Frostbite 3 vs Unreal 4

With both graphic engines having their big reveals at GDC and showing off what they can do...what is the genreal feeling about the two potentially "next gen console" engines?

For those that haven't had a chance to see them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dO2rM-l-vdQ

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL03egkSymw&feature=player_detailpage

For me? Well, my reaction is... great, we now have 100% realistic graphics. I am serious, there is nothing you can possibly do to make them any more realistic. I see textures in the Frostbite 3 demo seemed to be a bit blurry, but that's the only thing that you could improve to make it any more realistic and that has nothing to do with the engine itself.

So my question is, does this mean we can stop "improving" the graphics now? I am serious, can I haz complete focus on Gameplay and Story now?

IronicParticle wrote:For me? Well, my reaction is... great, we now have 100% realistic graphics. I am serious, there is nothing you can possibly do to make them any more realistic. I see textures in the Frostbite 3 demo seemed to be a bit blurry, but that's the only thing that you could improve to make it any more realistic and that has nothing to do with the engine itself.

So my question is, does this mean we can stop "improving" the graphics now? I am serious, can I haz complete focus on Gameplay and Story now?

Exactly the way I feel.

Equally impressed by both...the only way I see to make graphics better is if we get to the point where we have fully immersive and interactive graphics (think TNG's holodeck here)...which with everything that I have heard about Rift, along with the improvements in motion control software (like kinect and leap), we may not be that far off from. It seems so strange to me to think that something that I thought I would never see, now seems so possible (referring back to the holodeck here).

DSharrah wrote:Equally impressed by both...the only way I see to make graphics better is if we get to the point where we have fully immersive and interactive graphics (think TNG's holodeck here)...which with everything that I have heard about Rift, along with the improvements in motion control software (like kinect and leap), we may not be that far off from. It seems so strange to me to think that something that I thought I would never see, now seems so possible (referring back to the holodeck here).

What are you talking about Holodeck? I'm clueless.

DSharrah wrote:Equally impressed by both...the only way I see to make graphics better is if we get to the point where we have fully immersive and interactive graphics (think TNG's holodeck here)...which with everything that I have heard about Rift, along with the improvements in motion control software (like kinect and leap), we may not be that far off from. It seems so strange to me to think that something that I thought I would never see, now seems so possible (referring back to the holodeck here).

Come one, .Hack// machines!

IronicParticle wrote:

DSharrah wrote:Equally impressed by both...the only way I see to make graphics better is if we get to the point where we have fully immersive and interactive graphics (think TNG's holodeck here)...which with everything that I have heard about Rift, along with the improvements in motion control software (like kinect and leap), we may not be that far off from. It seems so strange to me to think that something that I thought I would never see, now seems so possible (referring back to the holodeck here).

What are you talking about Holodeck? I'm clueless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=E11v3qmuKxk

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rJ1p5SD3sOM

Just in case you were serious...

DSharrah wrote:

IronicParticle wrote:

DSharrah wrote:Equally impressed by both...the only way I see to make graphics better is if we get to the point where we have fully immersive and interactive graphics (think TNG's holodeck here)...which with everything that I have heard about Rift, along with the improvements in motion control software (like kinect and leap), we may not be that far off from. It seems so strange to me to think that something that I thought I would never see, now seems so possible (referring back to the holodeck here).

What are you talking about Holodeck? I'm clueless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=E11v3qmuKxk

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rJ1p5SD3sOM

Just in case you were serious...

Yes I am serious, I'm not that big on TV so I haven't watched really any Star Trek at all.

Anyways, I think that's a whole new level lol... I don't think video game engines will be relevant to that sort of tech. Maybe I'm wrong about that. But yeah, take kinetic type technology and holograms which also exist, and you got yourself a viable Holodeck. Aslo, as the prefix holo suggests you need more than tv screens. You need holograms.

You might like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3seTlvQtIgc

A NEW CHALLENGER APPEARS

Hideo Kojima's Fox Engine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRSZy12EOSs

The main difference I see is the focus on the movements of bodies and faces in Fox, while the others seem to focus more on fixing the lighting and shadow limitations that plagued this last generation.

EDIT: Here's some gameplay footage from the prologue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_35090&feature=iv&src_vid=pRSZy12EOSs&v=4uzTw9jF0jA

We can start with making this a reality.

Spoiler:

Unreal Engine 4 vs. Frostbite 3? Neither, CryEngine 3 FTW! Seriously, have you SEEN Crysis 3 on the PC? That game is AMAZING. Gentlemen, we're not waiting for the next generation, the next generation is already here. We're just waiting for consoles to catch up.

Dwaling wrote: We're just waiting for consoles to catch up.

As it always has been...
Damn console peasants...

FB3 isn't that of a step from FB2. CryEngine 3 is nice Dwailing, but have you seen Unreal's fluid/particle simulation? That's way more impressive than anything CryEngine 3 can do.
UE4 is clearly the favorite here as it's imo FB3<CE3<UE4.

Gummy wrote:FB3 isn't that of a step from FB2. CryEngine 3 is nice Dwailing, but have you seen Unreal's fluid/particle simulation? That's way more impressive than anything CryEngine 3 can do.
UE4 is clearly the favorite here as it's imo FB3<CE3<UE4.

I have to admit, those particle effects are pretty sweet...

Dwaling wrote:

Gummy wrote:FB3 isn't that of a step from FB2. CryEngine 3 is nice Dwailing, but have you seen Unreal's fluid/particle simulation? That's way more impressive than anything CryEngine 3 can do.
UE4 is clearly the favorite here as it's imo FB3<CE3<UE4.

I have to admit, those particle effects are pretty sweet...

Honestly though, the fact that they are improving the small stuff just goes to show how much they are struggling to improve the engine. All of these look next gen compared to before, but you can definitely tell it's pushing hard limits.

Which makes me hope game companies will shift their focus to story/gameplay.

IronicParticle wrote:

Dwaling wrote:

Gummy wrote:FB3 isn't that of a step from FB2. CryEngine 3 is nice Dwailing, but have you seen Unreal's fluid/particle simulation? That's way more impressive than anything CryEngine 3 can do.
UE4 is clearly the favorite here as it's imo FB3<CE3<UE4.

I have to admit, those particle effects are pretty sweet...

Honestly though, the fact that they are improving the small stuff just goes to show how much they are struggling to improve the engine. All of these look next gen compared to before, but you can definitely tell it's pushing hard limits.

Which makes me hope game companies will shift their focus to story/gameplay.

Don't be too sure. As technology improves, the graphic engine's capabilities will too. Plus there is the immersion race that the graphics guys will work on too, hopefulyy leading to virtual reality. After that, it's an endless sea of improvement to make the virtual world seem like the real one.

I can still see lots of areas that can be improved :O
(but hey I'm pretty much into that anyway, from art to computer graphics)

Gummy wrote:I can still see lots of areas that can be improved :O
(but hey I'm pretty much into that anyway, from art to computer graphics)

Really? Like what? I'm having a hard time thinking of what they can do...

Selim Bradley wrote:Don't be too sure. As technology improves, the graphic engine's capabilities will too. Plus there is the immersion race that the graphics guys will work on too, hopefulyy leading to virtual reality. After that, it's an endless sea of improvement to make the virtual world seem like the real one.

That really has nothing to do with game engines... This was already discussed above and the technology that would be used, is a whole different thing.

As for capabilities, it's not that the "capabilities" are lacking as it is now. It's that it's as realistic and as capable as it's gonna get without entering a whole new field of tech that has nothing to do with this(Virtual reality/Holograms). Basically, once they start working on holograms and the like. They'll just end up giving it the kind of graphics we have now because it cannot get any more real.

Basically, holograms/virtual realities are the future of DISPLAYS... not graphics.

IronicParticle wrote:

Selim Bradley wrote:Don't be too sure. As technology improves, the graphic engine's capabilities will too. Plus there is the immersion race that the graphics guys will work on too, hopefulyy leading to virtual reality. After that, it's an endless sea of improvement to make the virtual world seem like the real one.

That really has nothing to do with game engines... This was already discussed above and the technology that would be used, is a whole different thing.

As for capabilities, it's not that the "capabilities" are lacking as it is now. It's that it's as realistic and as capable as it's gonna get without entering a whole new field of tech that has nothing to do with this(Virtual reality/Holograms). Basically, once they start working on holograms and the like. They'll just end up giving it the kind of graphics we have now because it cannot get any more real.

Basically, holograms/virtual realities are the future of DISPLAYS... not graphics.

The game engine department would be hard at work making the holograms/virtual reality seem as realistic as possible was my point. The games look real enough now, but that's on a 2D screen. It's like looking at a model in a box: no matter how real it looks inside, you know it's fake. Once we are able to enter that box, the engine teams will need to start from scratch basically to make it seem real to us.

Selim Bradley wrote:The game engine department would be hard at work making the holograms/virtual reality seem as realistic as possible was my point. The games look real enough now, but that's on a 2D screen. It's like looking at a model in a box: no matter how real it looks inside, you know it's fake. Once we are able to enter that box, the engine teams will need to start from scratch basically to make it seem real to us.

We won't really be inside the box, it's vastly more likely to be like ME virtual reality where you enter a blank room and then you add holographic projections, etc.

Furthermore, there won't be any real effort to improve the graphics. As I've said this is more display technology, replacing TVs, etc. Basically, the engine itself will simply need to be able to be projected through holograms much like a TV screen or... even more similarly, a projector that projects the image onto a wall. Essentially, they could use the same engine they got now but set it up to use a [insert name of commercial hologram projector here] instead of a TV or computer screen.

If I hook my computer up to a computer monitor, and then hook it up to a TV, and then hook it up to a projector... I am using the same graphics engine. It's not like it uses a different engine for each type of display.

IronicParticle wrote:We won't really be inside the box, it's vastly more likely to be like ME virtual reality where you enter a blank room and then you add holographic projections, etc.

Furthermore, there won't be any real effort to improve the graphics. As I've said this is more display technology, replacing TVs, etc. Basically, the engine itself will simply need to be able to be projected through holograms much like a TV screen or... even more similarly, a projector that projects the image onto a wall. Essentially, they could use the same engine they got now but set it up to use a [insert name of commercial hologram projector here] instead of a TV or computer screen.

If I hook my computer up to a computer monitor, and then hook it up to a TV, and then hook it up to a projector... I am using the same graphics engine. It's not like it uses a different engine for each type of display.

So a large, six-sided room? Sure sounds like a box to me.

And that's fine for flat VR, but I'm talking about one with actual interactivity, like stuff coming from the ground and what-not. That would require a whole new type of machine, and that new machine will need all new engines since it runs differently than what we have now.

But to get to my main stance: until they create a way for the player to be fully immersed into the game, they will focus some attention on doing that and only after that's done will they dedicate themselves fully to story.

Selim Bradley wrote:

IronicParticle wrote:We won't really be inside the box, it's vastly more likely to be like ME virtual reality where you enter a blank room and then you add holographic projections, etc.

Furthermore, there won't be any real effort to improve the graphics. As I've said this is more display technology, replacing TVs, etc. Basically, the engine itself will simply need to be able to be projected through holograms much like a TV screen or... even more similarly, a projector that projects the image onto a wall. Essentially, they could use the same engine they got now but set it up to use a [insert name of commercial hologram projector here] instead of a TV or computer screen.

If I hook my computer up to a computer monitor, and then hook it up to a TV, and then hook it up to a projector... I am using the same graphics engine. It's not like it uses a different engine for each type of display.

So a large, six-sided room? Sure sounds like a box to me.

And that's fine for flat VR, but I'm talking about one with actual interactivity, like stuff coming from the ground and what-not. That would require a whole new type of machine, and that new machine will need all new engines since it runs differently than what we have now.

But to get to my main stance: until they create a way for the player to be fully immersed into the game, they will focus some attention on doing that and only after that's done will they dedicate themselves fully to story.

Well no, I'm referring to full interactivity. They can already make REAL holograms. You know, 3d images that are sitting there in the middle of a space, no screens blocking you off. they've even found ways to simulate touching holograms. You would probably be inside a box while restrained but capable of moving still somehow, so you move in place... in the real world. But to you, you are walking in the lands of TES or whatever.

Also even if they have to build an entirely knew engine. They still have no excuse to start out with crappy graphics, they've done it once they should end up starting out with the last level of tech beforehand. Not a fresh start.

Fox engine beats both. I value animation over textures though.

solidsnake78 wrote:Fox engine beats both. I value animation over textures though.

But, what exactly have they done to the Fox engine that creates capabilities for animations that other engines don't? As far as I knew, every engine to this date can pull off any animation you want...