Well it's being made with UDK (Unreal Engine 3), so they wouldn't have needed to spend time writing their own engine. Gameplay wise, you're basically looking at Unreal Tournament on a different visual scale. So yeah, a small, hard-working team could very easily make this quickly.

The artstyle is fantastic!>> ^EMPIRE:

I wonder what's the size of the team that is making the game. They're supposed to be an indie developer, and from what I read somewhere this was done in less than a year.

>> ^rychan:

Looks great, but games already look pretty fantastic. Mass Effect 2 looks as good as a movie to me.
It's more physics and interactions and animation holding things back than rendering.


Things like 'storyline', 'plot' or 'non intelligence insulting gameplay' are also relevent.. ; )

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Unreal-Engine-Tech-Demo-Computer-graphics-of-tomorrow?fromdupe=Unreal-Engine-3-Samaritan-tech-demo

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by chicchorea. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

@residue now a days for the most part there's release tech demo's and then tech demo's showing updates to an existing engine or when they find ways to make a current engine look even better without doing anything, the beauty of the unreal engine 3 is that it can be as simplistic or as full of raw detail as you want it to be, hell the unreal ed for UE3 is basically a stripped down version of maya.

>> ^Gallowflak:

@BoneRemake, @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Hybrid" title="member since January 29th, 2007" class="profilelink">Hybrid
Thanks for screwing around with the embed. Sorry that I didn't get here fast enough.


Sorry, I meant that seriously rather than sarcastically, I appreciate you trying to fix the vid. Derp derp derp.

I really didn't intend to insult anyone's hard work, the detail is quite impressive, I just incorrectly assumed it was a cgi since that's where you usually see detail to that level. I didn't even think to look up tech demo since I didn't know that I didn't know what a tech demo was... Are tech demos ONLY limited to in-game usable modelling? Wikipedia says it's just a prototype/incomplete version of a product, in this case a game engine. I'm not into tech development so it all seems vague to me and I am admittedly ignorant of terminology. I do still stand by my original statement that it would be more impressive if it were actual in-game and controllable without significant processing slow-down, which it may be given the right system(?)

edit: that was really the intent of the original statement, just a way to start conversation


>> ^mentality:

>> ^residue:
you're forgetting "quickly irritated by smarminess and superiority complexes." settle down.
I'm sorry. I'm just irritated by people who are quick to dismiss other people's hard work out of their own ignorance. 10 seconds on google would have explained what a tech demo was and why people are excited about it.
So the next time you piss on someone's parade, I promise I will be a bit more patient with you.

>> ^residue:

you're forgetting "quickly irritated by smarminess and superiority complexes." settle down.

I'm sorry. I'm just irritated by people who are quick to dismiss other people's hard work out of their own ignorance. 10 seconds on google would have explained what a tech demo was and why people are excited about it.

So the next time you piss on someone's parade, I promise I will be a bit more patient with you.

you're forgetting "quickly irritated by smarminess and superiority complexes." settle down.

sorry for hijacking the thread...

>> ^mentality:

>> ^residue:
ah, I see, yes that is impressive
>> ^ElessarJD:
>> ^residue:
That didn't look any different from "the graphics of today" to me. Now if that were gameplay footage I would agree, but cinematics of that quality seem pretty common already

That was a game engine tech demo, not a cinematic. So technically it was "in-game". Proceed with being impressed...

wrong, I didn't know what a "tech demo" was, and thanks for the "help," anus. wolfie and ellessar already clarified the matter.
>> ^mentality:
>> ^residue:
That didn't look any different from "the graphics of today" to me. Now if that were gameplay footage I would agree, but cinematics of that quality seem pretty common already

I see you don't understand the difference between prerendered CGI cinematics and a real time cutscene.


I see you also have a short temper and a childish penchant for name calling.

ah, I see, yes that is impressive

>> ^ElessarJD:

>> ^residue:
That didn't look any different from "the graphics of today" to me. Now if that were gameplay footage I would agree, but cinematics of that quality seem pretty common already

That was a game engine tech demo, not a cinematic. So technically it was "in-game". Proceed with being impressed...


wrong, I didn't know what a "tech demo" was, and thanks for the "help," anus. wolfie and ellessar already clarified the matter.

>> ^mentality:

>> ^residue:
That didn't look any different from "the graphics of today" to me. Now if that were gameplay footage I would agree, but cinematics of that quality seem pretty common already

I see you don't understand the difference between prerendered CGI cinematics and a real time cutscene.

Your video, Unreal Engine Tech Demo : Computer graphics of tomorrow, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 1 Badge!

Thanks for the *quality on that UE3 sift!

In reply to this comment by Hybrid:
*quality

>> ^residue:

That didn't look any different from "the graphics of today" to me. Now if that were gameplay footage I would agree, but cinematics of that quality seem pretty common already


I see you don't understand the difference between prerendered CGI cinematics and a real time cutscene.

>> ^residue:

That didn't look any different from "the graphics of today" to me. Now if that were gameplay footage I would agree, but cinematics of that quality seem pretty common already

That was a game engine tech demo, not a cinematic. So technically it was "in-game". Proceed with being impressed...

We are at a place in games where the visual spectical of a game is pushed more by Creative vision than by technical vision,

this trailer fails to impress due to the fact it feels like a cheep amalgamation of film clechayes ( no dobt the visual engine is capable of grate things but only in the hands of people who can use it properly)
I mean shadow of the colossus was on bloody ps2 that game still looks fantastic.

In-terms of showing of an engines capability i would try to show a real world scene rather than a fictional one that way everyone can use there knowlage of the real world to evaluate how strong the engine performs.

as it is the bf3 screens and footage shown so far look far more impressive this unreal engin looks like a early 2000s Nvidea Tech demo.

eathor way What games need are better AI , Better faster development tools , things are very lopsided towards visuals at the moment ( in terms of large studio development priorities) if u were to say visuals were at 100 , AI is at a 5 , phisics 40 , development tools 10 .

only when it is cheep and easy to produce intricate game play will we see deeper more involving games , for example games that are truly open ended or characters that produce there own believable doilog,

Its quite bezire how its largely the low budgit indi studios that are pushing the boundaries with aspects that truly matter in terms of creating sophisticated gaming.