The lighting and reflections look pretty solid, but that Big Daddy looks terrible and there's way too much bloom and specularity everywhere. There's also no real sense of composition in the environment, nor does it have that distinctive art deco styling.
Don't get me wrong, it's cool and all but I'm starting to think this "______ in Unreal Engine 3.5/4" stuff is starting to go a little overboard.
Compared to the actual game,
[t]http://cdn.akamai.steamstatic.com/steam/apps/7670/0000002511.1920x1080.jpg?t=1392365692[/t]
Jesus.
all of my money
[QUOTE=Ehmmett;44681723]I may not be right in saying this but, it looks like they just used the assets from the original bioshock, which means it wouldn't be taking advantage of all that UE4 has to offer. Which is saying something because it looks impressive enough as it is.
[editline]29th April 2014[/editline]
video description says that they just used the assets, so yeah I guess that's accurate then.[/QUOTE]
It's disturbingly awesome how old assets used in an updated/improved engine can make quite a large difference.
Why do people think upping the bloom will make it look better?
all I see is just a bunch of new shaders. while the shaders look good, they look so out of place with all those low res textures and generally outdated assets.
[QUOTE=shadow_oap;44681892]Why do people think upping the bloom will make it look better?[/QUOTE]
Considering how the big daddy has so much metal on him, I think the bright reflection from the lamps around him ain't too over-the-top
The ambient lighting is way too dark there. For all the light there is, there is no light bounce.
[QUOTE=ionuttzu;44681918]Considering how the big daddy has so much metal on him, I think the bright reflection from the lamps around him ain't too over-the-top[/QUOTE]
most of the metal is very dirty though
[QUOTE=PredGD;44681931]most of the metal is very dirty though[/QUOTE]
Adding to that, most of his arms and legs are thick cloth.
[QUOTE=ionuttzu;44681918]Considering how the big daddy has so much metal on him, I think the bright reflection from the lamps around him ain't too over-the-top[/QUOTE]
90% of what I got out of this is that UE4's capable of adding bloomin' lens dirt and water puddles, which aren't really out of place here but it was kind of obvious the person who rigged this up just kind of imported things and haphazardly tuned them up. They even used a security camera from one of UE4's demo content scenes
[QUOTE=RikohZX;44681807]It's disturbingly awesome how old assets used in an updated/improved engine can make quite a large difference.[/QUOTE]
aye but still most of the textures in bioshock are 512x512, where-as the next-gen standard for large assets would be 2048x2048 now, and the poly-counts are obviously going to be a lot lower than what we get now - big daddy is probably something like 3000 polys maybe? where-as, not even looking at a next-gen title, the characters in the most recent uncharacter can be 6000 and up
so even if they used ue4's new material parameters to their utmost ability, which it doesn't really look like they did in this video, it's still feels like kind of a pointless tech demo
[QUOTE=shadow_oap;44681892]Why do people think upping the bloom will make it look better?[/QUOTE]
Because the people who do these sorts of things are 80 and have glaucoma and this helps them see it.
A remake in the Infinite engine would do. The 3D backgrounds looked pretty in Burial at Sea.
Compared to the original game, it looks amazing. The lighting is great, just not sure it was really well executed on this techdemo in particular (pitch black corners, for instance).
Also, the textures will probably need to be polished up a bit.
[editline]30th April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=shadow_oap;44681892]Why do people think upping the bloom will make it look better?[/QUOTE]
This. The reflections and bloom on the Big Daddy are pretty distracting.
[editline]30th April 2014[/editline]
Despite all that, it's really fucking good. I'd totally play a remake of Bioshock on UE4.
Honestly, sticking in outdated assets, models and textures or even animations into new updated engine won't make it look good, the original Bioshock ran on modified Unreal Engine 2.5 and the game came out by the end of 2007, the assets are very outdated, big daddies didn't look any better in the original too, loads of textures used to be blurry or normal maps used to give ugly effects and put it next to Crysis that came out that year back then too, the game still looks good due to the assets, mostly high res textures, models on the other hand aged.
It would have looked better if they actually had brought the assets up to the standard of UE4 and redone a actually environment from the game. Instead of sticking all the old assets in a tiny boxed room.
[QUOTE=Satane;44684239]Honestly the biggest difference between crysis and the newer games is the lack of obnoxious bloom and lens dirt.[/QUOTE]
I agree, there is too much screen effects, I think for me the most hated ones are motion blur and chromatic aberration, they need to stop treating our eyes as camera. there are only specific moments when such effects can occur, like chromatic aberration may only appear if you use binoculars or something that uses lenses and motion blur only during very rapid head movement, try moving your head slightly in most games, it blurs everything to shit.
[QUOTE=Grindigo;44684323]I agree, there is too much screen effects, I think for me the most hated ones are motion blur and chromatic aberration, they need to stop treating our eyes as camera. there are only specific moments when such effects can occur, like chromatic aberration may only appear if you use binoculars or something that uses lenses and motion blur only during very rapid head movement, try moving your head slightly in most games, it blurs everything to shit.[/QUOTE]
Extreme motion blur is there to hide low framerate. It does the job fine on consoles.
Commendable. 7 years since Bioshock... time flies!
[QUOTE=itisjuly;44684401]Extreme motion blur is there to hide low framerate. It does the job fine on consoles.[/QUOTE]
That's something I had no idea, but at the same time I don't own or play games on consoles.
[editline]30th April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=libero;44684472]Commendable. 7 years since Bioshock... time flies![/QUOTE]
I really feel old now, even though I still remember playing games like Warcraft 2 back in the day.
0/10 seat cushion texture not high enough res
[QUOTE=Grindigo;44684507][editline]30th April 2014[/editline]
I really feel old now, even though I still remember playing games like Warcraft 2 back in the day.[/QUOTE]
I remember seeing the commercials for the game back in 07. I remember thinking "jesus, that looks fantastic." and still thinking that to this day.
[QUOTE=Grindigo;44684507]That's something I had no idea, but at the same time I don't own or play games on consoles.[/QUOTE]
The first thing I do when I open a video game is disable the obnoxious motion blur which covers up everything and makes it hard to focus when turning/moving.
Why don't the Big Daddies have a drill attached to their hand?
[QUOTE=itisjuly;44684401]Extreme motion blur is there to hide low framerate. It does the job fine on consoles.[/QUOTE]
The only time I've ever seen it used tastefully is in Shadow of the Colossus on the PS2; when you got on a Colossus' head and it threw its head back to try and throw you off there was some motion blur there but it was sick as shit. PS3 version removes all blur and it looks really not sick as shit.
[QUOTE=Warriorx4;44686699]The only time I've ever seen it used tastefully is in Shadow of the Colossus on the PS2; when you got on a Colossus' head and it threw its head back to try and throw you off there was some motion blur there but it was sick as shit. PS3 version removes all blur and it looks really not sick as shit.[/QUOTE]
I've played the ps3 version, it felt to me like they added more Blur, did we play the same game?
I honestly don't see an improvement, it looks like shit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
