So, Battlefield 4 gameplay is revealed.

Hey folks, just saw the new BF4 gameplay and I was thinking, could Unity 4 attend that quality of graphics, if not, tell me what's missing in unity to achieve that quality.

 

Why is it that events in games always seem to take place like really early in the morning these days and the reflections and shadows are so intense that despite the thousands of polygons in characters you can't really make out any details most of the time.

 

Could someone que me on on what exactly is different from this and bf3? I haven't played it in a very long time and only had about 20 hours total, but it looks like it plays nearly the same.

 

Where's the BF4 gameplay? All I see is BF3.

 

Unity 4 could technically maybe achieve this level of graphics, but YOU definitely can't (neither can I or probably anyone on this forum). These "can Unity do this" debates are pretty pointless since Unity is mostly used by indies and not gigantic art teams made of like 100 professional developers.

As for the trailer itself, I have to admit it was pretty cool and very nice looking. Any new gameplay features seemed gimmicky and would probably only be used a few times in the campaign (I.E: Squad commands, destructible objects). The OMGEXPLOSIONS parts were cool, although seemed really over the top and ridiculous for something that's trying to be so gritty and serious. They seemed more fitting for something like Uncharted then a semi-realistic war simulator. However, I liked Battlefield 3 as a tech demo (and as a benchmarking tool, lol) and will probably pick up this game for the same reasons.

 

It seemed too generic to me. It wasn't impressed.

 

It looks like BF3 v1.5. Almost exactly the same as BF3 with just a few more custom high poly player character models.
They even use the same Russian soldier assets (machine gunner, assault troop, sniper), buildings, choppers, ...etc. The only thing that's new is the reflective pool of water....

 

Battlefield 4 already? I think they should have waited longer before releasing it. Like 3-5 years, when computers are more better so the game could be pushed even further. If they reintroduce ship combat though I will definitely buy it.

As for the OP's question, I think Unity can produce graphics like that, although like others said, it requires a professional team.

 

Stop being hipsters. This game is GORGEOUS, and the only reason it looks so similar to BF3 is because BF3 was already approaching diminishing returns. Games will not get much more visually realistic than this, all we have left to do is improve physics and gameplay, because goodness knows Battlefield is basically a 10 hour quicktime event with basic movement controls. But don't ever forget that it is the best looking quicktime event in existence.

 

I been hearing that line since 1985

 

this lol

 

+1, lol.

 

Game of the year 1985 (wikipedia)

 

Yeah, but can Unity produce graphics of that quality?

 

AHAHAA!!! So true!!!

 

Boring, repetitive and linear gameplay with a nice look. Not my cup of tea.

 

Well, love you too! I hope everyone knows I wasn't meaning to troll with that comment, I was being quite serious. When I said they wouldn't get much more realistic, I said that referring to the fact that for many, I can't see anything better than this being needed. Battlefield 3/4 is on the cutting edge, and it's still getting it's butt whupped by the original Crysis, simply because of art direction and the BF4 team vs the Crytek teams use of the technology at hand. The faces in Crysis 3 and Battlefield 4 have crossed over the uncanny valley imo, and don't need to be improved upon. I already believe in them.

I don't doubt that technology will continue to make games more impressive, but will we notice?

 

Well unlike most of the voices here, I felt really impressed with BF4's lighting and mood. I was awed by how much budget and work went into it. I was humbled by my own limitations, but also inspired.

It's not going to win oscars for originality, but I think it just goes to show how nice enlighten is. Wish unity had that tech.

 

Well there is real time ray-tracing but after that you just need to improve the physics to include real time fluid dynamics.

Then maybe we can look around from the pinnacle of FPS mountain and decide we need to climb the next peak, of Voice to Voice interaction with realistic dialogue and personality.

What could be really interesting is the re-emergence of VR as it is a much more immersive experience and may show up what is truly still lacking in modern games realistic character behavior and interactions.

 

It was a pretty awesome trailer. But the graphics didn't take a MASSIVE jump. But, I could still notice a ton of improvements, just don't know if its really standing up to some of the other next gen titles I've seen.

Things I did notice.

1. Extremely high texture resolution.

2. Very detailed characters, likely tessellation has a part.

3. Explosions are pretty much the best I've ever seen.

4. Significantly more ground detail with possibly tessellation and other FX.

5. Finally, foliage really stood out to me, I was never BLOWN away by BF3's foliage but I was very impressed with BF4.

 

I'm impressed, don't know if we can get to fully destructible building unless someone really wanted to spend there time doing that but reaching that graphic quality may be possible. The thing is that I don't think most of us here can reach that.

 

Red Faction did it!

 

Gee looked like's COD and singleplayer at that, Just great but have a feeling bf3 kind'a flopped compared to the predecessor bf2. Iterating to keep the rivery high and noteworthy but mainly relevant in gamer minds. :wink:

I got Arma 3 Alpha while it's on steam sale. I enjoy the (sandbox) as it's more accessible than either of them.

 

Hated BF3 campaign, love the multiplayer, the graphics look boss in this video but the facial expressions are so dead.

 

Difference is, back then, this line was about a lack of faith in computer evolution. Today it's about the exponential amount of work on details starting to get to small for the player to notice.


Still, in ten years, there probably be some kikoolol morons wanting to pay a lot of money for vain and expensive level of details. The effect over-use I've seen on that trailer are already close to it: shiny wet destroyable environment with dust, water puddle, water dripping and sun near the horizon... that's nice but it isn't video game any-more, that's graphic designer porn.

 

I think we (game designers) will: someday we won't have to care that much about optimisations of texture size and draw calls because any standard computer will be abble to cope with it. But I doubt the player will realise that.

 

Including all the elements, no I don't believe Unity could make this game.

BF4 looks fantastic though. I didnt even realise it was so far along until I saw these trailers. Will be pre-purchasing for sure.

Another game im looking forward to (hopefully this year) is generals 2, which is being made with the frostbite engine (v2 I think)

 

There is obviously a massive way to go in order to have true realism, IMO with ray tracing and tessellation we can bridge part of this gap then... we can focus on gameplay maybe?

 

I can barely fit 150 animations on-screen at once without bringing my computer to it's knees. We havn't hit the pinnacle of anything yet lol

 

Think you are both: oversimplifying then and over complicating today.

Even in the days of sprites, it took many crazy hacks and very crazy sprite art schemes to achieve the best graphics possible with the absurd small amount of memory devs had available to them.

In fact... not too different from how hard it can be today to create amazing art, adding more and more detail, while dealing with small amounts of memory. The current phase in "realistic games" where everything looks brown is not coincidence. It just is easier to minimize texture variety by keeping everything nearly monochrome.

Tech is advancing all the time in many ways. To achieve the highest possible you will always have to invest absurd levels of money and staff, but for the most part, it is proportionate to the economy and how much the things make. At the same time, the lower end gets freer eye candy nearly free, and so you also get way better looking lower-end visual quality.

That is not true. A game where you can have true fluid water drops, where your character falling in the dirt actually leaves dynamic handprints, and you can even grab a fistful of said sand, dynamically.... sure I bet a lot of people would only implement that as eye candy, but it all can also be a very powerful game design tool.

I personally gravitate towards more simple looking games, but even Mario, a cartoony character, keeps looking better and better. The Mario series is a great showcase of this.

This is all not even going into making the jump to 4k without performance sacrifices.

 

I totally agree with you on that but the thing is, this kind of feature would be useful for a few while being dispensable for most games because it is just a finish touch while older improvement were way more than that.

I remember playing some car game on my cousin's megadrive: the far clip lane of the camera was so close that you could see the track building itself ahead of you: this sucked much more than a game without volumetric lighting. Improving technology so the player wouldn't be able to perceive the end of the clip-lane was beneficial to most of 3D games because it wasn't just eye candy. Same thing for pipes which finally looked like proper cylinders and not giant allen keys with sharpen edges. Those were essential improvement because even my mom could tell what needed improvement.

Nowadays, you have a Crysis in which you can cut trees with your gun or your fists. That was nice but once you had fun with it you have to admit it wasn't essential to the game. Actually, if it wasn't in it, nobody would have missed it except some dude dreaming about a beaver dam construction game.

Same thing for super shiny mirror water, oily liquid stream so clean you can see refraction and not just white spray, magnificent god-rays in a dusty atmosphere... I'm glad technology can achieve choose but, simple fact is, you can make a good looking game without over-using those effects because they are barely present in beautiful scenery you can see IRL. This is just some finish used mostly for showing off and this cannot be compare to the changes brought by, for example, pixel lighting after vertex lighting.

 

Many would have said the same about sandbox features back in the 90s. Since GTA, they have become the norm for most action games, and anything that does not incorporate enough sandboxing in the level design gets insulted as "too linear."

An important thing to keep in mind about Crysis (just like with Gears of War and Unreal Tournament back in the day) is that the game is a commercial tech demo. Those games incorporate a lot of features, in many situations for little to no reason, other than to show off the tech. The success of the games get the salesmen a foot in the door to negotiate engine licensing with the big guys, the lots of tiny sparkled "unnecessary" tech usage just ends up inspiring the licensee to do amazing stuff.

Mind you: there is a lot to be said about going into a game like Crysis and being able to cut an obstructive tree with a hatchet, and then go back to an older game with a static indestructible tree blocking a corner (forcing you to walk around or find another way) that makes you realize as much as this did not "amaze" you, now you cant live without it.

Super shiny "mercury" mirror water is bad art, bad shaders, or both. It's not advancement (unless you made your game in the late 90s) It's a good thing to hate, but not exactly a counter argument for advancement in graphic fidelity.

 

The explosions looked incredible, i'm not sure what everyone was expecting, BF3 already looked great.

 

People having been wrong about the potential of a fundamental game feature doesn't mean any new feature is destined to be essential

Take a few decades old luxury car and look at the exclusive feature it had: which ones are standard on regular automotive? Which one are still extra even today? Why do you think power steering and power lock are available on a Dacia while leather seats and wooden insert keep being exclusive?

The reason is simple: things like power lock make a big difference. Checking all the doors of your car one by one to close it is universally a pain in the ass, that's why is is standard even if the car would be cheaper without it. On the other hand fabric seat is already comfortable and functional and that's why leather is an extra even if it was there before power lock.


This is the same thing with video games: some improvement changed the future because they are fundamental things you can't go without but today, most of the stuff is added up on a "fine enough" level. It doesn't mean that we won't go further, just that graphic quality is already satisfying enough for most people and that's why graphic evolution tends to stagnate.

This does make my point.

Crysis was a great technological demonstration but I never saw exploitation of the "destroying trees" cool feature.

Actually what I saw is a modest engine called Unity taking a big market share by only selling essential features allowing you to make good looking games.

I agree with that but what I was pointing at is the over use of all these cool effects in this trailer.

 

It does look great, I just hope they don't Call-Of-Dutify it too much. That would be a tragedy, vehicle combat is one of the main things that made BF3 so great.

As for generals 2, I was looking forward to that too, until they said it was going to be free-to-play, and multiplayer only initially. Seriously? The F2P model is fine for some stuff, but for an RTS game, especially as a sequel to the great single-player game that was G&C generals? Sad. At least the angry mob will be returning, though.

 

how years pass by...

 

Yet some things never change. Like these threads asking if games can be remade in Unity. Or necro-posting.

 

Enlighten looks really nice in Unity. Baked lighting didn't but is improving. They're not the same thing.

 

The realtime part of Enlighten is... actually good now... (yes, I just said something good about enlighten. Also pigs are flying and the sky is falling).

I mean you still can't get the detail a traditional lightmapper would have, but that's the trade-off for having realtime stuff and that's that (and I don't think there are any better alternatives really.

If the progressive lightmapper ever releases (and is good), I'll be officially happy with Unity's lighting.

 

IMHO, you don't need it (the super realistic features). Is fine to have an approach to that, as all graphic improvement will help to sell a game better, if used cleverly a bit of that, but as mentioned always, you do need an army to do any piece of work of what an AAA game needs these days (and the cost that it means). There are other values in casual and indie gaming, and a good target user base for it, as well. I don't know, I see much more important the multiple devices/platforms export for an engine like this. (and other features related to improving workflows, etc)

 

The post some sneak peak about the lightmapper on twitter, it looks quite good tho.

uh oh. . . did i just necro posting?

 

Nah, not really