It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Squeenix's new Luminous Engine(8 posts)(8 posts)
(8 posts)
Pages:
1
This is my favourite topic
Posted October 14, 2011
Caught this off RPS. Only one word to describe my thoughts: wow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=J_fbvW0RNjw
Posted October 14, 2011
Uh... okay? I mean seriously there's nothing there to suggest how good it is at all.
Posted October 14, 2011
The vast majority of PS1 games didn't look as good as the dinosaur.
Posted October 14, 2011
Here are links to some screenshots which will provide a much better idea of the engine's capabilities:

http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2011/10/Luminous-1-590x196.jpg

http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2011/10/Luminous-2-590x180.jpg

http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2011/10/Luminous-3.jpg

http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2011/10/Luminous-4-590x193.jpg

My take: It's not perfect, but it does look remarkably close.
Post edited October 14, 2011 by Expack
Posted October 14, 2011
avatar
Expack: My take: It's not perfect, but it does look remarkably close.
So it can do concrete and crates? Amazing!
Posted October 14, 2011
The lighting is amazing, no over-the-top bloom that makes everything look like crap. Looking forward to seeing more of this engine.
Posted October 14, 2011
avatar
Expack: My take: It's not perfect, but it does look remarkably close.
avatar
Navagon: So it can do concrete and crates? Amazing!
I'm guessing you think Star Trek (2009) and The Adventures of Tintin (2011) could be rendered in real-time with the same level of shading quality and complexity under DX9, right?

Also, I would like to point out that I totally agree that what Square Enix is showing doesn't prove how good the engine is in regards to actually creating a game using it!

EDIT: Qualified my statement in the first paragraph.
Post edited October 14, 2011 by Expack
Posted October 14, 2011
avatar
Expack: I'm guessing you think Star Trek (2009) and The Adventures of Tintin (2011) could be rendered with the same level of shading quality and complexity under DX9, right?

Also, I would like to point out that I totally agree that what Square Enix is showing doesn't prove how good the engine is in regards to actually creating a game using it!
What's that got to do with anything? A shitty DX11 engine might beat a shitty DX9 engine, but that's hardly an accomplishment worth acknowledging.

If I were to read a lot into the screenshots - and I've every right to do so given that this is what they've chosen to use to promote their new engine - then from what I've seen the engine doesn't bother with AA, can only handle very low poly environments and looks like it was designed for a very bland console-centric corridor shooter.

So yeah. Who cares? It might be the case that this thing is capable of more than UE or Cryengine. But this crap is a lot less convincing than the similar photo / real time images Crytek put out for Crysis 4 years ago.

If they needed more time to do something interesting with it then more time is exactly what they should have given it. This has to be the least impressive engine demo I've seen.
Pages:
1
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Squeenix's new Luminous Engine(8 posts)(8 posts)
(8 posts)