Too soon or too late? Unreal Engine 5 Revealed!

[Terraniux]

Looks sweet!







Please discuss!

[Swanky]

Many of its features look promising. Not sure how that translates to CPU/GPU usage but I suppose it depends on the ability of the developer to optimize things. Companies like Ubisoft will still run their games at 30 fps on the next gen consoles. Still do most of my business on PC except for a few retro things so I'm not affected by this.
Streaming LOD files looks great and with little to no performance impact on the demo. Of this, a few companies absolutely need to have a look at *cough* Bethesda *cough* *cough*.
A lot of features are also pretty easy to use as I've seen in that other vid I posted a few days back on UE 4.26 and I think they'll carry over the usability of their tools. Hopefully UE4 assets will still be compatible. Depending on how open UE 5 will handle file systems and cooking processes, I'd expect a lot of mods for people's favorite games. I know modding has been relatively complex with UT3, but for XCOM2 there's tons of mods. It all depends on how accessible the file structures of the games will be.

[papercoffee]

I'm not a graphic enthusiast... The gameplay is for me the King of the hill.
What new gamplay features are possible?
Is it easy for developer to use this new power?
Or do you need a team of 30 people to create a simple game?

[Chamberly]

I'm with Papercoffee for all game and not much extreme visuals.

I mean honestly if a map is gonna look like trash with less visuals while making the basic play then why would I want to map since they enforced it to be difficult?

I'm strongly sticking to ut99.

[TheDane]

I'm not a graphic enthusiast... The gameplay is for me the King of the hill.
What new gamplay features are possible?
Is it easy for developer to use this new power?
Or do you need a team of 30 people to create a simple game?

Gameplay comes from the creative minds doing the developing, it has ZERO with the engine to do. A new engine is just a way to use the latest hardware, nowadays we aparently needs to shoot people or do other things that looks real life. Prepare for more school shootings, the brain will have a harder and harder task to determine if it's the news from Iraq or just the latest GTA? Kids don to 4 years play games like Fortnite, while their brain think it's real - bad parenting.

And yes, the more advanced the engine, the more manpower you need to develope anything playable before next engine is released

[Swanky]

I do not think of gaming only. Scetching out details of a new building? Movie VFX? All that can be done in UE.

[fudgonaut]

It depends on the type of game, doesn't it?

I'm a big fan of single-player FPS games, particularly with an exploration aspect. In those games I find the more immersive, the better.

For me multiplayer is a different story. A game engine that is showing off every bright & shiny feature while you're busy trying to frag is, honestly, distracting and counterproductive to that mode of gameplay.

It also depends on the artistic vision of the game. You don't need a million billion polys and subatomic level real-time raytracing for every game title. There are any number of amazing, beautiful games that simply don't require this kind of computational braggadocio. I can go back to a 15-year-old game like Psychonauts and despite its age, the artistic style still a joy to look at.

That said, the demo is very, very pretty

[Gustavo6046]

Kids don to 4 years play games like Fortnite, while their brain think it's real - bad parenting.

Actually, discerning fiction/fantasy from reality is a basic mental capability that is developed very early in life. Even if it comes a bit later, it should fall upon the shoulders of the parents, not of the fictitious material itself. That would be

Good parenting includes, but is more than just, teaching kids that "guns are bad, love is good". It also encompasses, far more importantly, teaching them that not everything is real, and that they must always look beyond the façade. Sure, those are some fancy and fun flames there, but are they as fun in real life? This also applies to things like fake news and other assorted deceptivities.

In fact, that very same argument is why Doom was so scrutinized when it was first released. All worsened during the Columbine shootings. My condolencies to those who have fallen in the hands of wicked people, but the parents who don't want to be responsible for their children's education and behaviour – and want to defer this to a completely different business; entertainment companies are not kindergarten and have no business with your nose-picking children! – are the ones of the very children who grow to be mentally unstable. I thought you wouldn't fall for those old fallacies anymore, yet here we are. My disappointment is beyond expressibility.

[JimmyCognitti]

I'm just a petty gamer who knows nothing about anything, but this sort of raises some questions:
Is it me or UE4 wasn't nearly as successful as UE3 was?
Because of the above-mentioned, do we really need UE5?

The video looks nice though.

[papercoffee]

I'm just a petty gamer who knows nothing about anything, but this sort of raises some questions:
Is it me or UE4 wasn't nearly as successful as UE3 was?
Because of the above-mentioned, do we really need UE5?

The video looks nice though.

UE4 was a huge success ...counting all the games which are made in UE4. But of course got UE4 a lot of competition, and the rivals never rest.
Therefore, we don't need a UE5 but Epic does. It's their core business.

[TheDane]

Kids don to 4 years play games like Fortnite, while their brain think it's real - bad parenting.

Actually, discerning fiction/fantasy from reality is a basic mental capability that is developed very early in life. Even if it comes a bit later, it should fall upon the shoulders of the parents, not of the fictitious material itself. That would be

Good parenting includes, but is more than just, teaching kids that "guns are bad, love is good". It also encompasses, far more importantly, teaching them that not everything is real, and that they must always look beyond the façade. Sure, those are some fancy and fun flames there, but are they as fun in real life? This also applies to things like fake news and other assorted deceptivities.

In fact, that very same argument is why Doom was so scrutinized when it was first released. All worsened during the Columbine shootings. My condolencies to those who have fallen in the hands of wicked people, but the parents who don't want to be responsible for their children's education and behaviour – and want to defer this to a completely different business; entertainment companies are not kindergarten and have no business with your nose-picking children! – are the ones of the very children who grow to be mentally unstable. I thought you wouldn't fall for those old fallacies anymore, yet here we are. My disappointment is beyond expressibility.

Actualy that's just your opinion against mine. Sadly you don't seem to accept mine? Never the less, you are ofcause intitled to yours

[noccer]

Graphic is great, some things look really close to reality.
The Figure in the third third is impressive, the rock is awesome. Stones seem to be stones whouch you can pick up and throw away.
But what i dislike is the dust-filter.... Outside it looks like everything is filtered by dust. I am not Lara Croft and never was in such a situation, but the protagonists clothes should have more contrast. You can see it well on her leather trousers.

And since EPIC abandoned UT they should rename the engine and take off the U T-Shirt.

[OjitroC]

But what i dislike is the dust-filter.... Outside it looks like everything is filtered by dust. I am not Lara Croft and never was in such a situation, but the protagonists clothes should have more contrast. You can see it well on her leather trousers.

It's a pretty dusty environment, given the amount of crumblng soft stone around. The leather of the tunic in particular is well done as you can see evidence of wear and of creases.

Gallery_1.jpg

[Feralidragon]

It seems to me that the real power of UE5 over UE4 is that you no longer need to bake maps and work on low-poly versions of higher-poly stuff, which would mean greater visual quality and a lot less work to achieve it (quicker iterations), especially since that would mean near-direct scans from environment to the game to build realistic environments for example.

If so, this would certainly be a significant leap, significant enough to indeed call it a new engine version, and for studios to pick up in order to greatly decrease the amount of work to do the same thing.
Looking forward to what actually ends up being done here.

As for gameplay vs visuals and whatnot, there are many games which were able to excel in both.
There's no reason to not push for something visually better or more realistic if the gameplay is given equal weight, especially when the visuals heavily contribute to the gameplay itself.

As a matter of fact, I am sure that there will be plenty of new games in the future that will only be able to work with what UE5 is able to provide here.
For example, the visual realism that was possible already 6 years ago is what led Silent Hill's PT to become a legend among horror games (albeit with a different engine altogether), and it's still to this day something you won't want to play even during the day, it's that good.

[OjitroC]

... especially since that would mean near-direct scans from environment to the game to build realistic environments for example.

Which means you could play in 'real' places and even use the engine for landscape (testing out planting and built 'interventions') and architectural design as Swanky suggests.