Escape From Tarkov, a Unity5 game.

Surprised nobody posted about it already. So here's maybe the best looking Unity5 game...

 

That 's great quality assets and lot of work.

But the graphics lacks colors or it is some filter, and the general lightening is not looking so PBR and the overall look is lacking better full screen effects making it look more cinematic if your goal is to have a game that looks as good as big productions or some Unreal 4 games.


Keep the good work.

 

That is unbelievable. Just goes to show that Unity can do anything you can create.

 

Looks great, some stuff doesn't look PBR'ed though, so still room for improvement. It certainly looks like the most 'realistic' looking Unity game I've seen, but (IMO) Rust is the most graphically stunning Unity 5 game, Facepunch have some brilliant technical artists.

 

If the in game / engine vid's looked anything like the trailer I'd be impressed. But it doesn't, looks like a half decade old FPS to me..

Not that it matters, but if were talking "realism" I've seen much better in Unity and it's not even in the same ball park as some Unreal games.

 

Can you post a link to something, that you consider "much better" than this?

 

Can i ask for some ideas on how a diagram like system with nodes (third video 3:32) can be done in Unity?
Are there any assets avalible similar to this system?

Thanks

 

Again, the announcement trailer (whatever that was made in) looks nothing like the action gameplay trailer in the OPS post. Some comparisons sure? What do we want AAA? Indie? Or a mix? I can give you all of them:

Just a few off the top of my head, again the difference here is they all look amazing IN ENGINE!... Not just in a TRAILER ..

Unity: (Indie) P.A.M.E.L.A

UE4: (Indie) Allison Road

A now two year old AAA game ShadowFall:

 

Exactly. Touching up a trailer to make it look better isn't uncommon. It even takes place on the Asset Store.

 

I hope to never see another "can I do this with unity" post. And then I read the 8th comment which ruins my hope for humanity. The game looks amazing, here's their website. http://www.escapefromtarkov.com

 

The new video shows alot cool stuff, I like really how much animations they put in this game.

 

lol, as a previous combat arms MOS, I will buy this game simply because of the realistic weapons reliability. Those S***ty CoD and BattleField games never take into account weapon stoppages.

 

hey P.A.M.E.L.A's picture mark looks like Frostbite Engine logo

 

What does MOS mean?

As far as realism goes, this is one of the things that I don't enjoy in games because it randomly gets in the way of what you want to do. As far as I remember Far Cry 2 had it as a mechanic, I didn't like it.

 

Military Occupational Specialty -- government-bureaucrat-speak for "job".

 

Tarkov really needs volumetric lighting, especially with the high lighting contrast areas they have like the game play trailer.

The thing that's most concerning about the gameplay demo is the framerate. Obviously it's pre-alpha, but it seems like they're often not getting 30fps in some of those shots.

IMO, the best thing they did is the audio. The little shouts and stuff punctuating the near total silence elsewhere. It feels exactly like it should - tension of total calm and isolation.

I really prefer the russian take on games, they like harsh, difficult games. More traditional western games (or japanese games) want to reward the player endlessly. Russian games have some kind of different core values at play. There's a great russian card game called 'durak' - nobody actually wins a game of durak. All you try to do is not be the one loser of the game. I feel that element is infused in a lot of russian games, where the goal isn't so much to win, the goal is not to lose. I think that's why they really drive a lot of the more intense, competitive survival games.

 

See? The Soviet Union wasn't a total waste of time.

 

I liked contract wars. Glad to see the devs doing well.

 

Unity 5 is getting better & better, thought I have to mention another example which benefits from realistic real-time lighting and FX in Unity. However, this is not a game but a simple demo.

 

I don't like the materials on the cars, there is also too much specular on tires, too much bloom sometimes that can annoy the gameplay, empty level, i see a game that could have been done with Unity 4 and some plugins.

 

In my opinion the GI looked even better in Unity 4 using Marmoset Skyshop. Just a depth and realism to the lighting and materials. Unity 5 is getting there, but not quite yet.

 

Yes, I've seen this game before. In fact I think that this is the first game of a true AAA quality in Unity - on par with games from CRYENGINE. Good job.

 

It does look AAA. Not best AAA, but definitely have its place in people's AAA game library, provided it pairs with something original in gameplay. Loved grenade smoke and scope switch btw. Inventory system looks very promising. Almost reminds me of Jagged Alliance type of thing.

The issue regarding quality and Unity, is how hard was for them to achieve that quality. Did they push Unity to the limit? Had to work around many things? With in house shaders, and trade-offs in performance and effects. Would improving graphics even further be limited by Unity? or is it only a time/budget limitation?

 

Epic is pushing Unreal 4 every day and they are making AAA games like Paragon so they barught lot of optimisations and new rendering features. Until Unity drops mobile and make games i doubt you'll get closer to UE4 any time.

 

Yeah. The only other games I've seen like this (i.e. vastly improved balance of PvP, teamplay, and realism over arcade shooters like Battlefield & CoD and sims like Arma III) are UE4 games: Squad and Ground Branch

The textures in Squad looks more like Arma III on steroids than the quality I would expect out of any top-tier UE4 game (like in Ground Branch or Unity-powered Escape from Karkov) :P

And as far as I know, Pamela's the only other AAA game made using Unity 5 that's looks as great, which I'd say is pretty damn good:

9 minutes of additional footage (with dev commentary): http://www.ign.com/videos/2016/03/15/13-minutes-of-pamela-gameplay

 

Honestly i think this is the main problem with unity, they not push their own engine to make a high quality performant game, and i said again a "game".
Yeah i know someone will bound to came a said they were busy helping other people creating game, but seriously using their own engine to create an actuall AAA targeted game will help them to improve Unity itself on they way.
Well maybe a full game is overkill, let's say a 20-45 minutes demo with fully functional/logic game.


Just sayin. . . . .

 

Epic and Unity business and interests or market are very different.UE4 targets PC high end graphics (even if you can make cell shaded graphics or 2D games), this is the main engine feature.

While Unity wants to stay very versatile engine, it is very friendly, mobile oriented and prooven, also it will run on a lot more larger hardware scope than UE4 indeed for PC or mobile, and it can do great at 2D. You'll be able to sell a game that runs well to more players and that will be able to run on desktop old 5 years PC depending on your game graphics.

If you need to make AAA in Unity than pick up the good plugins, you need to make 2D game also pick up the plugins you need, you don't know programming and only modding than buy a game template or buy some playmaker plugin.
Only weak point is outdated out of the box terrain and terrain tools and world management, that are years behind UE4 or CryEngine , a today game engine should propose a better out of the box terrain and sky system really.
Let's keep Unity very easy to use and versatile, acessible for beginners and new comers, and you'll work faster than with other 3D engines, the framework is also easy to learn.

And the Asset store is full of advanced plugins for any need to make an AAA games like PAMELA demonstrated it. So AAA game in Unity is already possible.
The most exposed companies like Square Soft took UE4 engine for example , this helps a lot to get engine exposure. , Unity just needs more AAA showcase games.

Unfortunatelly for game developpers there is no "Make AAA game content and levels" button

 

I'm not just going to play "engine" wars again, because @rea brings up a good point. The major differences I've found isn't necessarily engine based as opposed to procedure based (I.E implementation of systems), I've had no real issue with scalability in UE neither do I have to constantly find "work arounds" with either integrated tools / systems or asset store tools. It's all in one place, it's made by Epic and the workflow is near enough faultless irrelevant of the game type or size.

In which if Unity made a game like Paragon / Unreal Tournament <Insert Openworld RPG > RTS> here>, instead of shorthand cinematics for a new release. They may find they can integrate solutions, tools, workflows etc. better.. Because c'mon even from the cinematic releases they add stuff to the asset store that's in most engines as a drag and drop node.

From what I know they do have a lot of AAA experienced staff that have the background and fundamental knowledge in which other "AAA" engines are based off, so why it doesn't actually get put into play is a head scratcher.

Oh BTW you're a little outdated on the UE thing, just to avoid the whole "this vs. this" I'll put it in a spoiler:

Spoiler

Not any more, as of 4.11 / 4.12 UE is quicker on lower end (PC / Console) and to some extent specific mobile hardware (if set up correctly) than Unity is, although 5.4 is balancing that out again.. It'll always be never ending rat race between the two, in terms of useability if you can get past Unreal's UI I find it far easier to use but I suppose that's just a subjective thing.

 

I agree making a AAA game is invaluable exprience and it brings advanced tools and features and it results in a more complete and easy to use game engine editor. But his asks a heavy budget and Unity perhaps think it does not worths it as Unity main audience is mobile, PC indie games and less AAA games (but that's possible if you look at PAMELA game).This is why i don't think Unity will go the AAA game route , and stay with impressive tech demos to bring new stuff.

Than comes Royalties , many people won't agree with that system that can become a constraint if you are successfull.

 

We'll I'm not sure it's "that bad", firstly you have to do well or they'll sink. So you can pretty much gurantee if you show a glimmer of a decent game they will back you all the way up the mountain.

Secondly, that's why I believe they try so hard to make it the best it could ever possibly be. To encourage people to use it (of course)..

Finally, you'd have to do VERY well for it to be an actual issue. If we start talking man hour costs to develop / fix tools and add integrations to try and put tool sets on par then (shown below):

Spoiler

On a worst case scenario, I'd need ten copies of Unity Pro @ $1500.00 a piece (of course more for mobile) which is $15000.00, which isn't an issue but then we have asset store additions.. Plus a metric ton of custom stuff which isn't in Unity out the box which I'd have to create to make it one to one in regards to UE.

Cost of that? If I have four engineers work on that for six months (that's being very conservative), it'd (roughly) come to around $200K? For the equivalent in royalties I'd have to sell (based upon the $20.00 example minus taxes / publisher shares) around 430K copies.

Also, being realistic a game like Pamela is do-able in a lot of engines. Although I am glad it gives other Unity users something to look up to and work towards.. Ultimatley, I think Unity will "get there" eventually. Unity 5 for all the complaints it's had I've found to be the most promising cycle of them all.

The "Adam" demo, has nothing to do with "mobile" they're branching out and I'm actually quite impressed with some directional choices.

 

I think it's a bad mindset to be looking for such a big cash cow that you'd be worrying about 5% royalties. C'mon, if you're a company with millions of annual revenue I can see it being a small issue, but it's just silly to be worrying about it as a hobbyist or small team. Assuming Unreal is what you need, chances are that implementing your own versions of whatever it is that you need will not only be prohibitively expensive (hundreds or thousands of man hours) but also impossible for most people without the necessary expertise.

Also, it's a short life, just make your game and stop worrying about pittances - if Unreal enabled me to make a really successful game without wasting years of my precious lifetime hacking systems, I'd be more than happy to send them 5%. As with Unity, I would have had no problem if they'd gone with the same system, I make my choice based only on the utility.

Priorities guys...

 

Absolutely picking up on 5% royalties for indie developer its just nonsense. It is no obstracle at all, unless you live in country with 65% tax rate, where additional to Steam cut you would get 0, after the royalties.
Exactly just make the game, pick the engine that suits you best, everything will have some downturns and just get over with it, you said it, i agree.

 

Looks awesome
Its good to see some reference to unity!

 

looks very promising imho

 

It seems Unreal 4 exteriors IBL and Lightmass lightening looks lot better, it looks good at first look ?

 

I don't care, I'm talking about the game. As in "Does it look like fun?"

 

Just watched a pretty neat 30 minutes video of beta game-play. It seems it's a new map called Shoreline, looks decent

PS: Someone actually asked in the Tarkov forum "Why Unity?":
http://forum.escapefromtarkov.com/topic/5930-why-unity-engine/

 

Looks awesome! What's the game about actually? Is it similar to PUBG in terms of gameplay? Is it last man standing?

 

Wait, was this done with Unity??

*Removes from wishlist*

 

TL;DR: much less complaints about Unity and less praise for other engines, than is par for the course around here.

 

Ok, so we that just pay the Plus license get the leftovers, typical

 

I very much doubt they're paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to access unity source code.
Almost certainly they don't have access.

 

Neither Unity Plus nor Unity Pro members have access to source. Companies that need access to the source to make modifications for their project are typically in the "We have a pile of cash for you" category. This isn't even counting the advanced technical assistance they may need from Unity which is also behind a paywall.

Honestly, and I know I'm ranting at this point, I don't even understand the mentality behind posts like you made. We should be grateful they allow us to only pay $35/mo instead of the full $125/mo. Back when I started game development a quality game engine was six digits minimum and that didn't including the tools for making the assets which were four to five each.

 

Forgot the smiley sorry guys

 

Now i'm curious, is anyone doesn't notice when he open/closing the door it affect the indirect light in the doorway. How they do that?

 

They have access to the source code -

He goes through several doors - I didn't see any changes to lighting - which door?

 

around 10:31

 

OK - stopped watching just before that.
To me that looks like they turned on a low level light, rather than some advanced indirect lighting adjustment.

I just gotta say - I'm not a big shooter fan - but these guys are kicking butt! - Makes me want to play. I've watched a couple dev videos - and really think there attention to detail is HUGE!

 

Check out 8:07, that doesn't look like a point light to me. Can light probes be (ab)used to do something like that? I'm not familiar with them.

 

Can you explain? I didn't see anything that looked remarkable. He opened a door went inside and closed a door. Their isn't a 'wow' lighting change - although - when it is done right - is when it is not supposed to be noticed right?
I'm not 100% up on all lighting models in Unity either, mostly struggling with non-advanced lighting for mobile, so there might be something that is remarkable that just looks - correct to me.