so close to CGI today and next gen systems are coming in late 2013 or 2014

Amazing stuff, cant wait for next gen consoles in 2014

I feel bad for PC though that will be left out of all the console exlusives that will use those engines mostly

Like Gears for xbox, FF for PS/xbox etc

I think the Unreal 4 engine looks blocky and it appears to have a problem doing colours well as was the case with the UE3 engine. If it's easy to use and developers can make great games with it I don't really care about this though.

I think the Unreal 4 engine looks blocky and it appears to have a problem doing colours well as was the case with the UE3 engine. If it's easy to use and developers can make great games with it I don't really care about this though.

KingKinect

[QUOTE="KingKinect"]

I think the Unreal 4 engine looks blocky and it appears to have a problem doing colours well as was the case with the UE3 engine. If it's easy to use and developers can make great games with it I don't really care about this though.

bobbetybob

EPIC seem to brag and brag about their engine..sure the simplicity is there, but the cryengine just looks better to me. The FF demo destroys both.

soapandbubbles

Devs aren't just looking for the best engine visually. They are looking for one that looks great, has all the tools they need, is easy to use and can crank out a game in no time with as little tweaking and fixing as possible. We know nothing about these aspects of the FF engine. We know the pre-set tech demo looks great but how realistic and efficient is the engine going to be? how easy is it to use and get around?

The UE4 looks great but it is very streamlined and like Cryengine it lets you do things on the fly and lets you see errors and what's causing those errors and when. It's an incredible tool for devs to polish their games.

What people are forgetting is the demo for UE4 isn't to showcase the graphical limit of the engine like the FF one was. It was to show it's features in action and a realistic goal for next gen. The samaritan demo looked better visually only because it was showing the full potential of the engineand that was UE3. I'm sure UE4 could look much better if they put it to it's limit. But why bother when it won't be achievable in real time in games.

Also we don't know how large an area the FF engine can render. We know it's a FF engine and they are generally quite large spaces of gameplay but all we saw in the demo was a very detailed little town area. The area being rendered in the UE4 demo was enormous

[QUOTE="bobbetybob"][QUOTE="KingKinect"]

I think the Unreal 4 engine looks blocky and it appears to have a problem doing colours well as was the case with the UE3 engine. If it's easy to use and developers can make great games with it I don't really care about this though.

campzor

The unreal engine is very versatile like the cryengine but i'm getting sick of the look of CE3. Everything is very harsh looking with it's lighting. It's either too bright or too contrasted. A lot of games use UE3 these days and I think even more will use UE4 next gen

Agni's Philosophy -- FINAL FANTASY REALTIME TECH DEMO

Agni's Philosophy demo WALKTHROUGH (cam footage)

campzor

Agni's Philosophy -- FINAL FANTASY REALTIME TECH DEMO has issues with lighting i.e. GI issues.