The future of game engines and limitations. (thoughts?)

[Quackers101]

As with the content and certain limits opened up with unreal engine 5.

From showing 10 billion polygons or more in a scene and run kind of smooth as shown in video below.

With systems like nanite and lumen, still many issues around their visual fidelity and keeping the quality of motion and image it tries to show without becoming a blurry mess (like a mix of motion blur and popup distance combined).

 

What are peoples questions towards future engines and their possibilities?

To their full real life scanning of objects and historical objects, in the unreal library stuff like Quixel's megascans assets. (can be used in unity, but not for free?)

Also are you going to start learning to use some of them as they are free but with certain restrictions or rules?

To the movies that with the use of blender, unity or unreal engine can provide.

 

To how the Mandalorian was produced with the use of big LED screens and unreal engine.

 

[Guest]

One question I've always had is why hardware physics never lifted off. 

 

I don't game like once upon a time. But back then a lot of gaming you can expect and predict quite a bit. 

 

Some games use 3 bullet fragment scenes, some 6 and even try to make it random. The particles in most all games seem unrealistic. 

 

So really the realism for most people isn't the visuals, it's the game play. We can use the oldies for example team fortress. 

 

I don't suspect game engines to make drastic changes as the years go by other than preventing modding and such so they can provide paid for download content and cool gun skins. 

 

Unreal engine 5 is more like revision 5, still just Unreal Engine. It's taken many years to achieve lvl 5 now. Not too many jaw dropping changes, it's always been a really good game engine. 

 

Just my humble opinion, nothing more.

[thrasher_565]

depends on the future of gpus...

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, thrasher_565 said:

depends on the future of gpus...

MORE POWER! XD

[thrasher_565]

3 minutes ago, ShrimpBrime said:

MORE POWER! XD

well if you think about it people cant buy gpus, not even at retal so why would game be trying to push the limits if no one can play them? right now we are making remakes and that will probly last for some time as years have gone buy of people saying we want remakes...well here they are...

 

not only that but the consoles for the price were out pefroming pcs if you could buy one at retail....

[cacoe]

I think the largest problem will be unique content creation unless advanced procedural systems are created to make assets.

 

The bar keeps getting raised and that's going to make it increasingly difficult to populate worlds with high quality content. Or at the very least as we get closer to true realism, the amount of time to complete a game will get more unreasonable. 

[Quackers101]

4 minutes ago, ShrimpBrime said:

One question I've always had is why hardware physics never lifted off.

 Not sure what you mean by that.

4 minutes ago, ShrimpBrime said:

The particles in most all games seem unrealistic. 

Think it may be because of the speed/simplicity and running in real time, were it's expected to have maybe a lot to 100's to 1000's of them or as a whole.

Were newer particles will standout due to realistic textures/models and the way it's integrated, were physics could be "better"? not too sure.

4 minutes ago, ShrimpBrime said:

So really the realism for most people isn't the visuals, it's the game play. We can use the oldies for example team fortress.

Visuals is a big part, as to why team fortress changed their whole theme to fit their "world" or their realism even if its not "realistic".

As we often say when it comes to games, there has to be a good building of the world or scene and get the right feedback to the player. From when you shoot, impact and how anything in the scene responds. Where some old games like F.E.A.R. can feel very modern or a new breath of fresh air in some aspects, while maybe lacking or being outdated in design or controls.

 

For some games realism and more realistic physics and lighting, could improve some types of genres and add a lot of BS cash grabs.

4 minutes ago, ShrimpBrime said:

I don't suspect game engines to make drastic changes as the years go by other than preventing modding and such so they can provide paid for download content and cool gun skins. 

Publishers most likely want some sort of period extension to their games for "free", through some API that doesnt reveal much and not adding copyrighted/ill content.

So if they want large games, they are very much likely going to want some modding, just hope people don't go around their "pay to get everything else" systems or speeding up through exploits, but to get people longer in their games and spend more on it... for free.

 

So like you say, limited modding and to prevent people to adding what they might already want to add and benefit from.

4 minutes ago, ShrimpBrime said:

Unreal engine 5 is more like revision 5, still just Unreal Engine. It's taken many years to achieve lvl 5 now. Not too many jaw dropping changes, it's always been a really good game engine.

Sure, most of unreal is not that far off the original focus. 3D creation for shooters, and expanding to other genres that benefit from 3D scenes.

But there are a lot of changes, so many processes that has changed and the ease of use. While the basics might not be far from it, it has opened up to more people and this was not a focus on UE5, but game engines as a whole in the growing 3D space and use of 3D content.

 

What I'm really excited for is the use of more realistic features, and if AI is going to be more of a thing. While something like MetaHuman is kinda "similar looking humans" early build. That to AI physics and more real time content that could change movies into gaming scenes or the other way around. More use of "3D" sound, blending real life with the digital world, and could re-live real historical places and areas. Some that is saved into an asset on the web.