By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - A look at Unity 4 - next-gen engine

SecondWar said:
CGI-Quality said:
SecondWar said:
In short, no. Just looked like an exceptionally boring (before the skateboard) then dumb (after the skateboard) Pixar movie. Will stick with the Cry and Unreal engines, while seeing if the Frostbite and Anvil engines (amongst others) keep up.

The video wasn't trying to showcase any specific game, though. The engine performs and looks fantastic, regardless of what is stacked up against (just why I didn't add that portion of the title to the thread title).

I could tell it was just a demo, but it just reminded me of all the Pixar movies. And personally rather leave those graphics styles in the Pixar movies.

loool i dont know how that reminded you of a pixar movie (i cant even think of a movie that even is close to it) and i love there art style if a game comes out with an art style like pixars i'll be all over it!



Around the Network
CGI-Quality said:
bananaking21 said:
CGI-Quality said:
bananaking21 said:


it in no way looks fantstic specially when compated to other next gen tech domo's, hell quantic dreams kara's tech demo blows this one away and that was one year old tech

Well, since it's obviously not factual, neither side is wrong.

To me, it looks like a next-gen engine and makes its point above current gen technology (which is the purpose). And no, Quantic Dream's newest engine does not outperform this. TUnity 4's polygon count is higher and use of anti-aliasing is better, among other obvious advantages.

ofcourse the poly count is higher thats is a next gen demo, but the skin rendering and facial animations (which is what mostly was shown in the kara tech demo and what we can and should compare is skin rendering and charecter models in which kara beats this tech demo

Again, I disagree, especially since I know all of the ins and outs of that Kara demo. It just doesn't top this. And in regards to the poly count - I said it is one of several advantages when contrasted with the Kara demo.

Still, I don't want to turn the topic into a needless, off-topic battle. So just agree to leave it here.

Well I dont know the ins and outs. But I think Cryteks tech demo, Kara, Unreal Samaritan all looked much better in all aspects. Unity 4 might be the beter engine. But I didnt see it in any of this demo. Lighting, facial animations, reflections etc etc.

The others wowed me. This didnt.



I don't find it that impressive especially when compared to all the competition.



Without order nothing can exist - without chaos nothing can evolve.

"I don't debate, I just give you that work"- Ji99saw

it was definitely a more fun demo to look at I use unity all the time and I hope its not released to soon because im not in the mood to learn the new interface if their is one. Though unity is easy to understand compared to most other engines anyway.



I think people are kinda missing the point, to understand why this is impressive you need to look at the prices of the engines.

Unreal and Cryengine 3 = over $1 million per game and/or revenue sharing where you have to pay a % of the revenue from the game, depending on the size of the game and the extras and support you get.

Unity = $1,500 + $500 for collaborative tools and some extra optional extras for $200-1,500 



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

Around the Network
zarx said:

I think people are kinda missing the point, to understand why this is impressive you need to look at the prices of the engines.

Unreal and Cryengine 3 = over $1 million per game and/or revenue sharing where you have to pay a % of the revenue from the game, depending on the size of the game and the extras and support you get.

Unity = $1,500 + $500 for collaborative tools and some extra optional extras for $200-1,500 


This is the main point. Unity provides cheap and good enough tools. That's why I said they are disrupting the UE3 and Cryengine 3 market.



bananaking21 said:
SecondWar said:
CGI-Quality said:
SecondWar said:
In short, no. Just looked like an exceptionally boring (before the skateboard) then dumb (after the skateboard) Pixar movie. Will stick with the Cry and Unreal engines, while seeing if the Frostbite and Anvil engines (amongst others) keep up.

The video wasn't trying to showcase any specific game, though. The engine performs and looks fantastic, regardless of what is stacked up against (just why I didn't add that portion of the title to the thread title).

I could tell it was just a demo, but it just reminded me of all the Pixar movies. And personally rather leave those graphics styles in the Pixar movies.

loool i dont know how that reminded you of a pixar movie (i cant even think of a movie that even is close to it) and i love there art style if a game comes out with an art style like pixars i'll be all over it!

For me it had a bit of the look and feel about it. Also the guy just reminded of the sort of characters that randomly pop-up in the movies from time to time.

CGI-Quality said:
If they can make a great looking game using an engine of this style, I say more power to them. Besides, just because it resembles Pixar here (which I don't see all that much, honestly) doesn't mean they have to release a title with that specific look.

Clearly it is just me who sees it, but the clip just make me think of Pixar for whatever reason. Zarx makes a good point but would, that sort of licensing would be beneficial to developers at a time when parts of the indurstry are sturggling. Have wait to see what the developers come up, there are plenty of Unreal games I don't like.



zarx said:

I think people are kinda missing the point, to understand why this is impressive you need to look at the prices of the engines.

Unreal and Cryengine 3 = over $1 million per game and/or revenue sharing where you have to pay a % of the revenue from the game, depending on the size of the game and the extras and support you get.

Unity = $1,500 + $500 for collaborative tools and some extra optional extras for $200-1,500 


That and people need to consider the target platforms ...

The Unreal 4 and Cryengine 3 will be targeting next generation gaming platforms for use in full priced ($60) retail games, while Unity will be targeting iPhone/iPad, Android, and systems like XBox Live Arcade, Wiiware and PSN.

If your Crytec or Epic and you're showing off a video of how your next generation game engine will run on $5000 PC it should be far more impressive than what is being show off for Unity targeting the iPad ...



Damn butterfly!

To me the engine looks great expect for the physics part (what the hell is that bus made of, Helium?).

And I think some people are missing the point. Just the fact that many are comparing it with a Pixar movie is a clear symptom that it looks very, very good.



Please excuse my bad English.

Former gaming PC: i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Current gaming PC: R5-7600, 32GB RAM 6000MT/s (CL30) and a RX 9060XT 16GB

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

UE4 must start feeling the heat, these guys have undercut them, it's the defacto mobile engine and moving upstream to downloadable.



@Twitter | Switch | Steam

You say tomato, I say tomato 

"¡Viva la Ñ!"