What to expect from next-gen graphics [XBSX, PS5]

Looks great. I'm not sure why you'd compare it to God of War.
They have no similarity in scope. These could be procedural generated areas that they are fighting in for all you know. Not to mention a smaller production budget.

 

Third party game, which means PC footage at this point in time.

 

i believe this is a leaked trailer from early 2019

 

It's targeting PC - probably has a lowish target spec for the sake of having a decent sized target market.

 

Just ps5 and pc at launch. But the game is being made by a small studio and was originally planned for 2019 release on, I think, CURRENT gen consoles. In 2018 they had it listed as releasing for "consoles and pc".

 

For both this and the PS5's GPU, yes

 

Looks awful, pixelated Shadows, choppy Framerate , and these terrible Brown tones again. Sorry this has nothing to do with real nextgen Graphics.

 

you + 3 of your friends slamming abilities onto a large number of NPC mobs?
Yea, I don't think PS4 Pro could handle this game without scoping some things down.
Even diablo 3 will hurt a great deal of many machines if you drop into T5 rifts.

There are reasons why things turn out the way they do. Many games have to sacrifice graphics in turn for building the game they want to make. It's not to say it can't look better, I'm positive that it can, but I don't think I would compare it to God of War, that just seems unfair in every regard.

But yea, I also think some folks here will tell of the challenges of getting performance out of UE4 =P

 

@ultragpu glad to see you back to your level of normal!

 

I d love to see multiple instances of AI acting independently and naturally in an environment i.e a large epic battle where each NPC is behaving in a convincing and believable way according to what each other NPC (enemy and friendly) is doing.
I d love to see also bigger variation of behaviors of NPCs, context sensitive so each time you visit an area it may lead to different scenarios. For example sometimes the enemies may use vehicles like Tanks if not destroyed beforehand in the environment, but if destroyed they will choose to form barricades with objects, or if an enemy finds a flying vehicle somewhere he will deploy it and may try to stop me from above. Similarly friendly NPCs should respond accordingly as well (use rocket launchers, form barricades, use whatever vehicle they find, retreat or move forward).
In addition I d love to see more sophisticated physics that create different outcomes. For example one of the friendly NPCs may shoot an enemy helicopter down (non-scripted) which may or may not fall on enemies or friendlies, or may or may not fall on a bridge which may or may not block or open a path.
Or lets say we have dynamic weather conditions which may affect a projectile in unpredictable ways. Lets say at a specific point of time, there is a non-scripted storm generated and the wind is so strong that a rocket launcher's projectile (enemy friendly or mine) may lose direction and hit somewhere unintended which may generate new events.

It sounds very sophisticated and complex, but I think thats whats going to make worlds feel more immersive. We will be getting a non-scripted cinematic experience.

I doubt we will get anything like it but I wish.

 

AI like that can be detrimental to gaming though. Take a shooter like Gears or Killzone - if the NPCs fought realistically, you're allies could end up doing all the work for you. You also woudln't get enemies that stand out in the open ready to get gunned down and rack up those kill-streaks. Real life is hard and dangerous and it's toned down for games (and movies). As for your rocket, that was discussed last gen. IIRC devs were experimenting with more dynamic physics, and it kept breaking the game. It'd block routes or kill/block vital story items. You can't have realistic, open physics until it's all realistic, meaning completely open traversal, digging through rubble, etc. Which could also be very boring. Your CO has your next command but he's buried under rubble and you have to spend 10 hours digging him out. More open physics tends to be the domain of more open-world gaming, where when it goes horribly wrong and buggy, it makes for good YT videos.

 

Dream killer

 

We still won't have E3 2005 motorstorm trailer graphics next gen sadly

 

Indeed. Games are created more based on gameplay cycle that brings satisfaction to the player, rather than reproducing or simulating reality. After all they are a form of escapism. What would be the point of simulating reality 100%? Just because we can? Just because it's impressive? Most players would not be interested in that, just like the reception to Ray Tracing was kinda meh. Eye candy is good for the first few minutes, but after that games need to be fun.

 

I expect more stable framerate in situations where data streaming was the problem, and less textures and assets "poping". It's not sexy to sell, but it is little things like that that make some games really look alive.

To this day, on my pc, The Witcher 3 is still great, thx to crazy view distance and lod settings tweaks in the inis/cfg files. On ps4 pro, games like Judgment or Days Gone could really be helped by better streaming systems & better view distances.

And oh please, anisotropic filtering in every game.

 

The biggest improvement will be to presentation - cut scenes, front end, and user experience. Being able to stream in assets near instantaneously will allow scene transitions without a hitch. This is great for AAA Devs. The lines between pre-rendered and real time story telling will be completely blurred. But if I wanted to watch a cg film, I simply would and not game. I want dynamic, interactive and immersive gameplay - like all those e3 2005 trailers promised.

Unfortunately, I fall into the category of users that are looking for physics heavy, non goal oriented, experiential gameplay. I want to be immersed in a playful environment and be able to manipulate the game world in a realistic, yet exaggerated manner. Even just having an open world shooter with realistic fluid simulation for gas, smoke, fire, etc would keep me entertained.

I yearn for the feeling when I first played halo, getting in the warthog and seeing all the shell casings ejecting from the turret - rolling downhill - hearing the trickling of the metal in surround sound. Or the first time I crashed my car in GTA 4, launching you out of the windshield with the character shielding his face as he realistically tumbled on the concrete. I was blown away.

Theres been a clear regression in creating immersive experiences this Gen. Seeing the identical character animations and half second particles flashes for 100+ hours is mind numbing. I want to feel like I'm playing in another world, not like I'm stuck in a slot machine.

I believe that with so much more CPU power available to Devs we will get far more believable, dynamic and procedural animations, physics and environments. A game like assassin's creed odyssey needs this. Often the repetitive animations and static world make me feel like I'm paying a moba instead of an open world action RPG.

 

Do physically accurate simulations equate to good graphics? Killzone's physically based dust and particle systems looks amazing. This generation's graatest achievement for me is the introduction of physically based rendering pipelines. Maybe the same transition can be made to object and world interactions? Btw upcoming talk on physics driven gameplay
https://schedule.gdconf.com/session/independent-games-summit-can-you-physics-everything/872713

 

Interestingly one game that features more advanced AI behavior focusing on realistic simulation of gunplay is currently have a small explosion in popularity. It's basically been trading places with Fortnite for user views on Twitch for the past couple week (after their drop promotion ended, blew Fortnite out of the water while the promotion was going on). The game is Escape From Tarkov (EFT).

They have your standard dumb shooter AI (SCAVs), slightly more advanced and better equipped AI (Raiders), and then player like AI and gear (Boss and Bodyguards).

It also features potential permanent gear loss. I think it all depends on how the game sets up player expectations as to whether advanced AI is good or not. In something like COD, Battlefield, Halo, Killzone, etc. the player is the hero and main protagonist. If they feel on the same level as the AI in a single player campaign, then there's disappointment.

In EFT, OTOH, you're just another person in a Stalker like setting. I've seen some people describe it as a Horror shooter due to the suspense, adrenaline, and fear due to the very real possibility of losing every single thing you brought with you into your game session. Geared yourself out in multiple millions of Rubles in Gear to make yourself a walking tank? Welp, if another player gets the jump on your, you just likely permanently lost all of it. An NPC raider gets the jump on you? Bye bye millions of Rubles in gear.

As it is a multiplayer game, players can spawn in either as PMCs (Paramilitary contractors, basically your "character") or a SCAV (basically NPC Scavengers) with randomized gear. So that SCAV you see could be dumb AI or a player.

Basically, everything is setup to simulate as much as possible, the fear and uncertainty inherent in a modern combat experience. Even going in with a team, there are NO friend or FOE markers. No floating name tags. Nothing to prevent you from shooting your own teammate (or them shooting you) if you are careless or treat this like any other shooter. You can, of course, try to remember the gear they entered the game with (IF going in as PMC, but not if you go in as SCAVs), but combat is chaotic. Even seasoned players with active comms still accidently shoot their teammates.

It's fantastic. If this was a released game, it'd get my GOTY award with nothing else even coming within sniffing distance.

Anyway, point being. While more realistic AI isn't appropriate in the vast majority of games (Players generally want a power fantasy not a reality simulator), it can be an enhancement in the right type of games.

Are you a good player? You'll just die 50-80% of the time. Bad player? You'll likely die 95% of the time. Even the best players in EFT can sometimes have a 90%+ mortality rate on bad days.

Regards,
SB