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

20happyballs on 24 August 2012
CGI-Quality said:
20happyballs said:
CGI-Quality said:

I didn't say poly count was everything.  It's never good to claim subjectivity with a clear bias involved. You used hi-res screenshots versus a video cap. Not exactly reasonable. Both current gen screenshots also have low-res textures and are running on engines with a FAR higher budget, no less. Nevermind the fact that when i say polycount, I meant cloth, skin and all of that. Neither title you show here have a character model as full as Unity 4's.

Using Crysis 1 vs Crysis 2 is meaningless, especially when you can't argue it outside of preference.


I claimed subjectivity because I know I'm being biased. I didn't want to sound ignorant and claim that my opinion should be everyone's opinion. I agree, the screeshot comparison is not fair... I stretched the uncharted 2 picture and so it looks more blurry than it actually is.

What do you mean by budget? Do you mean computing budget...because the Unity 4 tech demo is definitely running on a much higher budget. You mentioned the cloth and skin...seriously? That's an incredibly weak argument if you're saying the cloth and skin in this tech demo is impressive. Maybe the physics but not the appearance. And that is an objective opinion. I don't even need to post a picture of current gen games that look better than this demo.

 

Have you not read at all? Unity 4 isn't running on a higher budget than something like the Luminous Engine nor Unreal 4 - one of which you said look"much better". You're also being a little pedantic with the meaning of poly-count.

To the knowledge of bugets, if you know exact figures and can dispute the above claims, I'm happy to hear it. Outside of that, since you've already confirmed a bias, then debating this is pointless.

You are lost. We have been comparing the budget between this tech demo and current gen games. Not this tech demo compared to the other next gen engines. It's obvious that those other engines were running on higher budgets. 

Our overall debate is about whether or not this tech demo can be said to look worse than current gen games. My argument is that it can be said to look worse. My bias is my preference of things other than the polycount. That hardly makes this debate pointless...unless you want to start to claiming that your opinion should be everyone's opinion. Then the debate would be pointless because there would be no way to reason with you.





Around the Network
20happyballs on 24 August 2012
CGI-Quality said:
20happyballs said:

You are lost. We have been comparing the budget between this tech demo and current gen games. Not this tech demo compared to the other next gen engines. It's obvious that those other engines were running on higher budgets. 

Our overall debate is about whether or not this tech demo can be said to look worse than current gen games. My argument is that it can be said to look worse. My bias is my preference of things other than the polycount. That hardly makes this debate pointless...unless you want to start to claiming that your opinion should be everyone's opinion. Then the debate would be pointless because there would be no way to reason with you.

Zarx said: 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 is comparing the budgets of engines current and next bud. Not lost at all. 

In fact, it's been compared to both from the beginning of the thread, if you've been keeping up. And I say again, you can't call for reason and make a biased, unfair comparison, doesn't matter if you acknowledge it or not. Lastly, and this makes twice I've asked, if you know the budgets of the engines you're defending, I'm all ears. 

I've never referred to the posts prior to mine. I don't see how you could have thought I included them in our argument. I never answered your questions about the budgets because you never answered what you meant by budget. That's your fault. I now see that you didnt mean computing budget but rather the cost of using the engine. I didn't think you were talking about that budget because that is completely irrelevant in terms of measuring the engine capability. A weaker engine is still a weaker engine. 

So you say that there can be no debate if there is a bias? If people did not have a biases there would be no debates. Please tell me how you would choose a side of a debate without having a bias. Sure the comparisons I've given are a bit unfair, but not unfair enough to throw them out. I'm all ears...





20happyballs on 24 August 2012
CGI-Quality said:
20happyballs said:
CGI-Quality said:

Zarx said: 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 is comparing the budgets of engines current and next bud. Not lost at all. 

In fact, it's been compared to both from the beginning of the thread, if you've been keeping up. And I say again, you can't call for reason and make a biased, unfair comparison, doesn't matter if you acknowledge it or not. Lastly, and this makes twice I've asked, if you know the budgets of the engines you're defending, I'm all ears. 

I've never referred to the posts prior to mine. I don't see how you could have thought I included them in our argument. I never answered your questions about the budgets because you never answered what you meant by budget. That's your fault. I now see that you didnt mean computing budget but rather the cost of using the engine. I didn't think you were talking about that budget because that is completely irrelevant in terms of measuring the engine capability. A weaker engine is still a weaker engine. 

So you say that there can be no debate if there is a bias? If people did not have a biases there would be no debates. Please tell me how you would choose a side of a debate without having a bias. Sure the comparisons I've given are a bit unfair, but not unfair enough to throw them out. I'm all ears...

You say it's weaker than some current gen games / engines. OK. Using Uncharted 2 and Gears of War 3 as examples (your examples), how is it weaker than the Naughty Dog Engine 2.0 and Unreal 3?

As for "debating with a bias" - I don't see how you can argue realistically and then present an unreasonable, biased comparison to support a viewpoint. However, there's really no need to continue with that - as it's an obvious dead end.

Ok. I'll end this debate with how I started it. My opinion, based on overall appearance and with the consideration of polygon count and other graphic rendering aspects, is that Uncharted 2 and Gears of War 3 look better than the Unity 4 tech demo.  I don't really have any argument other than that, based on my own preferences, I think that those games look better and are more appealing to my eyes than the Unity 4 tech demo. I've already stated that this is my own opinion and that I know others will have their own opinions different that mine. You disagree and don't think my opinion is valid. That's why I've kept up with this argument.

By the way, I don't feel that my comparisons are as biased as you say.  Please tell me how they are grossly unfair. 





20happyballs on 24 August 2012
CGI-Quality said:
20happyballs said:
CGI-Quality said:

You say it's weaker than some current gen games / engines. OK. Using Uncharted 2 and Gears of War 3 as examples (your examples), how is it weaker than the Naughty Dog Engine 2.0 and Unreal 3?

As for "debating with a bias" - I don't see how you can argue realistically and then present an unreasonable, biased comparison to support a viewpoint. However, there's really no need to continue with that - as it's an obvious dead end.

Ok. I'll end this debate with how I started it. My opinion, based on overall appearance and with the consideration of polygon count and other graphic rendering aspects, is that Uncharted 2 and Gears of War 3 look better than the Unity 4 tech demo.  I don't really have any argument other than that, based on my own preferences, I think that those games look better and are more appealing to my eyes than the Unity 4 tech demo. I've already stated that this is my own opinion and that I know others will have their own opinions different that mine. You disagree and don't think my opinion is valid. That's why I've kept up with this argument.

By the way, I don't feel that my comparisons are as biased as you say.  Please tell me how they are grossly unfair. 

I've not once said your opinion was invalid, but OK. At least you elaborated on Uncharted 2 and Gears 3 - which yes I disagree with, but that's OK. 

That last set of sentences is a contradiction, though. You asked how it was unfair but admitted several times that the comparison was just that. You know why it wasn't fair and just why I said it wasn't realistic. Video caps vs screenshots - tells the story on its own.

You basically implied that my opinion was invalid by saying that I didn't take into account the polygons and other graphic rendering aspects. You said "I just don't get it", although I do. Why don't you read that post again.

I used the word "grossly". I've already admitted that the comparisons were a bit unfair, but not unfair enought to disregard them.





20happyballs on 24 August 2012
CGI-Quality said:
20happyballs said:
CGI-Quality said:

I've not once said your opinion was invalid, but OK. At least you elaborated on Uncharted 2 and Gears 3 - which yes I disagree with, but that's OK. 

That last set of sentences is a contradiction, though. You asked how it was unfair but admitted several times that the comparison was just that. You know why it wasn't fair and just why I said it wasn't realistic. Video caps vs screenshots - tells the story on its own.

You basically implied that my opinion was invalid by saying that I didn't take into account the polygons and other graphic rendering aspects. Why don't you read that post again.

I used the adjective "grossly". I've already admitted that the comparisons were a bit unfair, but not unfair enought to disregard them.

Read everything carefully, still didn't imply what you claim. I did say that it's pointless to debate with something that's clearly unreasonable, I can admit that. They should be disregarded if they aren't realistic, yes. Why should they be considered if they aren't indicative of the actual situation?


You implied that my opinion was invalid by saying that I didn't understand. Don't even try to argue against that. The comparisons were not unrealistic enough to disregard. Besides, i only put the pictures up as visual aids, not as my actual references for my arguments. I'm too tired to continue arguing with you. Good bye.





Around the Network
SvennoJ on 24 August 2012

Looks great, the more engines the better. I was starting to loose faith in this gen when everything started looking the same with the unreal engine.
Looks like the perfect engine for a Driver or Saints row style game. (I guess gta already has there own in house engine)



selnor on 24 August 2012
CGI-Quality said:
selnor said:
CGI-Quality said:
bananaking21 said:

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.

And that's fine. I'm not looking to change your opinion, I just know what I know and that's really the furthest I need to take that. The sole purpose of this footage is to showcase the possibilities of another next gen engine. I don't mind if it's > or < than any other engine.


On a different note. Its a little fuunny dont you think that we are all ( me included ) saying meh when it easily beats out this gen. We aare really posting like spoilt brats. LOL.

All in all Unity 4 I coulld see was a clear step up from current gen.



zarx on 24 August 2012
HappySqurriel said:


Don't get me wrong, I realize they were showing it off on impressive hardware, but I still think the core market for this engine is "low-end" development ...

I expect that they're pusing newer technology to create the possibility for a developer to target more/all platforms. Someone could (in theory) build a simple 2.5D game that runs on everything from the 3DS to a high end PC and looks nice on all of them; but I don't think that many companies that are targeting high end PCs or next generation systems would choose the Unity engine.


Unity is the indie/mobile dev number 1 choice. But that is not what this trailer is targeting. They are trying to show that they can offer "AAA" quality as well, whether studios actually try and use it is another matter entirely. 

Unity doesn't support 3DS BTW, at least not yet.



@TheVoxelman on twitter

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

Ssenkahdavic on 24 August 2012
CGI-Quality said:
bananaking21 said:
CGI-Quality said:
bananaking21 said:

ohh i certainly am not battling with you lol,  were just discussing the tech demo, may i ask where did you read all the in and outs of the kara tech demo? digital foundy?

Perhaps you should take a run through VGC history and understand my name when paired with anything Quantic Dream. :P

In short, I have a specific connection (fortunately for me - though I'm not @ liberty to reveal it).


ohh cool lol are you an animator or game developer?

Graphic Designer (I'm actually sitting in my Game Design class as I type this). However, I'm nobody special, I just happen to know someone who knew an individual in the big leagues with info.


Sorry buddy, but I got a laught out of the bolded :)  

 

OT:  I think the impressive part is the versatility of the engine  Going head to head isnt fair to either this engine or the others.  What it will be used for and what it will accomplish is more impressive to me than what the others will give us.  

Tho I have to admit, the Luminous Studio Engine's animation just makes me happy.



 

  

The Only True Next Gen Game - Hero-U

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Robert A. Heinlein

dahuman on 20 September 2012
20happyballs said:
CGI-Quality said:
20happyballs said:
CGI-Quality said:

Zarx said: 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 is comparing the budgets of engines current and next bud. Not lost at all. 

In fact, it's been compared to both from the beginning of the thread, if you've been keeping up. And I say again, you can't call for reason and make a biased, unfair comparison, doesn't matter if you acknowledge it or not. Lastly, and this makes twice I've asked, if you know the budgets of the engines you're defending, I'm all ears. 

I've never referred to the posts prior to mine. I don't see how you could have thought I included them in our argument. I never answered your questions about the budgets because you never answered what you meant by budget. That's your fault. I now see that you didnt mean computing budget but rather the cost of using the engine. I didn't think you were talking about that budget because that is completely irrelevant in terms of measuring the engine capability. A weaker engine is still a weaker engine. 

So you say that there can be no debate if there is a bias? If people did not have a biases there would be no debates. Please tell me how you would choose a side of a debate without having a bias. Sure the comparisons I've given are a bit unfair, but not unfair enough to throw them out. I'm all ears...

You say it's weaker than some current gen games / engines. OK. Using Uncharted 2 and Gears of War 3 as examples (your examples), how is it weaker than the Naughty Dog Engine 2.0 and Unreal 3?

As for "debating with a bias" - I don't see how you can argue realistically and then present an unreasonable, biased comparison to support a viewpoint. However, there's really no need to continue with that - as it's an obvious dead end.

Ok. I'll end this debate with how I started it. My opinion, based on overall appearance and with the consideration of polygon count and other graphic rendering aspects, is that Uncharted 2 and Gears of War 3 look better than the Unity 4 tech demo.  I don't really have any argument other than that, based on my own preferences, I think that those games look better and are more appealing to my eyes than the Unity 4 tech demo. I've already stated that this is my own opinion and that I know others will have their own opinions different that mine. You disagree and don't think my opinion is valid. That's why I've kept up with this argument.

By the way, I don't feel that my comparisons are as biased as you say.  Please tell me how they are grossly unfair. 


excuse me for butting in, the unity 4 tech demo is clearly aiming at a more cartoony feel, so it would seem that way compared to tech demos with high res textures and such, but those are just assest, if you pay attention to the fine details, you'd realize that it's a very impressive engine at that price, and it's capable of simply switching assets to more realistic ones to create the graphics in which you deem impressive. The question of any engine is how optimized and how much they can push out from a platform, in these days, texture size doesn't mean much, it's how much your platform can handle that makes the real difference, the assests are up to the developers and it being so cheap and user friendly means you'd see high quality games at more rapid rates which is good kk? -_^b