The most Insane AAA Game made in Unity has arrived in Closed Alpha

Insane how good this game looks, surprised its a Russian Company.

 

Neat

 

Amazing how good that looks right? and just think its requirements are lower than games that look worse.

Goes to show just how optimized Unity actually is.

Best part this is the true successor to DayZ / Arma 3. Its even more realistic and runs far better

 

Sanctions were well before the election. LOL

 

The sanctions are for 24 days and are against security agencies and operatives. Calm down, your precious videogames are safe.

 

That's not necessarily true though. More demanding games may simply have fewer resources to invest into optimization before their games hit the market, may have developers with less knowledge of the engine they chose, etc.

 

But surely Unity has to be a generally speaking well optimized Engine?

I mean looking at escape from tarkov and how low its requirements are compared to other games I mean the map is huge in this game and incredibly detailed. But at the same time not to big, games like DayZ and Arma 3 have maps the size of real Islands in the Caribbean but they are largely running through nothing

 

I... I don't think it looks that great...

I mean, obviously the devs put in a lot of work and it shows and I wish them good luck, but I don't think it looks that amazing.

 

You're comparing apples to oranges. From what little information is available on the website Escape from Tarkov is an almost entirely static world. Contrast this to DayZ which allows you to create your own bases from the resources in the world. A static world will naturally be able to make use of optimizations that a dynamic world won't.

 

lol no.

It shows that the devs hit a sweet spot and did the best they could. Assuming it's 5.4 or so, I'm not sure the high end would ever be mistaken for highly optimised.

5.6+ is the beginning of proper speed. In fact Unity's been working hard on it, but it's very unlikely this game was able to so far make heavy use of Unity's recent changes.

Also keep politics out of forums, period. Chinese, Russian, Arabic, anything is welcome here in the developer community. Just not the dividing lines known as politics.

 

I've been watching this game for a while... it looks great!

I don't see politics stopping these guys, they are putting a ton of polish in this, and I hope to play it soon

 

I hope they are going to give a talk at a future Unite, telling us what problems they ran into and how they fixed them. Also curious whether they have source-code license to adapt Unity to their specific needs.

 

No.

They need to have good programmers that can squeeze every possible shred of performance out of unity.

 

A fact that is changing over time. Unity much better understands how important optimisations are, I'm just saying blanket statements like Unity must already be super fast and we're all stupid is flat out wrong

Case in point, I just moved my little side game (a retro thing devved over the holiday season) to 5.6 and there's some really fun optimisations in that. Also things like being able to get contact points for a collider isn't an optimisation of the engine but an EXPOSURE of the engine.

One of Unity's key problems is that we have to do inefficient code because things are not exposed without source license. We don't need source license if all these little changes are made. Unity's been too idiot-centric for far too long, for no purpose. You can have both, particularly on the scripting side.

Again though, Unity knows all this. They just have to do it

 

I'm actually fairly surprised I haven't seen this project yet! Thanks for sharing, it looks like they are doing some awesome work.

Regarding optimization and performance, there have been a lot of creative ways that dev's create tools and workarounds to work towards better performance. Recently Playdead shared with Unite attendees how they achieved great performance with INSIDE, you can watch it here if you're curious.

@WalkingDead Please also remember we don't want to see political discussion on the forums! Forum Rules.

 

Oh wow, I'm definitely checking out that video, after Fran Bow limbo is my fav game shame I don't have a windows machine to play inside... I heard playdead won the golden cube as well.

 

By having access to source?

 

Thats like saying Arma 3 doesn't look good or GTA 5 doesn't look good or Tom Clancy's The Division doesn't look good.

They all look stunning for their size, they are all AAA games, Arma 3 being an exception but its an old game and largely a military sandbox designed around shooting real life guns and tons of modding on steam workshop.

This image best explains it all, Tarkov is several times larger than Battlefield's map which are in itself already massive. Infact its somewhere like 13 times the size of Battlefield's map. So believe it or not this game is stunning especially for the low requirements this is the only next gen AAA game so far that still supports video cards with 1GB VRAM I am impressed.

There is also the obvious fact that this game is like real life, the guns have real life physics and realism, appears to be even more real than Arma 3.

This is the most important image in the world not kidding

 

Yeah the actual size of this game's map is another spectacular achievement, a lot of times people forget the quality of graphics is relative to the actual size of the map that is loaded, which is why GTA 5 doesn't look anywhere near as good as Tom Clancy's The Division even though they are 300 million dollar budgeted games or what have you.

I posted a map above this post, that highlights just how big this Escape from Tarkov map actually is, I am pretty sure this is probably the largest map being developed on Unity Engine.

Then there is the best part, this game is designed to compete with Arma for realism in weapons. The attention to detail and physics in weapons are crazy good not to mention animation these guys are incredible.

 

No. It's not the same in the slightest. There is a big difference between the opinion of a gamer and the opinion of a game developer. Game developers, especially those that are frequently working on the graphics of games, can usually tell you why the game doesn't look good by citing problems with lighting, shadows, post processing, and so on.

 

GTA 5 doesn't look anywhere near as detailed as The Division not even remotely close I play both games on Ultra with a GTX 1070.

And The Division while having a massive map is significantly smaller than GTA 5 and both games use up 3GB VRAM.

I don't need to be a developer to know what looks better I just set it on Ultra and I run around and look at the details how many objects in the world etc, nothing absolutely nothing comes remotely close to what Ubisoft has been able to achieve with The Division given its size.

 

Correct, you don't need to be a developer to have an opinion about the game. On the other hand I believe you do need to be a developer to tell an actual developer that his opinion is incorrect. We had a fun discussion about this semi-recently if you want to read over it.

https://forum.unity3d.com/threads/you-dont-need-to-be-a-cook-to-know-good-food.446768/

Additionally I'll reference the Four Stages of Competence. The first stage is where the individual doesn't understand or know how to perform a task, may not recognize their lack of skill and may even deny that it is useful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence

 

How? And why? Why does saying one game doesn't look that great say anything on what I think about other games? Are you implying all those games look identical? (they don't) Or even then, am I not allowed to not like how those games look either? (e.g. I think the Division looks bland) But even on a purely technical and polish level (which AAA is all about), Tarkov doesn't seem to come close.

But, for the record, my reply to this thread was heavily influenced by your posts, which I was replying to. Presenting a game as "The most Insane AAA Game" and then adding "Amazing how good that looks right?" colored my response a lot, since I found that what I saw, fell quite a bit short of that description. If instead you posted "here's a cool looking game", I would probably reply "yeah, that looks pretty cool", especially since I generally try to be supportive of indie devs.

 

Must be my English not getting across.

Because that is nothing what I was talking about. I meant this is the most insane AAA Unity Game NOT the most insane looking AAA game.

I meant saying Arma 3 or GTA 5 or The Division looks spectacular because of their size. You cannot compare small maps to games with large maps.

Tarkov looks incredible for its size, the map size is 13 times larger than Battlefield. Obviously it will never look like Battlefield.

Sure it could but who is running a PC with 32GB RAM and 12GB VRAM TITAN X?

It doesn't matter if you think the Division looks bland, it is the most detailed game ever created at its size. You seem to not understand the map size is relative to its details not everybody has 12GB VRAM Titan X video cards. Games are made for hardware most people are expected to have so the Division looks spectacular.

unlike you I own The Division and a GTX 1070 and I play it aswell as many AAA games on Ultra I know exactly what is expected of a game its size. The map is giant it is a recreation of Manhattan. It is incredibly well done and there is nothing else like it at its Size. I am not talking about subjective art I am talking about recreation of buildings that look like real life down to the finest details like electrical panels, garbage bags, rust on containers etc

This is a $300 Million USD budget Title one of the largest in the world and it almost broke the GTA 5 world record for sale numbers at release. Could spending a billion dollars make a more detailed and larger map? sure but who has 12GB VRAM TITAN X? And Does Ubisoft have a billion dollars to make 1 game? if they did how much would they sell it for? I don't think people would opt for paying $300 USD for a game at this point even if the replay value is around 2000 hours for The Division.

 

Well... according to the Steam hardware survey approximately one-fifth (21.36%) are using 12GB or more. That said I'm betting the vast majority of that is just 16GB and not actually 32GB. Most people running 32GB are just developers and the handful of insane people with too much money to spend.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

 

wow so many people have 12GB Titan X?

Holy crap these people have money to burn, $3000 USD on a video card WTF

Most of them are probably AAA devs who have steam installed on their PC could be the entire Ubisoft Studio has steam installed on all their PC aswell lol

 

I meant system memory. Only about one-tenth (9.79%) of users have video memory that's a normal multiplier of two within the range of 256MB and 8192MB. I'm willing to bet most of that is not Titan but rather Intel HD reporting really stupid amounts.

 

Still falls short.

That's... Not quite true. It's an oversimplification at best.

Unlike me? Do you have cameras in my house and/or office?

 

While their game does look very good (Minus that flash-light!) it's not surprising they could do it with Unity.

Good looking games are really just assets, shaders and settings regardless of engine. From there it's optimising your game and for Unity that means:

• Combining GO's into one - Just basic memory optimisation, use flyweight pattern
• Removing MonoBehaviours where appropriate - https://blogs.unity3d.com/2015/12/23/1k-update-calls/
• Remove as much branching as possible, at least in tight loops.
• https://unity3d.com/learn/tutorials...graphics-rendering-unity-games?playlist=44069
  
• https://unity3d.com/learn/resources/performance-optimization-tips-and-tricks-unity

 

You're mistaken with your assumption that map size is limited by amount of available memory.
Past a fairly short visible range, distant objects stop being important, and everything can be simply streamed.

If GTA had infinite budget and infinite workforce, they most likely could increase size of their map by a factor of thousands, while still using the same engine and same hardware requirements. The game would require one hell of amount of installation space, however. Then there's a skyrim approach with highly-reusable assets, where the same thing appears again and again and again and again, but due to creative use of the engine looks like something different, most of the time.

Also, there are bigger games. For example, Just Cause 2(400 square miles or 1036 square kilometers), and IIRC the biggest probably belongs to world war II online which is said to be 52000 square kilometers or 22077 square miles - 1/2 size of Europe, pretty much.

Not sure why you're trying to defend the game, though.

 

According to Wikipedia, the definition of AAA is:
An AAA game is an informal classification used for video games with very high development and marketing budgets. AAA game development is associated with high economic risk, with high levels of sales required to obtain profitability. more

Escape from Tarkov had a $300 Million budget?

 

Escape from Tarkov looks AWESOME!! .. i havent looked into it a whole lot though...
its kinda kinda like STALKER right???

STALKER was AWEEEESOOME!! ... hands down BEST GAME in the last so many years.. i cant think of any other game i admired the .. like core idea of all soo much.. at least on a "coolness factor" way

i adore Undertale for its art, uhhh.. and then like Secret of Mana for SNES lol
oh and Red Orchestra 2 for "doing a FPS right" in my opinion..
oh and of course Deus Ex (the original, ALL the sequels are trash in comparison..)

lol yeah i have crap tier desktop PC (for nowadays) .. was ~$450 , has 12Gb RAM and a Radeon APU.. guess the APU uses system RAM for graphics RAM (i dont really know much about hardware anymore.. used to like 10 years ago lol)
... anyway, yeah sometimes things will say it has 800mb of video ram, and sometimes it says like 4gb video ram
... hardware checker programs and stuff .. like "can my PC run this game" stuff

 

(Ah, finally, a thread I don't feel bad about derailing.)

What's this supposed to mean? I haven't seen that one before. I know what flyweight means and immutability and so on but how do you "combine" GameObjects and what is the performance benefit? I thought GOs were supposed to be relatively lightweight in and of themselves.

 

The number of empty GameObject's definitely affects editor performance, measured that a few days ago:
https://forum.unity3d.com/threads/5...e-of-open-savescene-and-enterplaymode.447500/

 

I might get a lot of he** for this, but I honestly think the game just looks 'Alright'... Yeah it has a lot of features such as weapon customization, etc. But graphically speaking, it doesn't look top-tier to me...

And before you go on and say "Well for the map size it looks gorgeous". Map size has nothing to do with it, proper optimizations, async loading, etc, can go a long ways...

Don't take me wrong, the game doesn't look bad by any means. But it's still not the best Unity can do.

 

Merging everything into single mesh reduces number of drawcalls and counterintuirively (when you're used to thinking about invisible surface removal) can boost performance.

Also, game objects and components with Update and Start method have overhead. Nuking both of those methods will reduce overhead.

Yep. Pretty much.
I used to be FPS fan, but then the genre sorta died with the start of CoD multiplayer. And now seeing another screenshot with "generic modern day weapon" on top of "generic grassland background" is just boring for me. I mean, there was stalker, there was arma, there were several crysis games, there were several farcry games, and all of them had a gun and some grass in background.

 

I've been following this game back a while ago.
This comment may hurt your feeling but it's my truely honest opinion. You've been warned.


To start off, I disagree with the one who created this topic. Sure they put a lot of work in it but these days it's not just working. Sure you can put a higher amount of detail in it, as well for the gameplay and the graphics.
Oh and when I saw this topic just at this section of the forum I literally thought by myself: Well let's see... It better be not an FPS. (Coincidence, hint, hint.)
But in case you wanted to know my real reaction to this, it's more like PewDiePie reacted to his old videos and looked at his behaviour back then - and then he moaned Nooooooonononononoo nooooooo, please stop (and drinks a bit of Vodka). That's my real reaction to this (but without the vodka ofcourse). I hope you can understand it in some way...

 

Sure, I'm aware of all these things. Maybe it was just a poor choice of wording, but GameObjects (specifically) aren't anything I think of as able to be "combined".

Meshes, sure. Magic-method code, I already roll my own eventing. But those are mentioned or implied in other bullet points he posted.

 

For me too, but this game seems more like a simulator. Intended mostly for these army nuts that want hyper realism and combat as close to the real thing as possible.

 

wow this is amazing, hopefully it will be available in english too ? great video, really want to play that. remind me the excitement of the first ghostrecon game.

 

Hehe yes same things appear again and again, but the key difference to me is that it does NOT look like something different. It has obvious kit design approach.

 

Pretty sure anybody who wrote 7 lines of pure "The Division" is talking about The Division having a $300 million budget and not Tarkov.

 

At the end of the day no matter how big a company is, no matter how much money they invest, the map size is always relative to the graphics and we have yet to see differently in any game. Does this mean a company is incapable of making top notch graphic regardless of the size? no it does not but my point is we have yet to see this "map size relative to detail/graphics" change its always been like this in practice.

And there is nothing that better illustrates it than this picture. Each game highlighted the graphics are diminished the larger the map.

So like I said Tarkov looks splendid for the map size. Does it look anywhere near as good as COD? nope but again the map is 200 times larger than a cod map, it features realistic bullet physics so the view distance is massive. Any game that streams the textures while you play always has serious performance hit when you enable far viewing distance. It takes a massive performance hit even the Division requiring an overclocked core i7 just to run max view distance. In COD you can run on Ultra with max view distance without breaking a sweat on most PCs and thats because the map size is small.

 

You've never played on a solid state drive have you?

If map size were the sole determining factor then the Daggerfall recreation project would be completely unplayable since Daggerfall's world is 161,600 square kilometers in size. It dwarfs every other game out there.

 

I just looked at Just Cause, it is a very large map with lots of nothing hundreds of square KM of nothing not even trees its mainly just empty land with some very short grass, Arma 3 Altis Island has more objects like houses etc

The graphics in Just Cause literally all of them is on par with its map size, the graphics is not very good poor textures and little actual objects anywhere.

 

I have a 256GB SSD

I have The Division and Arma 3 so I know what I am talking about. All super large maps with max viewing distance takes a massive performance hit. Even a game like the Division which is very efficient at using GPU

 

Owning a copy of a game may allow you to experience the performance problems. What it doesn't do is make you capable of knowing why it performs poorly. At best you're only guessing.

 

They must not forget to ship an aimbot together with the game as well; Russia being the target market, they either add an aimbot or a russian kid shares one on less than 6 hours after game release (+ ESP + Rapid-fire + God Mode).
Just be cool and set them free from making their own...

 

I have to say, the game's graphics are really not that special. Most of their scenes are very empty and the lighting seems a bit off, especially in some of the outdoor scenes.

Their pre-rendered stuff looks nice, but the game really looks like it's from the early PS3 era.

Also, @WalkingDead , the game's size should not have anything to do with the game's visual quality. A game being large isn't an excuse for it to look bad. That just makes no sense. If a game dev team decides to make a large game, it's up to them to deliver high visuals across the playable area. If a dev/team doesn't acknowledge/can't do that, well then they aren't up to the task.

That could not be more false. Look at GTA V. Their map is very large, yet the game has fantastic visuals for it's time. Just Cause 2, the Forest, Dying Light and the Witcher 3 etc. all prove you wrong.

No. There are small and large game worlds that can require the same amount of processing power to handle.

 

Hopefully they implement battleye its the current gold standard for Anti Cheat