Four new Unreal Engine 3 pics

[DaJuice]

http://www.gengamers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=92

[DoomDan]

The 2nd one looked amazing.

[darknation]

more polygons does not a good game make.

somehow, the current trend we've got going here reminds me of 80's cinema. Somehow people are still of the opinion that by making the shark bigger you'll automatically have a better product.

[DaJuice]

Would you rather have less polygons or something? Anyways, they're licensing this engine so they need to pimp it.

[Fredrik]

Gotta love how they cheat with the resolution in the first image.

[darknation]

oh wow, man, in five years PC's will be better and able to throw more polygons around the screen, let's exploit this stunning knowledge and make an engine that has mad 1337 more-polygoneness.

fucking yey.

[BlueSonnet]

Pretty cool, except for the last one.

Still i have to say, gameplay should always come first, not the graphics.

[Job]

Fredrik said:

Gotta love how they cheat with the resolution in the first image.

It doesn't make the pictures any less amazing, though.

[Fredrik]

I, for one, am not thrilled.

[AndrewB]

More polygons does not make a better game. Gameplay is the most important thing, first and foremost.

[The Flange Peddler]

darknation said:

more polygons does not a good game make.

somehow, the current trend we've got going here reminds me of 80's cinema. Somehow people are still of the opinion that by making the shark bigger you'll automatically have a better product.

You could have said the exact same thing for Doom over 10 years ago. More sprites on screen does not a good game make.

Personally i think the new screenshots look awesome. Though they may not look as good by the time a game using the engine actually comes out.

[AndrewB]

The Flange Peddler said:

You could have said the exact same thing for Doom over 10 years ago. More sprites on screen does not a good game make.

But Doom opened up a whole new dimension of gameplay, so that's a very bad example.

[The Flange Peddler]

My point was that games players, and developers, were just as hungry for better graphics 10 years ago as they are today. And Doom, being a huge graphical leap in it's time, is a perfect example of that.

We'll have to wait until the new Unreal game is released before we can comment on the gameplay though.

[AndrewB]

The Flange Peddler said:

My point was that games players, and developers, were just as hungry for better graphics 10 years ago as they are today. And Doom, being a huge graphical leap in it's time, is a perfect example of that.

It's not a perfect example, or a good example, because Doom was a huge leap forword in gameplay first, and graphics second. These days, there are no advances in gameplay; just graphics.

[destx]

The link apears to be down, so I can't comment on the images.
I think what darknation said had truth in it, however...

The Flange Peddler said:

You could have said the exact same thing for Doom over 10 years ago. More sprites on screen does not a good game make.

You're talking bullshit. More sprites on screen means more enemies, which means more killing.
That makes doom a great game for me.

[The Flange Peddler]

AndrewB said:

It's not a perfect example, or a good example, because Doom was a huge leap forword in gameplay first, and graphics second

Because it was a huge leap gameplay-wise from Wolfenstein 3d how exactly? If you look at titles made 10 years ago (90% of which being the same bland platformers), there was just as much emphasis on graphical advancement as there was gameplay advancement as there is today. Going from 8 colours, to 16 colours, to 256, to 32,000 etc. There were very few original games around 10 years ago, just as there are very few really original games around today.

I'm not going to deny that Doom does not have good gameplay. I still play it over 10 years after it's release for fucks sake. But I am sure there were plenty of comments along the lines of 'people only care about graphics these days' when the first screenshots of Doom were shown way before it's release, just as people are commenting on these Unreal Engine 3 screenshots here.

[Amaster]

As I said the last time Unreal 3 engine pics were posted, they look very pretty.

[darknation]

I'm going to step out of this conversation here, because AndrewB is agreeing with me and it scares me.

Final thought for the thread is you are all idiots.

[AndrewB]

Darknation = flip-flopper

[Goat]

everyone always brings up the fact that "a lot of polys dont make the game good"

any idiot knows that, but who wants a shitty looking game that plays well? theres gotta be the balance of good gfx and gameplay. unreal has usually had pretty good gameplay, and imo it looks spectacular right now.

[AndrewB]

A lot of polygons do not equal a good-looking game either. It is absolutely possible to make a great-looking game without a lot of polygons. The inverse is also true. A game can stuff polys down your pants and still look like warm vomit.

[Goat]

yea but this game looks damn good

[Bucket]

Right. Like the only thing they decided to do with their licensed engine was push more polys.

Let's find out what they're doing with the physics before there's any more cock-stroking haughtiness.

[Snarboo]

Numbermind said:

Let's find out what they're doing with the physics before there's any more cock-stroking haughtiness.

From my experience, physics engines are more hype and gimmick than actual gameplay addons. Like I really need to play a game to see how realistically a box can tumble. Not to mention the glitches and bugs a physics engine can add to a game that otherwise wouldn't be there. Although I will admit watching a body flop around like a flounder is highly amusing. =) I'm not saying that Epic can't make a physics engine work, but it seems like yet another addon that's put into a game with reckless abandon and total disregard for gameplay simply because a bunch of technerds think it's cool.

[AndrewB]

That simply means that physics is neglected, not unimportant. High-poly characters are meaningless if they move like puppets and fall down in pre-scripted fashions.

[Snarboo]

AndrewB said:

That simply means that physics is neglected, not unimportant.

That's true, but I'm not sure we can ever mimmick physics as realisticly as one would hope. I will admit it's pretty neat when game designers go to great lengths just to make something small, like a dropped gun, tumble like it should. I think that's about as useful as physics will be in a game, just something to make it feel more realistic.

Offtopic, but I'm a big fan of "little" features in games. For instance, I love when the viewpoint looks like the character is actually breathing when idle. That just adds to the immersion factor without being noticeable enough to distract the player.

[Fletcher`]

Somehow, I still don't care.

[Captain Red]

GRAPHICS ARE THE ONLY THING THAT MATTER ABOUT VIDEO GAMES.

Edit: just need to level it out a bit

[AndrewB]

Snarboo said:

That's true, but I'm not sure we can ever mimmick physics as realisticly as one would hope.

Two words: Soda Constructor

[Remilia Scarlet]

Wow, that is some great use of normal maps to make those look like they're extremely high-poly.

I for one can't wait to play a game that uses this engine. But then again, I'm a big UT fanboy.