• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Unreal Engine 5 Demo - 4 years later...

CGNoire

Member
I mean, it seems to work pretty well if only you fill an entire room with one gigantic model repeated over and over, but...

Yeah, there were some interesting highlights from that initial demo which seemed almost obviously too good to be true, but then again, the context and the dialog reinforced what we were seeing right on the screen. This was a game demo, not a generalized Unreal multimedia production engine announcement. Epic announced it in the Summer Games Fest cycle of consumer product reveals; it was promoted among the first realtime next-gen software ever shown running on the PS5; they played it, beginning to end. The engine was also being sold at the time to developers for the first time, but demo was largely for us, the players.

Lumen in the Land of Nanite never came out as a playable game (which is kind of sad, since UE1, UE2, and UE3 basically were windows into the foundations of Unreal, UT2003/Championship, and Gears of War,) but it was demoed as if it was game, not a cutscene or tech demo.

Unreal-Engine-5.jpg


And then the breakdowns of technical details were game-oriented as well. Yes, Nanite objects were massive and static models, but Epic said that 70% of game graphics aren't made to move or be destroyed anyway. Also, yes, the file size is big, but this was a smart new mesh design and it could replace some of the multi-layered approaches which puff up game objects and so using Nanite might actually save file size. And yes, we're talking about potentially tens of millions of polygons for each model in a scene, but we're not going to show every one of those polygons all the time, the virtualized micropolygon geometry would simplify those objects to be more reasonable, so that they only take up as many polygons as needed for what's seen and every object on the scene has enough-but-not-too-much to run a scene.

Paper math makes Nanite seem win/win/win for detail/game size/performance, especially as the roadmap laid our further developments listed things Nanite couldn't do as being worked on.

The reality of Nanite as it relates to games we might actually play is complicated and curious to dig into, especially four years later and with a couple of launched or soon-to-release games using it. Still, it has been frustrating for gamers (and, from what I see of developers using UE5) for reality in 2024 to not line up with the reality projected in 2000.
Yep. So many little quirks for devs to still work through and find best use scenarios. Super interesting too still if not a little slow. Although I do think things are moving forward at about the pace we should have expected. Maybe if Robocop hadent released I may have felt different.
 
Last edited:

midnightAI

Member
UE5 is the most over hyped and under delivered shit in recent memory.
That's debatable, I think the issue is that whereas UE4 you could pretty much use the full suite of tools and get it running at decent quality/frame rate without too much issue. With UE5 to use the new Nanite and more importantly Lumen to any high degree you need a very powerful PC to have it running at the best quality/frame rates.

So dare I say it.... It's ahead of it's time? (Again, if you want to use Nanite and Lumen to their best abilities). I think you'll see UE5 really shine next gen, I just don't think this gens consoles can handle it very well (who knows, maybe PS5 Pro will get much closer to its potential, along with high end PC's of course)
 
Last edited:
People need to read up more on Marvel 1943 cause devs have been pretty much hinting that its most likely gonna be a Quantic Dream style cinematic with lite control type game. Temper expectations people :/
So what that's not any less of a video game. I'm not saying you should be hyped for it's gameplay as honestly I'm not sure what gameplay style it'll have in the end, all I'm saying is the technology they are using is clearly at the top of the UE5 totem pole.
 

CamHostage

Member
Yep. So many little quirks for devs to still work through and find best use scenarios. Super interesting too still if not a little slow.

And so many things for even Epic to work through. I get why in 2020 they were like, "Huzzah, we've done it!!" There are clear breakthroughs in UE5 that the industry has been working towards for a long time. But UE5 has come a long way since 2020, and when people look at first-cycle games like Immortals of Aveum or Lords of the Fallen, they're not seeing the latest and most functional version of the tools because "upgrading" the engine while working on it could be disastrous. (Especially so given features that Epic has deprecated here and there across versions, which I see developers groan about quite a bit when I look at blogs of how it's going.


Although I do think things are moving forward at about the pace we should have expected.

...Still feels slow to me (especially given that the 2020 demo was playable, not some rock monster or cyber ninja cutscene,) but everything about this gen has felt frustratingly slow.

People do forget though that UE4 took time too. The first game, Daylight, was surprisingly quick to market (5 months after PS4 launched) but then it was all indies and little stuff; for a long time after we didn't get major publisher releases like Gears 4 or Tekken 7 until two years into the console gen. (UE3 didn't hit right away either; Gears of War 1 and UT3 were 2007, 2 years after Xbox 360's release date.)
 
Last edited:

CGNoire

Member
So what that's not any less of a video game.
Never said it was. Listen while I think QD hit there stride with Detroit which I really liked I think thr vast majority here arent that keen on over cinematic games that take control away from the player as QD does which is why I said Temper expectations. Of course some people wont care and thats fine.
 

CamHostage

Member
"unreal engine 5 release date" in Google.

April 2022

Unreal Engine is written in C++ and features a high degree of portability, supporting a wide range of desktop, mobile, console, and virtual reality platforms. The latest generation, Unreal Engine 5, was launched in April 2022.

Unreal Engine 5 was available to developers in April 2022. Thats two years till today. Are we expecting AAA games developed for Next Gen in 2 years?

Hogwarts Legacy developed in Unreal Engine 4 = 5 years in development.

Star Wars Jedi Survivor - Unreal Engine 4 = 4 years in development.

Right, UE5 did initially have its public beta in 2021, and people could actually work with that then, but you had to be careful not to over-commit when it was sure to change.

Indies and students and bloggerdevs actually had a leg up on the pros, because they could just make stuff with no restrictions and little expectation that they'd have a game to sell from their experiments, whereas legit studios couldn't jump on too fast. So there has been all this cool stuff made with UE5 all over YT since 2021 and people are like, "WTF, where are the games??", but even indies haven't actually been able to publish UE5 games that quickly. You'd expect Steam to be flooded with like "Matrix Awakens Flappy Bird" or "MetaHuman DeathMatch" stuff with kitbashed marketplace assets and Lyra mechanics and generic characters, but playable UE5 fan-made or fly-by-night games aren't that common even today.

And then, we gamers are used to a game engine reveal being the tip of the iceberg; if we the public get to see it, then developers must have been seeing it and using it for years. Not so with UE5. Pilot development partners at that 'best-friend level' like The Coalition didn't get UE5 pre-public beta access until November 2020, six months after Epic unveiled it. (And The Coalition had to actually help ship Matrix Awakens with it by Dec 2021.) Before then, studios like Coalition and Ninja Theory were still prototyping or working in UE4.2X, hoping they would soon get this cool new tech Epic had just revealed to the world, gamers and developers alike...
 
Last edited:

TintoConCasera

I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
Wonder if we'll get to see id Tech 8 anytime soon.

DOOM Eternal not only looked great but it also ran spectacularly well. Carmack might be gone but they sure seem to still have some nice coders at id.

Now, about the Unreal Engine... Might be not so much an engine problem but more a lack of talent or maybe knowledge from the devs who are using it. I'm sure that if Epic were to make a new Unreal game we would all shit and piss our pants by how good it would look. Sadly, Fortnite is a thing, so I don't see that happening anytime soon.
 
Last edited:

HeWhoWalks

Gold Member
Sony first party has like 12 games in 4 years that are PS5 only. Like 80% of games still have a PS4 version. This generation has been pathetic in this regard.
It shouldn't be on Sony to make the difference. With all the engines, platforms, brands out there, why is Sony singled out? PC is a monstrous platform. Why aren't more games mopping the floor with the consoles (as they did during the 7th gen and prior)? The Series X is the most powerful console out, right? Where are the games to show this? It's clearly an industry-wide situation.
 
Last edited:

HeWhoWalks

Gold Member
lmao. Sony is literally the console maker selling us a next gen console. It is literally their responsibility to make the next purchase worth it to their buyers.
Is Sony the only company selling a next (read: current) gen console? I said >>>>>>> singled out <<<<<<< — should have been easy to get (as you cut off the rest of the post for whatever reason).

Besides, they are the only ones that have released exclusives which take advantage of their console despite not being the only ones to promise next gen experiences (if we're going there). It is not on them that current gen games still haven't matched a showcase tech-demo (ironically, a situation that is no different than any other gen).
 
Last edited:

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
That jaw dropping Unreal Engine 5 Demo trailer is four years old this month. It presented a Tomb Raider style world, with incredible lighting, physics, fluidity and graphics.

It was the trailer that gave everyone hope that the next gen consoles, releasing later that year, would bring the wow factor.

Four years on and... apart from thinking time flies I'm really not sure what to make of it. Empty promises?
Its a 5 minute demo with 3 corridors and one large corridor. There are times in several games this gen where you can hit those graphics. I will put most of the gifs in spoiler tags but Id say the promise of that UE5 demo has been achieved. Matrix on the other hand, not so much.

Games like Callisto and Star Wars which were still on UE4 still managed to produce some stunning visuals. The asset quality is right up there with that UE5 demo. At least when it comes to interiors.

F1m9ADO.gif


The UE5 games released so far are mostly from B and C tier eastern european studios. They have their moments. Remnant 2 and Lords of the Fallen especially have some stunning look areas with amazing lighting and geometric detail.

SghHdvT.gif


Finally there are other studios making games on their own engines that are producing visuals equal to if not better than that UE5 demo. Alan Wake 2, Starfield's interiors, and Avatar are all up there with that demo. They all feature the same realtime lighting as lumen and use the same techniques to push the geometry as nanite. Even Spiderman 2 delivers on the fast flying section of the UE5 demo, it just doesnt have the fidelity at all times, but spidemran 2 can look absolutely incredible at times as well.

bnE0shL.gif



Several more examples below spoiler tagged to not load for everyone, but these are some of the best graphics of this gen.

UZKutsa.gif


mIaYwSD.gif



TRp7TFp.gif



aYlPhWL.gif

URG9o4x.gif

h21cj7j.gif

Fake EDIT: I think a large part of people largely feeling underwhelmed is due to consoles offering 60 fps modes that most people use. Those 60 fps modes are running at trash 720p resolutions with most of the effects paired back to the point they look nothing like that 1440p 30 fps demo. If you want those graphics then play games at 30 fps.
 

HeWhoWalks

Gold Member
^ ^ I don't feel like any of those match the tech demo, despite how good they look. Avatar in particular. No way. The textures, at times, look particularly rough.

For me, in terms of asset quality (particularly rocks and non-organic props) = Demon's Souls, in terms of traversal (speed/movement) = Spider-Man 2, and as far as lighting/shadows are concerned — Alan Wake 2 and Cyberpunk (only their PC versions) are in the vein of the demo, but it still has a refinement that's a step above anything out.
 
Last edited:

CamHostage

Member
Its a 5 minute demo with 3 corridors and one large corridor. There are times in several games this gen where you can hit those graphics. I will put most of the gifs in spoiler tags but Id say the promise of that UE5 demo has been achieved. Matrix on the other hand, not so much.

Why hello there, who is this reasonable, chipper fellow?

^ ^ I don't feel like any of those match the tech demo, despite how good they look. Avatar in particular. No way. The textures, at times, look particularly rough

Epic never gave you a chance to have an opinion on the textures; they released a video on YouTube of a controlled demo, and that is what you're judging quality on. Play with Matrix Awakens or Valley of the Ancients and you'll find some stuff that doesn't hold up at different playable perspectives or other issues. And those demos have only a couple of minutes of content apiece, they don't have to sustain across multiple hours of play.
 
Last edited:

HeWhoWalks

Gold Member
Epic never gave you a chance to have an opinion on the textures; they released a video on YouTube of a controlled demo, and that is what you're judging quality on. Play with Matrix Awakens or Valley of the Ancients and you'll find some stuff that doesn't hold up at different playable perspectives or other issues. And those demos have only a couple of minutes of content apiece, they don't have to sustain across multiple hours of play.
The argument was about the best looking games, particularly as they compare/contrast to a tech demo. Epic didn't have to show me every inch of the environment (particularly as a 3D artist myself) to know that Avatar's environments, at times, leave much to be desired. This is on top of the fact that, if you watch the video closely, they did get fairly close on geometric data (rocks, metal, etc).

Besides, if one comparison doesn't work because of a lack of data, then none of them do.
 
Last edited:
Why hello there, who is this reasonable, chipper fellow?



Epic never gave you a chance to have an opinion on the textures; they released a video on YouTube of a controlled demo, and that is what you're judging quality on. Play with Matrix Awakens or Valley of the Ancients and you'll find some stuff that doesn't hold up at different playable perspectives or other issues. And those demos have only a couple of minutes of content apiece, they don't have to sustain across multiple hours of play.
Home Alone Snakes GIF
 
I still haven't seen a single game that really pushes the visual boundries this gen.

Games are ok looking and slightly above last gen. Nothing about the games out now screams next gen to me.

We still don't have cities full of NPC's all reacting differently to their environment, complex weather systems etc. I'd happily swap ray/path tracing and all that shit for a generational leap in physics and AI.
 

Mattyp

Gold Member
Just wait and see what Hellblade and Gears delivers will be how far off guage anyway.

The issue is 90% of games being cross gen to date.
 

CamHostage

Member
The argument was about the best looking games, particularly as they compare/contrast to a tech demo. Epic didn't have to show me every inch of the environment (particularly as a 3D artist myself) to know that Avatar's environments, at times, leave much to be desired. This is on top of the fact that, if you watch the video closely, they did get fairly close on geometric data (rocks, metal, etc).

Besides, if one comparison doesn't work because of a lack of data, then none of them do.

Don't know what the story was, there was nothing particularly special about the textures in the UE5 Lumen in the Valley of Nanite demo (aside that they were Quixel megascan assets.) Texturing wasn't even a bulletpoint of the demo; it was about Nanite micropolygon geometry and Lumen lighting systems (and to a lesser point Niagara VFX.) I'm not even sure VT (which was a late UE4 addition I think?) was touched on as a topic? These were normal-assed rocks, you've probably seen rocks just like them, if not some of these same rocks, in games or demos elsewhere.

There's some quite nice looking stuff in Avatar too. Some stuff worked, some stuff didn't, and unfortunately, the stuff that doesn't tends to stick out.
 
Last edited:

HeWhoWalks

Gold Member
Don't know what the story was, there was nothing particularly special about the textures in the UE5 Lumen in the Valley of Nanite demo (aside that they were Quixel megascan assets.) Texturing wasn't even a bulletpoint of the demo; it was about Nanite micropolygon geometry and Lumen lighting systems (and to a lesser point Niagara VFX.) I'm not even sure VT (which was a late UE4 addition I think?) was touched on as a topic? These were normal-assed rocks, you've probably seen rocks just like them, if not some of these same rocks, in games or demos elsewhere.

There's some quite nice looking stuff in Avatar too. Some stuff worked, some stuff didn't, and unfortunately, the stuff that doesn't tends to stick out.
Yes, my point about Avatar was just that. Some stuff looked great, others notably rough (and, as a result, falls short of better looking games). Not that the textures were a bullet point for the demo. Its purpose was apparent enough. That most (or no) games have reached it is of no surprise to me and many in the art community.
 
Last edited:
Well there are still only a handful releases using Unreal Engine 5 and most of them don’t use even the full feature set. We saw in some games like Robocop what is possible and considering this was a smaller game, just imagine what would be possible in a triple A game. My guess is that we will see such impressive games end of this generation or beginning of the next.
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
^ ^ I don't feel like any of those match the tech demo, despite how good they look. Avatar in particular. No way. The textures, at times, look particularly rough.

For me, in terms of asset quality (particularly rocks and non-organic props) = Demon's Souls, in terms of traversal (speed/movement) = Spider-Man 2, and as far as lighting/shadows are concerned — Alan Wake 2 and Cyberpunk (only their PC versions) are in the vein of the demo, but it still has a refinement that's a step above anything out.
But Robocop and Remnant 2 are literally using the same quixel rocks as the PS5 UE5 demo. like literally the same asset from the store. If the OP wanted those visuals, well he got them. maybe he didnt bother playing those games and i dont blame him, those are b and c tier games. But if you are a graphics whore, you probably should play them for the visuals.

Avatar rocks are a bit below those nanite rocks but avatar is literally 99% foliage. what it does do is produce visuals well beyond the UE5 corridors. Not to mention, it is using RTGI while that UE5 demo was using software GI. It is also using RT reflections and RT Shadows which are well ahead of what Epic was displaying in that demo.

It's very easy to polish up a 5 minute demo that takes place in three corridors. Much harder to polish up every inch of a 20-50 hour game. I can list dozens of areas in Alan Wake 2, Spiderman 2, Avatar, Callisto, Star Wars, and Starfield that look way better than that demo. its unfair to ask these games to look that great at all times. Even last gen masterpieces like TLOU2, Ghost of Tsushima and RDR2 have rough spots. I have posted dozens of screenshots from those games in the graphics thread to prove this.
 

HeWhoWalks

Gold Member
But Robocop and Remnant 2 are literally using the same quixel rocks as the PS5 UE5 demo. like literally the same asset from the store. If the OP wanted those visuals, well he got them. maybe he didnt bother playing those games and i dont blame him, those are b and c tier games. But if you are a graphics whore, you probably should play them for the visuals.

Avatar rocks are a bit below those nanite rocks but avatar is literally 99% foliage. what it does do is produce visuals well beyond the UE5 corridors. Not to mention, it is using RTGI while that UE5 demo was using software GI. It is also using RT reflections and RT Shadows which are well ahead of what Epic was displaying in that demo.

It's very easy to polish up a 5 minute demo that takes place in three corridors. Much harder to polish up every inch of a 20-50 hour game. I can list dozens of areas in Alan Wake 2, Spiderman 2, Avatar, Callisto, Star Wars, and Starfield that look way better than that demo. its unfair to ask these games to look that great at all times. Even last gen masterpieces like TLOU2, Ghost of Tsushima and RDR2 have rough spots. I have posted dozens of screenshots from those games in the graphics thread to prove this.
I'm only going to tackle the "fair" point since the rest is subjective and never a point of contention from me (I actually named games I feel contend nicely).

I'm not asking games to match that demo. I explained how/why they are perceived as beneath it and that it wasn't Sony's fault that said perception exists.
 
Last edited:

GymWolf

Member
Still waiting to see any of that except the character model that is just good.

If a small, restricted, linear game like hellblade 2 can't at least get close, the next best hope is the next ND game.
 
Last edited:

GymWolf

Member
People need to read up more on Marvel 1943 cause devs have been pretty much hinting that its most likely gonna be a Quantic Dream style cinematic with lite control type game. Temper expectations people :/
Oh come on...

Well another heavyweight in graphic that i'm never gonna buy, and the list grow...

Hopefully hb2 is gonna be more than a tech demo or i'm not gonna buy that one either.
 

winjer

Member
The tech demo might have been shown in 2020, but the release for UE5 out of beta was only in March 2022.
And with game development times now being so long, adoption of new tech takes much longer.
 

midnightAI

Member
I'm only going to tackle the "fair" point since the rest is subjective and never a point of contention from me (I actually named games I feel contend nicely).

I'm not asking games to match that demo. I explained how/why they are perceived as beneath it and that it wasn't Sony's fault that said perception exists.
Also seems a little unfair to bring Sony up in a thread about UE5, an engine which, by in large, they don't use (Bend being an exception). I totally agree though, Sony do keep being singled out rather than the industry as a whole and yet, whenever it's asked what are the best looking games out there Sony games are in and amongst them. Let's face it, Sony haven't really shown their hand 'yet' this generation, but it's quite normal that the bigger heavy hitters from them appear second half of the gen (certainly happened with PS4)
 

JackMcGunns

Member
Eh, nah. Not even that. Plus, Hellblade 2 is a game with very little going on and looks as good as it does partially due to that and it's still a ways behind in my eyes. That demo was on another level entirely.

That said, I'm confident that current consoles have the chucks to pull it off. We've yet to see what they can truly do.


If that’s your argument, what was going on with a room full of statues and a cave full of rocks?
 
Last edited:

HeWhoWalks

Gold Member
If that’s your argument, what was going on with a room full of statues and a cave full of rocks?
One is a quick showcase demo, the other a full fledged game.

Hellblade has very little going on. Fact.
It partially looks so good due to that. Fact.

Nothing wrong with either of those things and it’s not exactly a bad thing to lose out to a careful crafted, showcase tech demo.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom