Epic Game's Fortnite PC Exclusive, First to Use UE 4

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]borderlands, while i agree that i like the style, most of what i remember is shades of brown, bullet storm, yea, forgot about that game. my point still stands, why make the graphics better if its all shades of grey and brown.[/citation]

Why not make it better?

 

[f-14]

minecraft for UE4? what's next UE4 farmville?

 

[aggroboy]

It would be hilarious if the graphics are also minecraft square blocks.

 

[acerace]

[citation][nom]badaxe2[/nom]Looking at this game though, I have a really tough time understanding why they'd choose something like this to be their first PC exclusive in years. It doesn't look like it takes advantage of the platform (or UE4) at all.[/citation]

Yeah, UE4 doesn't have physics.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Why not make it better?[/citation]

because its pointless... what is the point of making an ugly world prettier?

in all honesty, the ps3 and 360 and to a greater extent the pc have great graphical games, but most games that i like to look at tend to be games that could be put on the wii.

it may just be coincidence... but the lower the budget for a game, and the lesser the hard ware, the better the games look, instead of the bigger the budget, the more shades of grey and brown they use... really with rare exceptions, games are washed out with a color tint, instead of having vibrant worlds.

 

[Dark Comet]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]because its pointless... what is the point of making an ugly world prettier? in all honesty, the ps3 and 360 and to a greater extent the pc have great graphical games, but most games that i like to look at tend to be games that could be put on the wii. it may just be coincidence... but the lower the budget for a game, and the lesser the hard ware, the better the games look, instead of the bigger the budget, the more shades of grey and brown they use... really with rare exceptions, games are washed out with a color tint, instead of having vibrant worlds.[/citation]

It could be because high budget games developers don't take many risks and they make what they know sells (For the most part) so that's why indie developers with their lower budget take more risks to create a game that stands out to make up for the lack of high end visuals etc . It's not the case for all games though. Borderlands 2 looks great and so does the new Far Cry 3. Skyrim looked great as well.

 

[upgrade_1977]

Definately interested in this game. I love the concept!! Me and my friends used to play garry's mod, and we would take like 10 min to build forts, and then try to kill each other. So much fun. I think this is a great idea. Hopefully it is multiplayer. Either way, pretty sure i'll be buying this game when it comes out. Always nice to see developers coming up with new idea's, and two positive's, unreal 4 and pc exclusive help set the deal. Now if only they would advertise this on t.v....

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]Dark Comet[/nom]It could be because high budget games developers don't take many risks and they make what they know sells (For the most part) so that's why indie developers with their lower budget take more risks to create a game that stands out to make up for the lack of high end visuals etc . It's not the case for all games though. Borderlands 2 looks great and so does the new Far Cry 3. Skyrim looked great as well.[/citation]

if you gave me a 20 some hour long fpsrpg set in the world of candy land, i would so buy it for the novelty alone.

borderlands i will give them major credit, they were more than half way done with that game, giving it a realistic artstyle when they scrapped the real artstyle and went for the cell shaded look

skyrim has a grey brown and blue washout pallet to it, but its very minimal, ill give them credit for adding the color.

all i have seen of farcry 3 right now is trailers and some demo gameplay, so i dont want to speak for the whole game, but it seams like hallucinogenic drugs play a fairly big part of the game, so i have hopes.

its sad to me that the games that do add color to the world are usually miss handled to the point that no one wants to touch that art style, assuming that's the reason the games sold bad.

 

[Dark Comet]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]if you gave me a 20 some hour long fpsrpg set in the world of candy land, i would so buy it for the novelty alone. borderlands i will give them major credit, they were more than half way done with that game, giving it a realistic artstyle when they scrapped the real artstyle and went for the cell shaded lookskyrim has a grey brown and blue washout pallet to it, but its very minimal, ill give them credit for adding the color.all i have seen of farcry 3 right now is trailers and some demo gameplay, so i dont want to speak for the whole game, but it seams like hallucinogenic drugs play a fairly big part of the game, so i have hopes. its sad to me that the games that do add color to the world are usually miss handled to the point that no one wants to touch that art style, assuming that's the reason the games sold bad.[/citation]

I really technology to progress to a point were say a game like dead island looked almost real. An amazingly pretty colourful island in the day with realistic textures and breeze moving the palm trees. Then at night it becomes terrifying nightmare as you can hear the screams of the zombies it would go almost pitch black. As they are chasing you through the island the leaves on the trees are bending as your running through them, small rays of light pierce through the forest from the glow of moonlight so you can just about see.

I don't know if you understand what I mean (I'm bad at explaining) but if that game was made in 10 years from now just using the advanced power of PC's it would have been such a better experience.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]Dark Comet[/nom]I really technology to progress to a point were say a game like dead island looked almost real. An amazingly pretty colourful island in the day with realistic textures and breeze moving the palm trees. Then at night it becomes terrifying nightmare as you can hear the screams of the zombies it would go almost pitch black. As they are chasing you through the island the leaves on the trees are bending as your running through them, small rays of light pierce through the forest from the glow of moonlight so you can just about see. I don't know if you understand what I mean (I'm bad at explaining) but if that game was made in 10 years from now just using the advanced power of PC's it would have been such a better experience.[/citation]

i know what you mean, and i can imagine it... to an extent. but what we really need more than better graphics in that case would be a behavioral ai simulator. something so we dont see canned movements, or reactions, everything is realtime... if we had something like that controlling the zombies, you wouldn't really need to have amazing graphics.

but lets look at this in a more realistic scenario.

graphics get better and better, and this drives the cost of games up, makeing publishers even more worried about publishing something new or different, so a game like dead island never gets made...

and lets be honest, makeing a war torn area in a game is easy, so most likely we will get more military shooters, and they will be dull looking, granted, they will look great, with a flier flowing in the wind, that you can grab out of mid air if you want, open it, and read the name of a local band that was set to play before crap hit the fan in the area.

its really sad to me that with better graphics we lean more toward dull ascetics, instead of vibrant environment.

im honestly trying to think of one AAA game that stands out as not a washed out game... and i just cant... farcry 3, we havent seen enough to say that its all vibrant. borderlands 2, while it has its moments from what i seen, its still a dull pallet, again, holding judgement sense i have heard somethings the developer said, which gives me hope.

but beyond that, i cant think of one game that pushes what graphics can do without going with a washed out look... ok... one game, uncharted, and only if you play the game great, as one hit makes the whole game washed out.

its gotten to the point where im just board with graphics in games, yea they could look better, i know they could, but i just dont care because the people who make games i like the look of, they dont push the graphics at all, but make a great looking game, but the people who do push the graphics hard, are all grey and brown shooters, with crysis being the only one recently that stopped that, but even than... it has its washed out collor areas, i cant speak for 2, or for 3 in the pallet, but it really looks like its washed out, just withe the color green now, instead of grey or brown.

really what it would take for me to be facinated by graphics a pc can push again would be a AAA game with a fantacy vibe and color palet kicking CoD's butt in sales, that way people decide to coppy that color pallet instead of a military shooter for damn near every game.

sorry i got a bit ranty.

 

[internetlad]

I saw "Fortnite" "UE4" and "PC Exclusive" and thought "Hot Damn! We're going to finally be getting a real, next gen, ass-kicking FPS that will give me a reason to replace my 4870!"

Looked at the screenie, it's TF2 with zombies.

: /

 

[Cy-Kill]

When will we get Unreal III, that is built on one of their current engines!

 

[Dark Comet]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]i know what you mean, and i can imagine it... to an extent. but what we really need more than better graphics in that case would be a behavioral ai simulator. something so we dont see canned movements, or reactions, everything is realtime... if we had something like that controlling the zombies, you wouldn't really need to have amazing graphics. but lets look at this in a more realistic scenario.graphics get better and better, and this drives the cost of games up, makeing publishers even more worried about publishing something new or different, so a game like dead island never gets made...and lets be honest, makeing a war torn area in a game is easy, so most likely we will get more military shooters, and they will be dull looking, granted, they will look great, with a flier flowing in the wind, that you can grab out of mid air if you want, open it, and read the name of a local band that was set to play before crap hit the fan in the area. its really sad to me that with better graphics we lean more toward dull ascetics, instead of vibrant environment.im honestly trying to think of one AAA game that stands out as not a washed out game... and i just cant... farcry 3, we havent seen enough to say that its all vibrant. borderlands 2, while it has its moments from what i seen, its still a dull pallet, again, holding judgement sense i have heard somethings the developer said, which gives me hope. but beyond that, i cant think of one game that pushes what graphics can do without going with a washed out look... ok... one game, uncharted, and only if you play the game great, as one hit makes the whole game washed out. its gotten to the point where im just board with graphics in games, yea they could look better, i know they could, but i just dont care because the people who make games i like the look of, they dont push the graphics at all, but make a great looking game, but the people who do push the graphics hard, are all grey and brown shooters, with crysis being the only one recently that stopped that, but even than... it has its washed out collor areas, i cant speak for 2, or for 3 in the pallet, but it really looks like its washed out, just withe the color green now, instead of grey or brown. really what it would take for me to be facinated by graphics a pc can push again would be a AAA game with a fantacy vibe and color palet kicking CoD's butt in sales, that way people decide to coppy that color pallet instead of a military shooter for damn near every game. sorry i got a bit ranty.[/citation]

When it comes to graphics I'm mad crazy, I always want better. I was so impressed with Crysis back in the day. However I'm not stupid to a point where I can't enjoy a great game because of poor graphics. I'm replaying Final Fantasy 9 (PS1 game) on my Ps3 at the moment. I do enjoy really colourful vivid games though. I guess the lack of colours on alot of games is down to the atmosphere of the game and it's trying to be realistic.

As for development costs Epic say it's new engine will help bring them down next generation so we'll have to see if this is the case when developers start using it.

 

[Guest]

im really sad this is pc only i would love to play it but you know some people like me just dont have the money to go spend on a new computer to be able to play this on.. quite a shame.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]firef1ower[/nom]im really sad this is pc only i would love to play it but you know some people like me just dont have the money to go spend on a new computer to be able to play this on.. quite a shame.[/citation]

Why do you need to buy a whole new PC for it? Unless your PC is using incredibly low end hardware, it should at least be able to play a game like this at or near minimum settings. Unless you have an absolute crap processor (such as an Atom or not much better than an Atom), a $40-$60 graphics card would let you play this game, assuming you don't already have at least a very low end graphics card, albeit not at high settings and such.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]Dark Comet[/nom]When it comes to graphics I'm mad crazy, I always want better. I was so impressed with Crysis back in the day. However I'm not stupid to a point where I can't enjoy a great game because of poor graphics. I'm replaying Final Fantasy 9 (PS1 game) on my Ps3 at the moment. I do enjoy really colourful vivid games though. I guess the lack of colours on alot of games is down to the atmosphere of the game and it's trying to be realistic.As for development costs Epic say it's new engine will help bring them down next generation so we'll have to see if this is the case when developers start using it.[/citation]

only people who keep up with gaming know about that the engine is suppose to be cheaper. most people will see the game, see its graphics, and if a cost bump comes, they will take it lying down.

remember the xbox days? halo, madden, and one other game came out at 60$ with special editions. they tested the water, to see if we would accept a more expensive game. so when the next gen came around, they bumped the cost 10$

but beyond that, lucky you, i have a flaw in my ff9 disc, so i cant go more than 4 screens in the original game on disc one... and its just that one area that is failure, the rest of the disc is fine, and it has no scratch, just a flw in my disc.

and with the whole realism and atmosphere, yea i can see that, so some extent, but having a constantly washed out atmosphere just takes me away from the game, rather than lend anything to the game.

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Why do you need to buy a whole new PC for it? Unless your PC is using incredibly low end hardware, it should at least be able to play a game like this at or near minimum settings. Unless you have an absolute crap processor (such as an Atom or not much better than an Atom), a $40-$60 graphics card would let you play this game, assuming you don't already have at least a very low end graphics card, albeit not at high settings and such.[/citation]

this depends entirely on how well the game scales, and we have yet to see that demoed at all.

 

[Dark Comet]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]only people who keep up with gaming know about that the engine is suppose to be cheaper. most people will see the game, see its graphics, and if a cost bump comes, they will take it lying down. remember the xbox days? halo, madden, and one other game came out at 60$ with special editions. they tested the water, to see if we would accept a more expensive game. so when the next gen came around, they bumped the cost 10$but beyond that, lucky you, i have a flaw in my ff9 disc, so i cant go more than 4 screens in the original game on disc one... and its just that one area that is failure, the rest of the disc is fine, and it has no scratch, just a flw in my disc. and with the whole realism and atmosphere, yea i can see that, so some extent, but having a constantly washed out atmosphere just takes me away from the game, rather than lend anything to the game. this depends entirely on how well the game scales, and we have yet to see that demoed at all.[/citation]

Well I hope what Epic claim is true as it will benefit us all in the end. Also I think you can buy Final Fantasy 9 from the PSN store now.

As for Fortnite I bet we will see it on PS4 or the next Xbox as long as it does reasonably well review and sales wise.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]Dark Comet[/nom]Well I hope what Epic claim is true as it will benefit us all in the end. Also I think you can buy Final Fantasy 9 from the PSN store now. As for Fortnite I bet we will see it on PS4 or the next Xbox as long as it does reasonably well review and sales wise.[/citation]

i know but i dont want to rebuy a game i have, even if my game is a defective one.

we wont see the game on those systems, they want to show the engine off, and try to force microsoft and sonys hand at a better specs. so im really doubting we will see it there.

and my point is, even if epic games saves money from unreal 4, ea and the like will still try to force use to pay more.

 

[IndignantSkeptic]

What Epic is doing here may sort of hint at fraud having been perpetrated against everyone because their awesome looking UE4 demos were not interactive and this game is interactive but it looks worse than current generation games. This may be because the new hardware and software gaming technology is not as powerful as we've been led to believe and maybe cannot do everything so great together simultaneously such as graphics, physics, artificial intelligence etc. As you may know, in the non-interactive demos, certain things can be pre-generated such as physics and AI so those things do not need to be running at all during the demo playthrough. All the physics could be converted to keyframe animation instead if they want so that all the physics simulation could be switched off during the demo. Also there is possibly no need for the smooth transitioning level of detail tesselation feature to be active during the non-interactive demos because you rarely see the camera gradually looking closer and further away from things. That feature, if I'm not mistaken, is the main new feature for DirectX-11 level systems.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]IndignantSkeptic[/nom]What Epic is doing here may sort of hint at fraud having been perpetrated against everyone because their awesome looking UE4 demos were not interactive and this game is interactive but it looks worse than current generation games. This may be because the new hardware and software gaming technology is not as powerful as we've been led to believe and maybe cannot do everything so great together simultaneously such as graphics, physics, artificial intelligence etc. As you may know, in the non-interactive demos, certain things can be pre-generated such as physics and AI so those things do not need to be running at all during the demo playthrough. All the physics could be converted to keyframe animation instead if they want so that all the physics simulation could be switched off during the demo. Also there is possibly no need for the smooth transitioning level of detail tesselation feature to be active during the non-interactive demos because you rarely see the camera gradually looking closer and further away from things. That feature, if I'm not mistaken, is the main new feature for DirectX-11 level systems.[/citation]

Or, maybe the game either isn't finished or considering that it is related to minecraft, it isn't intended to use the UE4 engine to the fullest and simply wants to use it for the greater ease and lower cost of developing Fortnite. This is a much more likely set of scenarios, especially considering that we've already seen other demos with UE4.