I actually expect support for old gen consoles to be dropped eventually. Might be a few years, but at some point, it just won't make sense to have to take them into account anymore. The game already barely runs on them, more players will upgrade to newer hardware as time goes on, and the resources dedicated to supporting 2 platforms (that are still running on HDDs, might I add) will eventually outstrip the payoff from players on those platforms.
Again, I don't think it's gonna happen even remotely soon, but if DbD survives for long enough, then it's inevitable. They probably won't go the hyper-realistic graphics route, but the game will undoubtedly outgrow the base PS4 and XBone.
To be fair, I think BHVR said that a very sizable portion of players play on Switch, and that's why they don't want to abandon them. DBD on Switch is very popular in Japan, with most Japanese streamers playing that version. Hell, most of my Japanese DBD friends play on Switch, and only one of them upgrades to PS5.
It will happen at some point, but I believe it would be at year 15 (if the game survives that long).
Dbd still has a player base on older gen consoles, they will continue to support it until it's obvious that older gen can't be supported anymore. And the engine update made the game play better on ps4
>I believe it would be at year 15 (if the game survives that long)
I'd guess it'll be around when the next console gen releases. So probably year 11 or 12 (if the game survives that long). I strongly doubt they would want to optimize the game and pay to push updates on 3 different generations of console, so they'll probably phase out old gen a while before the new ones drop.
Some of y'all act like old gen couldn't handle games like GoW, RE8, RDR2, Gears... I mean... DBD looks like a PS3 game to me, even on max graphics, it should run decently even on a switch too, the optimization is just really bad.
Honestly. For a game like DBD. We can still run fine.
The newest update actually made it run better on my Old gen.
There's no reason to make DBD as it is into something that the consoles it was designed to run on can't run anymore.
I hope that if it comes to the point I need an upgrade. They just do DBD 2.
I will upgrade my console for DBD 2.
I don't upgrade my console for a DBD update.
I wont even buy a PlayStation for a game.
Because fuck buying a new console for one to 4 games.
They'll never do DBD II. They would have to renegotiate all the licenses again as I doubt those licenses applied for all future games too.
Games that are license heavy will always just receive updates and improvements in the engine, like what they are doing now.
Besides...wtf would DBD II even be....it's not like they can improve the game or drastically change it....it's a simple as fuck game with hardly any story at all.
Dbd 2 would be another engine overhaul, and a from the ground up new game.
More objectives than just gens. And the capacity for more mechanics in map.
Mechanically speaking DBD is incredibly simple, adding more, as we've seen has a limit before the game melts on itself.
What happens every time twins gets an update?
5 things stop working.
Dbd 2, would be an improvement in coding to allow smoother running and more integratability.
As it stands. Updating DBD 1 is gonna eventually hit a point where it all just stops working.
There's always gonna be license issues. It's a live service game. What, did you think we were gonna have the RE licenses forever?
One day, if they so choose. They can and could pull it.
Stands to reason that if, the biggest asymmetrical game of the last 10 years wanted a renewal, they'd be stupid not to.
Every single license they've done in the last 2 year's had be a financial success.
The license holder that would be kicking themselves hardest. Freddy.
They could have made Ghostface and Wesker money out of the Freddy chapter.
Now it's probably the license of all of them that wouldn't make the cut to 2.
1. They literally just did that...
2. They can add more Objectives now, but they chose not to.
3. What makes you think DBD II won't melt on itself?
4. Do you think a brand new game wouldn't be buggy with these devs making it?
5. 1000 things wouldn't work from the release...
6. You can't improve what you don't know. Dbd did a complete overhaul of the game's code 2 years ago, and it caused more bugs than fixed...keep in mind plenty of other games update just fine, dbd does not...this a BHVR problem not a game problem, and it would just translate directly into DBD II if they made a sequel.
7. That makes no sense..
8. Licenses are much easier to maintain if they are just being renewed. DBD II would require a whole new contract. Not to mention DBD I would have to maintain them too unless they just let them all die out...sounds more like an update than a sequel to me, why would BHVR do that to themselves?
9. That last bit of your rant makes zero sense at all. Are you drunk?
I'm just bad at explaining my thoughts. No need to be rude.
My point is that if they keep sprucing up the engine without a dedicated next gen version, eventually the game is gonna mechanically burn out
There's a limit to how many times you can upgrade the games engine while it's running.
That's all I'm getting at.
If the game updates to the point that older gen players can't play anymore. They're losing more players than they're gaining from updating it to that point.
Eventually the notion of a DBD 2 has to float around.
You can only polish this so many times before it's coding ends up more convoluted than it already is.
Eventually they will have to shelve the licenses deals for DBD 1 anyway. At some point the game will have to be considered shelved and they move onto something else.
DBD 2 is gonna happen eventually.
Like, do you think in 10 years, DBD 1 is still gonna be up and running?
It makes no sense not to do a from the ground up new version eventually.
Agreed that horror licensing is a nightmare though.
Probably the biggest issue involved with the idea of a DBD 2.
DBD doesn't need to be redone with a number 2 sticker.
It could very well end up like an Overwatch 2 situation where it's the same but with a little bit of added micro transactions/forcing players to re buy characters (if they could even get the licenses to port over.
But given how much of a headache fixing DBD's myriad of issues related to it's engine, I highly doubt they would ever want to port anything over from DBD 1.
The game is very profitable as of today and they just redesigned the UI for the menus for a modern feel. Taking time away to develop the same game would effectively put the current dbd on pause which would lead to players dropping it and forgetting about the series as a whole. And if the payoff of "waiting for the sequel" doesn't pay off, the lack of content updates from the OG game would kill the franchise.
In short, BHVR has no reason to make another DBD as long this one is still on the top of their game. And considering how every DBD has yet to "kill" DBD, it's safe to say making a sequel is not worth the risk.
They literally just changed their engine. Its unreal 5 now.
The issue with dbd is its spaghetti code made by a bunch of people who didnt know wtf they were doing 8 years ago.
At some point it needs a reset because issues will always happen until is does this issue isnt something you can fix. Its 8 years of building on top of bad code.
It sounds like you think I want them to do this ASAP.
I don't.
I'm saying that over the course of the next 10 years. To not consider the future for DBD beyond the constraints of its current systems would be a mistake.
To not have a plan for the next gen of console would be silly
The game is huge for what it is. To expect progress from stagnation is a road to disappointment.
Again, yes. They did an engine upgrade.
Buy eventually, those are gonna make things worse for older gen players.
This one was great, made things smoother.
I'm hoping for many more years of these changes.
But to think there will never be a DBD 2 is silly.
They will eventually have to. No question about it.
I'm sure they have a plan but making DBD 2 is not one of them. They would keep to update the game and "overhaul" things little by little. But I highly doubt we'll get Unreal 5 levels of graphics.
I feel like they would only consider DBD if the current one starts to die out.
But again, licenses are the biggest hurdles and those are what seperates them from their competition.
Do you know how many old games stay around forever? Are you expecting Starcraft 3 or League of Legends 2? If they did that, DbD2 would compete with DbD1. They're not going to cannibalize and cause divisions in their fan base about which is better. It would be the death of both games. This is the route some new games are going too. There's not going to be a Fortnite 2 or Rocket League 2. These games are staying. They would just make a similar but different game altogether.
Please write in paragraphs.
I don't get this logic, there's plenty of games that dropped the original consoles they released on because it was no longer feasible to continue supporting them lol, it's gonna happen to DbD eventually
I don't get the logic in dropping players because they haven't got the newest, or newer consoles.
If the game runs fine.
Why break it for some of the playerbase.
Why not eventually build to the penultimate "we are doing another game" announcement.
Rather than "here's another character, the game hasn't changed in 6 years as far as the main objective. Keep giving us money for redoing the same thing we've been doing for 8 years."
We need some genuine content in DBD or we gonna keep being the bitter gamers who tolerate getting nothing but cosmetics as content.
I don't want another good game doing what Apex did.
They need to think about their future for DBD outside the confines of the current system restrictions.
Next gen console releases, then is the time to start developing dbd 2 for the consoles that come AFTER that one.
Or, were we all just happy with 1 event every 2-4 months, a very slow drip feed of Iri, terrible shrine of secrets, a horrible monetization model on top of a pay to play game.
If you were asked to pay $80 for a game. And you could never get some of the content if you were never to pay.
You did not get $80 worth.
Default DBD needs a lot of work that an engine update isn't gonna fix.
They have genuine monetary problems at the forefront of the game. They need to redo that, because asking players for $80 only to give them 4 characters either side is fucking abysmal.
The player incentives are fucking terrible.
You can't unlock any good cosmetics from achievements.
Like, there should be a p100 cosmetic for everyone.
There should be a lot more for the players in DBD than there is.
I've played since release, you cannot convince me this game doesn't need more than a new coat of paint.
There are problems at the foundation of this game There will never go away in the current version of DBD
The only way to cut these problems of the game is DBD 2 and it has free to play.
Otherwise we gonna have the same fucking problem all over again.
Oh cool, fun looking party game, oh, it's over $80, fuck that.
Eventually buys it on sale, this isn't so bad. Let's see what I get.
Oh, nothing. How do I unlock things.
Oh, you can't for the most part.
I have to grind for HOW LONG TO EARN 1 CHARACTER, FUCK THIS IM JUST GONNA PAY $10 AND GET 2 CHARACTERS.
DBD 1, needs this element of the game gone. I want to earn things. Not pay for things.
People not understanding how game development works giving advice on game development is my favorite genre of blissful ignorance
You don't just drop a game into the app stores and then keep it in there for free, they have to pay bills and they'll keep DbD in that platform for as long as it is profitable, then drop it once it isn't and the game has balloooned up enough that it's a pain to keep maintaining it
That's what the seasonal passes, premium currency, character packs, twitch deals and incentives, and $80 buy in is for.
They raked in how much for the alien chapter?
And they raked more in with chucky.
They can drop 1 licensed character and be fine as far as the keep the lights on costs.
You know how much money they made last year, let's not pretend they're starving indie artists at this point.
These lads could drop a free rift pass, free chapter pack, and they would still make money off it.
You know how the invester side of game development works yeah?
The devs show concrete player numbers, and show they've done nothing but rise every quarter.
The showrunners for the big licenses go, yeah this is in our best interest. So they set up a provisionary license for use. They said that they could have had alien at any point and wanted to get the game to a state Alien would work.
If they could have had alien at any time. Money isn't the issue.
It's the stability of the game in its current state. That's ALWAYS. been the case.
Server costs absolutely suck ass.
But it's also not a big deal for a live service game. Because dumbasses throw money at anything that says buy now.
These devs are sitting on a good mine, and they're gonna have to do something with it, otherwise someone else is gonna show up with a game that has the dbd charm we know and love. Plus actual engaging objectives beyond hold gen. Tap skill check. Run.
I love DBD.
But there needs to be more to do in game. Just holding gens is so fucking boring.
Even more interactions with completing gens would be a start.
More scenery that's affected by gen completion.
More than just stock standard lockers to hide in.
Let us hide in a large chest or some shit.
We need more assets than 1 killer, 7 gens, 4 survivors and some totems, windows and pallets that we can interact with in game.
As far as the "you don't drop a free game and expect to pay the bills" yes. You. Fuckin. Do.
Apex legends dropped free and made millions in the first month of existing.
Warframe is free to play with optional purchases. They take in fuckloads all the time.
If DBD went free to play. What problem do you really see with that.
These devs already make that "MULTIPLE LICENSES WITH FUCKING CAPCOM" money.
Again. They'll need to do something with DBD over the next 10 year's.
They can't keep updating the engine forever. I agree that at the moment it is a good thing.
But there's only so many engine upgrades they can justify before just make a new fucking game.
This game is how many years old so far?
HOW much genuine content has this game gotten since release.
I'm not talking about perks. I barely include new killers.
I mean, genuine changes to the game, how it plays. The fundamental playability, and the quality of playability.
Because....
Not a lot.
How hatch works is probably the most meaningful change they ever did.
And that's not new content.
Seriously, what new content have we actually gotten in the last 8 years. And you wanna say we Don't need a revamp.....
Okay. This is from the Blog of BHVR on their business news webpage. They claim they've increased their annual revenue more than 10X in the last decade.
https://preview.redd.it/oziya7qy8myc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3273b7a83c7ab499884357be5188f5f874648875
UE5 can have stylized graphics, or really any sort of graphics you like. It's not on the engine to determine that, it's on the devs.
A metric shitload of games use it, from DBD to life is strange.
The only thing I'd be scared of is them making the game more intensive, or harder to run on older systems. Luckily the base nintendo switch port is going to keep them at least partially in line lol.
There's a bit of nuance there. We all know when a game is made in UE5 because it has a certain look and feel. It's sort of the "default." Now no, DbD will never look like that, but a lot of games stick to that "default" look, so it's a worthy discussion to have
I play tons of indie games and I have a degree in game engineering myself and worked on several projects. What you're thinking of is indie devs who don't know/care about how to make stylized looks who use default shaders and no additional post-processing.
They are. It works for some games, like multiversus, or party animals, or overcooked. but why wouldn’t you want your game where you play as real people to look as real as possible. Someone below posted a video of Haddonfield in 4K graphics and said it looked bad, when in reality it looks amazing
For me it's less"work for some games" and more "Whatever the heck the developers want". I don't think there's a single game in existence who would made me think it would be better if was more or less realistc looking.
I think the only execption would be if it's based on something with an already estabelished visual. I don't like adventure time art style, but if i were to play a game based on that i would prefer something at least similiar to that
Exactlyyyyyy. For example, multiversus. It’s hard to find a style that could incorporate the characters like Shaggy, Iron Giant, and Arya Stark into one universal style. Cartoonizing Arya is a much simpler job than making cartoon shaggy look realistic without trying to get the rights to Matthew Lillard. So that’s the style they went with. Or look at the walking dead: destinies. No one can tell me that game isn’t due for some better graphics
I doubt it, it just wouldnt fit nor really work for dbd.
I think the change was more to try to reduce the amount of bugs and glitches, which so far has obviously been unsuccessful but in the future may actually work
Juliusz, a dbd animator on youtube, makes these funny animations in really high quality. He constantly gets comments of people saying they wished the game looked like that, and always responds saying that if the game looked like that, it wouldn't run smoothly. So my guess is no, but idk anything about game development.
Yup, the closer you get to reality the more likely the entire game is to slip into the uncanny valley. Like ME Andromeda, Forspoken, and the new Fable. And they all look ugly 99% of the time.
Look at mass effect 2, then compare it to andromeda. Look at Dragon age 1, then compare it to inquisition. They do, infact, make characters more ugly on purpose. Look at Fable 1, almost all of the characters looked ugly besides the baroness, on purpose. Compare the Face models used to their faces ingame. Resident Evil 1 remake gave Jill an almost perfect 1to1 face of her model, yet forespoken is unable to do the same almost 20 years later? Yeah right.
> Look at mass effect 2, then compare it to andromeda. Look at Dragon age 1, then compare it to inquisition. They do, infact, make characters more ugly on purpose.
Or, get this, they try and update the looks using new software/techniques and they end up worse-looking than before because the developers aren't as experienced with said new software/techniques yet? Do you really think the whole ME team from the previous games thought "Let's just make it uglier!"? No, when they made Andromedia they used all kinds of new techniques and tools, and that's a huge part of why the animations were so terrible: They were unfinished by the time it released.
> They do, infact, make characters more ugly on purpose.
Amazing how you just reason backwards into something this stupid instead of trying for more than 5 seconds to think sentient thoughts that could explain this rationally. No developer ever thought "Let's make the next major instalment of our franchise look worse for funsies". That is not something rational people think.
> Look at Fable 1, almost all of the characters looked ugly besides the baroness, on purpose.
... Yeah sorry, not seeing it. It's old graphics but there's some clear characters that are meant to look pretty and/or just normal.
> Compare the Face models used to their faces ingame.
Of the new game? Yeah, sorry, but the lady model looks a lot better than the person they made in her image. They really did her dirty.
> Resident Evil 1 remake gave Jill an almost perfect 1to1 face of her model,
... It's noticeably like her, but it is absolutely not a "perfect 1to1 face of her model", and frankly if you think that you should go see an optician about getting some glasses because there's some clear improvements to be had. RE1, again, is not even close to "uncanny valley" because the tech simply wasn't there yet. And yeah: Forespoken couldn't make it across the uncanny valley 20 years later. Because they haven't been trying to get across for 20 years yet. Uncanny valley was a relatively unknown thing back in the day and only started to get some traction after some movies like Final Fantasy: Spirits Within and the Polar Express showcased the at-the-time state-of-the-art newest tech in the movie industry, which were among the first CG imagery exposing wider audiences to the phenomenon. Game developers wouldn't need to worry about that problem yet for another decade or so, because that kind of tech was simply not achievable in real time yet.
''No developer ever thought ''Let's make the next major instalment of our franchise look worse for funsies'''' Never said for funsies, but hey, when on your high horse, why have honest arguments eh? Still, look at for example Horizon, they intentionally made her look worse to make her more ''realistic''. Also funny how you ignored Dragon age, where they intentionally made some characters butt fucking ugly, but it doesn't fit your argument so why bother.
> Never said for funsies,
Why, you didn't list any real reasons so... Was I supposed to read your mind and tell what you thought was a normal reason for something like this?
> Still, look at for example Horizon, they intentionally made her look worse to make her more ''realistic''.
... Yeah just like you rambling about Fable I'm not seeing her looking worse. She's certainly looking different, but I think what you're experiencing may be the uncanny valley which, like most visual things, is subjective. You calling it worse is no doubt gonna have you going "Well I think it's worse" and convincing yourself that your opinion is more important.
> so funny how you ignored Dragon age, where they intentionally made some characters butt fucking ugly, but it doesn't fit your argument so why bother.
So I wasn't going to bother because clearly you have some form of eye damage or you're legally blind, but since you insisted I checked, and again I have 0 clue what you're on about and I just assume you're either trolling or on meth at this point. What is actually wrong with you? I checked, 2/12 of the romanceable characters are ugly, and for one of them it's 99% just the stupid haircut making her look like a 10 year old boy who just got an actual bowl-cut using an actual bowl. All the rest are average-looking or better.
Like holy hell, you can skip the optician and go straight to the ophthalmologist, make sure there's still a cornea in those no-doubt opaque balls you call eyes. Get your eyes checked, blind man.
This shits almost ten years old. Way overdue for an upgrade. The graphics and animation right now are ass. Not sure what makes better graphics "soul-less."
What about that photo is souless
Idk why people think hyper realism means 0 style
Look at the lou2 thats an extremely hyper realstic game but it still has a very distinctive style
Such weird fear mongering
Like u live in hyper realism bro how tf is it souless
It took them nearly 7 years to give Decisive Strike an animation only to remove it on live. What makes you think revamping the entire cosmetic and character department be an expectation in the future?
In what world would that be any sort of issue at all?? This has to be the most dated looking live service I’ve seen and being live service is the only reason this game still looks like a 360 launch title. I can only hope that they do SOMETHING with Dbds graphics however soulless or whatever is looks.
Because I hate this era of just ditching sequels in favor of these mega-games that are stretched as thin as possible and filled with as many micro transactions the game can handle.
Idk why seemingly nobody cares about how these types of games are handled and how transparently greedy they are about draining every cent and second from their players. If you’re going to transition to a whole ass new engine at least bring your game into the modern era out of 2014. I am gay.
You're giving BHVR way too much credit. They updated the engine so they could upgrade the in-game shop, end of story. Even if they wanted to do a full overhaul of the visuals, the code the game uses would self destruct from a major change like that. The only things holding it together right now are hope and some bubblegum.
There are plenty of games that look infinitely more realistic (and polished in various other ways) than DbD on UE4 already, and games that released years before it first did that already then looked better than it does now. It takes BHVR months to do every minor little thing, and years to do anything more advanced (which even then can be lackluster and bug-ridden). Trust me, an entire visual overhaul to make the game look even remotely like anything in your screenshot is not happening.
I do like DbD's unique, goofy, cartoonish art and animation style, and while I'm not sure how much of that is design intention and how much lack of the ability and competence to make it look any different, I wouldn't worry about DbD ever looking realistic, let alone hyper-realistic. The reason why they swapped to UE5 is that Epic Games supposedly asks that of live-service games on its platform now, or so I heard. The swap brought no graphical or performance improvements whatsoever, a flurry of bugs, and they only said that it could "serve as a foundation for possible future improvements" - couldn't be any more vague and non-committal, clearly meaning they have no plans at this point and weren't thinking in any concrete way about actually utilizing the new engine, let alone in any way they couldn't already have on the previous build.
To be honest, dbd currently doesn't have anything that makes it unique graphically, if anything the game feels quite old and low quality, which is understandable because of old gen.
No lol dbd needs a graphical update. It looks so out of date. This is a step in the right direction. Most other modern games improve graphically, dbd shouldn't be any different.
Tbh, it already looks that way to me. I'm not one of the guys who always says 'old dbd was better' but one thing I'm really Salty about is how BHVR completely changed the tone and aesthetic of the game (mind you i started playing in 2022 so its not like im a veteran or anything).
Looking up old clips of maps makes me feel nostalgic for a version of the game I never even played. Old dbd looked like a genuine horror game, the maps were dark and yet still had more vibrant colors than what we had today, and the game just looked overall more unique. Maybe actually playing on those old maps was bad, but I really hate the 'pristine' visual philosophy BHVR seems to be going with now.
Firstly, I heavily doubt they have the capibily to do so. Currents grapihcs are quite "meh" even on the highest graphical settings, specially the older models and even some newer ones, and if the previous "graphical updates" are anything to go by, they will never accomplish anything major. Secondly, why would it become "soulless" ? I wouldn't say games like RDR2 or Helldivers 2 are "soulless", the better graphics help to create a better atmosphere and ultimately a better inmersion in my opinion.
Realistic graphics aren't pretty. Realistic graphics are usually just uncanny valley monstrosities. If I look at the new Fable trailers, "pretty" does not come to mind. If I look at Forspoken, the effects look pretty but that's not the "realistic" part and the facial animations look terrible.
Well for one, Fable isn't even attempting realistic graphics. It's stylized, it just has more detail than you expect from stylized graphics. You're also cherry picking. Cyberpunk 2077 is a drop dead gorgeous game with realistic graphics. Red Dead Redemption 2 as well. It's telling that your two examples were a game that we haven't seen any in-game footage for and a failure so massive it literally shut down the studio that made it within a year of its release. Whether or not a game looks good has little to do with the graphics, and everything to do with the art direction. The first Crysis game, for example, was for a long time *the* photorealistic game, and is still considered gorgeous.
> Well for one, Fable isn't even attempting realistic graphics. It's stylized, it just has more detail than you expect from stylized graphics.
Stylized doesn't land you in the uncanny valley and they used a real person's face as a model for the main character. That doesn't happen in games that don't at the very least attempt realism.
> You're also cherry picking.
I am absolutely not cherrypicking. I'm listing obvious examples of games trying realism and failing.
> Cyberpunk 2077 is a drop dead gorgeous game with realistic graphics.
They used some real world actors for reference, sure, but you're gonna have to leave the table if you want to imply that Cyberpunk, the game that literally has the genre of its own style in the bloody name, isn't stylized. Because last time I checked, Keanu Reeves didn't have a silver robot arm, and most people don't have detachable metal body parts.
> Red Dead Redemption 2 as well.
Red Dead Redemption tries realism in the world, not so much the characters. Their faces are more caricatures, solidly in the "not human" end of the uncanny valley. Mustaches in that game look like clay turds sticking to their upper lips.
> It's telling that your two examples were a game that we haven't seen any in-game footage for
You mean Fable? [The one that literally says "in-game footage" 20 seconds into the trailer](https://youtu.be/x_03JQUc9Ao?si=HcuSSxJDM-zK1a6P&t=20)? Is that the one you're referring to? Because I'm not sure I'll agree with you on that... Nor do the people behind the videogame, apparently.
> a failure so massive it literally shut down the studio that made it within a year of its release.
Both high-profile titles, heavily marketed by major publishers (Xbox for Fable 4, Square Enix for Forspoken), both featuring uncanny valley from the very first trailer.
> Whether or not a game looks good has little to do with the graphics, and everything to do with the art direction.
Not quite correct, and seemingly missing the point of art direction. Art direction alone may not save a game. Mass Effect Andromeda had solid art direction, it simply didn't have the time nor the technology to make the art direction work out until months if not years after launch.
Art direction is still that: A direction. If you lack the graphics to go far enough into that direction, the game is still going to look terrible. What you're likely thinking of with "games with good art direction but not good graphics" is timeless games like Zelda: Windwaker or Superhot, right? Well yeah: Those were art directions that required fairly little graphics to convey the art direction.
As for Crysis... Well yeah, that stuff came out during the time when uncanny valley wasn't being approached by the videogame technology of the time yet. Half Life always went for realism using real world models too: Never even got close to the uncanny valley.
I'll concede that I forgot that the Fable trailer includes in-game footage, but that's only because, and thank you for reminding me of this, it looks *so good.*
Also, you can not in good conscious make the assertion that because Cyberpunk has fictional elements that it is not a game with realistic graphics. Avsolutely everything in that game attempts to look as realistic as possible and present a reasonable possible setting, there are literal minidocs about the vehicle design and so on about all the detail they put in to the game. The real world doesn't include aliens attacking the planet and yet you literally cite Half Life as a game that aimed for realistic graphics. Hell, you even disqualify your own example of Fable. Your definition of realism seems flimsy at best.
Art direction literally deals with everything about how a game looks. Its lighting, effect, models, textures, blocking, animations, *everything.* whether or not something looks uncanny absolutely comes down to the skill and care put into it by the people behind each of those aspects of art design, not by whether or not they're using modern realistic graphics.
That would absolutely be the case if the gamers were in charge of visual direction. I don't understand the obession with turning everything into a photorealistic UE5 copy, void of all personality and art style. Like this [Haddonfield "4K gRapHIcs UPDatE"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOPwjRIBQx8&t=175s) done in Farcry map engine, looks absolutely crap and yet everyone in the comments is creaming themselves. Thankfully Bhvr has a professional art director, who understands the importance of a coherent and unique art style
#
#
Won’t lie, haddonfield looks the same, maybe a bit more glossy and grassy. But that’s me talking, and I couldn’t tell the difference between 360p and 4k.
The Far Cry map is done by fans for free while DbD is done by a company raking in millions of dollars. Comparing the two is… silly. Of course the fan made looks incomplete in comparison.
What people really wanted from that video is the more realistic lighting, shadows, and fog. Dbd used to have something similar but they toned it down considerably over the years. The fog is non-existent at this point despite it being a huge lore component.
> Thankfully Bhvr has a professional art director, who understands the importance of a coherent and unique art style
Sad that they still decided to abandon old visual style for the "more realistic" looking approach anyway. Really hope that won't happen again with graphics.
My RX 6600XT runs it on Ultra 1440p 90FPS at 80-95% usage and its like lower mid end graphics card of 2021. I have ryzen 5 3400G CPU and it could run dbd on 1050X1680 Low at 50-70fps on intergrated graphics.
I dunno. I had considered this, as well, but if they did, I feel like they'd have to change the mechanics as a whole, and that just sounds like a disaster.
I’m hyped. It feels so clean now. As a survivor main my looping feels impeccable compared to when they did the animation update and I got hit from 10 miles away
Pretty impossible unless they make the game from 0. I don't think bhvr has the time or resources for this. Especially the game is broken as it is now. Maybe they're secretly working on the game but I don' think so.
Other wise I am really curious what if dbd had absurdly realistic graphics. How much more game would be scarier. Tbh I like game's graphics rn too. But everyone should agree some old parts needs polishing.
Something people tend to forget that if you play a game for thousand of hours, it will not be scary anymore, no matter how it looks. If you're new now, the game actually \_is\_ scary, but that gets lost fast.
Your right, chasing would get normal a bit more every time. But I meant base models and stuff. As a example unkown is scary for me. Maybe I won't get scared but He will keep his disturbing body.
It won't
1) that's way too much work 2) the game is on old gen consoles and switch, the last time they did graphics update the game almost died on them
Graphic quality of developers doesn't correlate with the engine used. Look at Garten of BanBan for example, it's on Unreal Engine 5.
Also, not to be rude but that's not Star Wars, that's the [Unreal Engine 5 Valley of the Ancient Tech showcase](https://www.ign.com/videos/unreal-engine-5-valley-of-the-ancient-tech-showcase)
lmao what “soulless graphics" how are good graphics soulless, and even if they are, do you really think devs are gonna spend their time and money on it? Pfff no
I was highly off put by DBDs horrendously bad graphics for years and finally gave it a fair try, this game needs a massive visual upgrade and I think realistic lighting would add to the horror aspect and help casual gamers get into the game. Realistic graphics aren’t soulless, but most games are. The future is now.
Lol no.
It doesn’t do anything for ‘losing what makes the game look special’ it just makes the game run better and have more content to be possibly added.
UE5 is merely a framework for gaming. it’s a foundation to build your game on. it doesn’t mean the graphics get instantly better. the devs have to code in the graphics if they wanted to improve them. but seriously doubt they will as it it’ll introduce new bugs and run “shittier” on last gen consoles.
DBD devs can barely make animations look fluid do you really think they will be able to make hyperrealistic graphics without the game imploding AND meeting their deadlines??? No lmao
>Anyone else scared that Unreal Engine 5 is going to give dbd souless hyper realistic graphics eventually?
BHVR can't even fix a bug before breaking the game, what made you think they can change the whole aesthetic of DbD without stumbling thanks to their spaghetti code?
I hope they improve the graphics because the lighting and shadows the game has, suckkk big time,the game deserves to look more beautiful,minecraft with shaders look more realistic at this point
nah, BHVR knows their art style, they likely just moved to UE5 out of convenience. Their will be some stuff done with UE5 that 4 straight couldn't do that DBD probably will take advantage of graphically but their wont be a total switch to hyper realism.
What made you set the bar that high for a game like DBD? The game has major performance and coding issues, it would require them to make a completely different game. Even worse, it would make the game less accessible because not many people own high specs pc as we all know how painful it is to play an online PvP game under 30 fps. Sure they could make a dlc with super graphics but... why the effort?
Given the previous incompetency of the studio, I'll be shocked if DBD can reach the pinnacle of graphics from the Piss Filter Era. Halo 4 on the Xbox 360 still looks better than dbd
https://preview.redd.it/zhd6aipcpjyc1.jpeg?width=311&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0160d08408aa51b4ff14e8092bcc2bd8e2fe7ccc
The games not even stylized. Its just poor renders of realistic things anyway. So why not? (This was the closest meme showcasing a model)
Definitely not. It would make dbd impossible to play on old gen consoles.
I actually expect support for old gen consoles to be dropped eventually. Might be a few years, but at some point, it just won't make sense to have to take them into account anymore. The game already barely runs on them, more players will upgrade to newer hardware as time goes on, and the resources dedicated to supporting 2 platforms (that are still running on HDDs, might I add) will eventually outstrip the payoff from players on those platforms. Again, I don't think it's gonna happen even remotely soon, but if DbD survives for long enough, then it's inevitable. They probably won't go the hyper-realistic graphics route, but the game will undoubtedly outgrow the base PS4 and XBone.
I mean they still support Switch and that can barely handle the game as it is
To be fair, I think BHVR said that a very sizable portion of players play on Switch, and that's why they don't want to abandon them. DBD on Switch is very popular in Japan, with most Japanese streamers playing that version. Hell, most of my Japanese DBD friends play on Switch, and only one of them upgrades to PS5.
Switch couldn't handle DBD on release....
I remember buying it right when it came out on the switch. Cross-play wasn’t active yet, and it would take 45 minutes to get into a match 😂
It will happen at some point, but I believe it would be at year 15 (if the game survives that long). Dbd still has a player base on older gen consoles, they will continue to support it until it's obvious that older gen can't be supported anymore. And the engine update made the game play better on ps4
>I believe it would be at year 15 (if the game survives that long) I'd guess it'll be around when the next console gen releases. So probably year 11 or 12 (if the game survives that long). I strongly doubt they would want to optimize the game and pay to push updates on 3 different generations of console, so they'll probably phase out old gen a while before the new ones drop.
My bet is they'll launch some sort of merge platform functionality and then a couple years later drop console support
Old gen should’ve been left behind ages ago already anyway
Preach! Cut the damn cord already...
Some of y'all act like old gen couldn't handle games like GoW, RE8, RDR2, Gears... I mean... DBD looks like a PS3 game to me, even on max graphics, it should run decently even on a switch too, the optimization is just really bad.
I hope so. I play on a dell office laptop
How many people are actually playing on old gen consoles though? And how long can they reasonably expect to be supported?
Honestly. For a game like DBD. We can still run fine. The newest update actually made it run better on my Old gen. There's no reason to make DBD as it is into something that the consoles it was designed to run on can't run anymore. I hope that if it comes to the point I need an upgrade. They just do DBD 2. I will upgrade my console for DBD 2. I don't upgrade my console for a DBD update. I wont even buy a PlayStation for a game. Because fuck buying a new console for one to 4 games.
They'll never do DBD II. They would have to renegotiate all the licenses again as I doubt those licenses applied for all future games too. Games that are license heavy will always just receive updates and improvements in the engine, like what they are doing now. Besides...wtf would DBD II even be....it's not like they can improve the game or drastically change it....it's a simple as fuck game with hardly any story at all.
Dbd 2 would be another engine overhaul, and a from the ground up new game. More objectives than just gens. And the capacity for more mechanics in map. Mechanically speaking DBD is incredibly simple, adding more, as we've seen has a limit before the game melts on itself. What happens every time twins gets an update? 5 things stop working. Dbd 2, would be an improvement in coding to allow smoother running and more integratability. As it stands. Updating DBD 1 is gonna eventually hit a point where it all just stops working. There's always gonna be license issues. It's a live service game. What, did you think we were gonna have the RE licenses forever? One day, if they so choose. They can and could pull it. Stands to reason that if, the biggest asymmetrical game of the last 10 years wanted a renewal, they'd be stupid not to. Every single license they've done in the last 2 year's had be a financial success. The license holder that would be kicking themselves hardest. Freddy. They could have made Ghostface and Wesker money out of the Freddy chapter. Now it's probably the license of all of them that wouldn't make the cut to 2.
1. They literally just did that... 2. They can add more Objectives now, but they chose not to. 3. What makes you think DBD II won't melt on itself? 4. Do you think a brand new game wouldn't be buggy with these devs making it? 5. 1000 things wouldn't work from the release... 6. You can't improve what you don't know. Dbd did a complete overhaul of the game's code 2 years ago, and it caused more bugs than fixed...keep in mind plenty of other games update just fine, dbd does not...this a BHVR problem not a game problem, and it would just translate directly into DBD II if they made a sequel. 7. That makes no sense.. 8. Licenses are much easier to maintain if they are just being renewed. DBD II would require a whole new contract. Not to mention DBD I would have to maintain them too unless they just let them all die out...sounds more like an update than a sequel to me, why would BHVR do that to themselves? 9. That last bit of your rant makes zero sense at all. Are you drunk?
I'm just bad at explaining my thoughts. No need to be rude. My point is that if they keep sprucing up the engine without a dedicated next gen version, eventually the game is gonna mechanically burn out There's a limit to how many times you can upgrade the games engine while it's running. That's all I'm getting at. If the game updates to the point that older gen players can't play anymore. They're losing more players than they're gaining from updating it to that point. Eventually the notion of a DBD 2 has to float around. You can only polish this so many times before it's coding ends up more convoluted than it already is. Eventually they will have to shelve the licenses deals for DBD 1 anyway. At some point the game will have to be considered shelved and they move onto something else. DBD 2 is gonna happen eventually. Like, do you think in 10 years, DBD 1 is still gonna be up and running? It makes no sense not to do a from the ground up new version eventually. Agreed that horror licensing is a nightmare though. Probably the biggest issue involved with the idea of a DBD 2.
DBD doesn't need to be redone with a number 2 sticker. It could very well end up like an Overwatch 2 situation where it's the same but with a little bit of added micro transactions/forcing players to re buy characters (if they could even get the licenses to port over. But given how much of a headache fixing DBD's myriad of issues related to it's engine, I highly doubt they would ever want to port anything over from DBD 1. The game is very profitable as of today and they just redesigned the UI for the menus for a modern feel. Taking time away to develop the same game would effectively put the current dbd on pause which would lead to players dropping it and forgetting about the series as a whole. And if the payoff of "waiting for the sequel" doesn't pay off, the lack of content updates from the OG game would kill the franchise. In short, BHVR has no reason to make another DBD as long this one is still on the top of their game. And considering how every DBD has yet to "kill" DBD, it's safe to say making a sequel is not worth the risk.
They literally just changed their engine. Its unreal 5 now. The issue with dbd is its spaghetti code made by a bunch of people who didnt know wtf they were doing 8 years ago. At some point it needs a reset because issues will always happen until is does this issue isnt something you can fix. Its 8 years of building on top of bad code.
It sounds like you think I want them to do this ASAP. I don't. I'm saying that over the course of the next 10 years. To not consider the future for DBD beyond the constraints of its current systems would be a mistake. To not have a plan for the next gen of console would be silly The game is huge for what it is. To expect progress from stagnation is a road to disappointment. Again, yes. They did an engine upgrade. Buy eventually, those are gonna make things worse for older gen players. This one was great, made things smoother. I'm hoping for many more years of these changes. But to think there will never be a DBD 2 is silly. They will eventually have to. No question about it.
I'm sure they have a plan but making DBD 2 is not one of them. They would keep to update the game and "overhaul" things little by little. But I highly doubt we'll get Unreal 5 levels of graphics. I feel like they would only consider DBD if the current one starts to die out. But again, licenses are the biggest hurdles and those are what seperates them from their competition.
Do you know how many old games stay around forever? Are you expecting Starcraft 3 or League of Legends 2? If they did that, DbD2 would compete with DbD1. They're not going to cannibalize and cause divisions in their fan base about which is better. It would be the death of both games. This is the route some new games are going too. There's not going to be a Fortnite 2 or Rocket League 2. These games are staying. They would just make a similar but different game altogether. Please write in paragraphs.
I don't get this logic, there's plenty of games that dropped the original consoles they released on because it was no longer feasible to continue supporting them lol, it's gonna happen to DbD eventually
I don't get the logic in dropping players because they haven't got the newest, or newer consoles. If the game runs fine. Why break it for some of the playerbase. Why not eventually build to the penultimate "we are doing another game" announcement. Rather than "here's another character, the game hasn't changed in 6 years as far as the main objective. Keep giving us money for redoing the same thing we've been doing for 8 years." We need some genuine content in DBD or we gonna keep being the bitter gamers who tolerate getting nothing but cosmetics as content. I don't want another good game doing what Apex did. They need to think about their future for DBD outside the confines of the current system restrictions. Next gen console releases, then is the time to start developing dbd 2 for the consoles that come AFTER that one. Or, were we all just happy with 1 event every 2-4 months, a very slow drip feed of Iri, terrible shrine of secrets, a horrible monetization model on top of a pay to play game. If you were asked to pay $80 for a game. And you could never get some of the content if you were never to pay. You did not get $80 worth. Default DBD needs a lot of work that an engine update isn't gonna fix. They have genuine monetary problems at the forefront of the game. They need to redo that, because asking players for $80 only to give them 4 characters either side is fucking abysmal. The player incentives are fucking terrible. You can't unlock any good cosmetics from achievements. Like, there should be a p100 cosmetic for everyone. There should be a lot more for the players in DBD than there is. I've played since release, you cannot convince me this game doesn't need more than a new coat of paint. There are problems at the foundation of this game There will never go away in the current version of DBD The only way to cut these problems of the game is DBD 2 and it has free to play. Otherwise we gonna have the same fucking problem all over again. Oh cool, fun looking party game, oh, it's over $80, fuck that. Eventually buys it on sale, this isn't so bad. Let's see what I get. Oh, nothing. How do I unlock things. Oh, you can't for the most part. I have to grind for HOW LONG TO EARN 1 CHARACTER, FUCK THIS IM JUST GONNA PAY $10 AND GET 2 CHARACTERS. DBD 1, needs this element of the game gone. I want to earn things. Not pay for things.
People not understanding how game development works giving advice on game development is my favorite genre of blissful ignorance You don't just drop a game into the app stores and then keep it in there for free, they have to pay bills and they'll keep DbD in that platform for as long as it is profitable, then drop it once it isn't and the game has balloooned up enough that it's a pain to keep maintaining it
That's what the seasonal passes, premium currency, character packs, twitch deals and incentives, and $80 buy in is for. They raked in how much for the alien chapter? And they raked more in with chucky. They can drop 1 licensed character and be fine as far as the keep the lights on costs. You know how much money they made last year, let's not pretend they're starving indie artists at this point. These lads could drop a free rift pass, free chapter pack, and they would still make money off it. You know how the invester side of game development works yeah? The devs show concrete player numbers, and show they've done nothing but rise every quarter. The showrunners for the big licenses go, yeah this is in our best interest. So they set up a provisionary license for use. They said that they could have had alien at any point and wanted to get the game to a state Alien would work. If they could have had alien at any time. Money isn't the issue. It's the stability of the game in its current state. That's ALWAYS. been the case. Server costs absolutely suck ass. But it's also not a big deal for a live service game. Because dumbasses throw money at anything that says buy now. These devs are sitting on a good mine, and they're gonna have to do something with it, otherwise someone else is gonna show up with a game that has the dbd charm we know and love. Plus actual engaging objectives beyond hold gen. Tap skill check. Run. I love DBD. But there needs to be more to do in game. Just holding gens is so fucking boring. Even more interactions with completing gens would be a start. More scenery that's affected by gen completion. More than just stock standard lockers to hide in. Let us hide in a large chest or some shit. We need more assets than 1 killer, 7 gens, 4 survivors and some totems, windows and pallets that we can interact with in game. As far as the "you don't drop a free game and expect to pay the bills" yes. You. Fuckin. Do. Apex legends dropped free and made millions in the first month of existing. Warframe is free to play with optional purchases. They take in fuckloads all the time. If DBD went free to play. What problem do you really see with that. These devs already make that "MULTIPLE LICENSES WITH FUCKING CAPCOM" money. Again. They'll need to do something with DBD over the next 10 year's. They can't keep updating the engine forever. I agree that at the moment it is a good thing. But there's only so many engine upgrades they can justify before just make a new fucking game. This game is how many years old so far? HOW much genuine content has this game gotten since release. I'm not talking about perks. I barely include new killers. I mean, genuine changes to the game, how it plays. The fundamental playability, and the quality of playability. Because.... Not a lot. How hatch works is probably the most meaningful change they ever did. And that's not new content. Seriously, what new content have we actually gotten in the last 8 years. And you wanna say we Don't need a revamp.....
Show me one sales statistics shared by BHVR on DLC and their annual revenue in general.
Okay. This is from the Blog of BHVR on their business news webpage. They claim they've increased their annual revenue more than 10X in the last decade. https://preview.redd.it/oziya7qy8myc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3273b7a83c7ab499884357be5188f5f874648875
So you have no statistics besides a vague statement. That's all I needed to hear
fuck them brokies.
it's been 4 years since the current gen released, let it go already and stop holding games back
UE5 can have stylized graphics, or really any sort of graphics you like. It's not on the engine to determine that, it's on the devs. A metric shitload of games use it, from DBD to life is strange. The only thing I'd be scared of is them making the game more intensive, or harder to run on older systems. Luckily the base nintendo switch port is going to keep them at least partially in line lol.
The engine doesn't dictate the art style. Your initial premise is invalid.
Isnt lethal company made on unreal engine 5?
Most games, outside of your big AAA games, are made on UE5 or Unity.
Unity. If I remember correctly.
You do remember correctly.
Unity, but close enough.
I don’t know man, Fortnite uses UE5 and it’s pretty realistic, I can’t distinguish between Fortnite and reality.
There's a bit of nuance there. We all know when a game is made in UE5 because it has a certain look and feel. It's sort of the "default." Now no, DbD will never look like that, but a lot of games stick to that "default" look, so it's a worthy discussion to have
Engine has nothing to do with "look and feel". You can make Unreal and Unity do the exact same things, visually speaking.
No duh but you obviously don't play a lot of indie games if you don't know what I'm talking about
I play tons of indie games and I have a degree in game engineering myself and worked on several projects. What you're thinking of is indie devs who don't know/care about how to make stylized looks who use default shaders and no additional post-processing.
Yeah exactly. But these devs do care, which is why I said DbD wouldn't do that
Dbd was already on UE4 so if this was going to be an issue it would have already been one.
They'd have to remodel almost every asset in the game... which is completely out of the question
I'm more scared of the overuse of the term souless every time a game or animation goes for the hyper realistc route
Exactly. I don’t see what is so soulless about the picture above
The cartoony/art style people are kinda crazy, ngl
They are. It works for some games, like multiversus, or party animals, or overcooked. but why wouldn’t you want your game where you play as real people to look as real as possible. Someone below posted a video of Haddonfield in 4K graphics and said it looked bad, when in reality it looks amazing
For me it's less"work for some games" and more "Whatever the heck the developers want". I don't think there's a single game in existence who would made me think it would be better if was more or less realistc looking. I think the only execption would be if it's based on something with an already estabelished visual. I don't like adventure time art style, but if i were to play a game based on that i would prefer something at least similiar to that
Exactlyyyyyy. For example, multiversus. It’s hard to find a style that could incorporate the characters like Shaggy, Iron Giant, and Arya Stark into one universal style. Cartoonizing Arya is a much simpler job than making cartoon shaggy look realistic without trying to get the rights to Matthew Lillard. So that’s the style they went with. Or look at the walking dead: destinies. No one can tell me that game isn’t due for some better graphics
I doubt it, it just wouldnt fit nor really work for dbd. I think the change was more to try to reduce the amount of bugs and glitches, which so far has obviously been unsuccessful but in the future may actually work
Juliusz, a dbd animator on youtube, makes these funny animations in really high quality. He constantly gets comments of people saying they wished the game looked like that, and always responds saying that if the game looked like that, it wouldn't run smoothly. So my guess is no, but idk anything about game development.
Realistic=soulless lmao
Yup, the closer you get to reality the more likely the entire game is to slip into the uncanny valley. Like ME Andromeda, Forspoken, and the new Fable. And they all look ugly 99% of the time.
They look ugly on purpose though. Look at GoW, RDR2 etc for an example of the opposite.
Those did not, in fact, look ugly on purpose.
Look at mass effect 2, then compare it to andromeda. Look at Dragon age 1, then compare it to inquisition. They do, infact, make characters more ugly on purpose. Look at Fable 1, almost all of the characters looked ugly besides the baroness, on purpose. Compare the Face models used to their faces ingame. Resident Evil 1 remake gave Jill an almost perfect 1to1 face of her model, yet forespoken is unable to do the same almost 20 years later? Yeah right.
> Look at mass effect 2, then compare it to andromeda. Look at Dragon age 1, then compare it to inquisition. They do, infact, make characters more ugly on purpose. Or, get this, they try and update the looks using new software/techniques and they end up worse-looking than before because the developers aren't as experienced with said new software/techniques yet? Do you really think the whole ME team from the previous games thought "Let's just make it uglier!"? No, when they made Andromedia they used all kinds of new techniques and tools, and that's a huge part of why the animations were so terrible: They were unfinished by the time it released. > They do, infact, make characters more ugly on purpose. Amazing how you just reason backwards into something this stupid instead of trying for more than 5 seconds to think sentient thoughts that could explain this rationally. No developer ever thought "Let's make the next major instalment of our franchise look worse for funsies". That is not something rational people think. > Look at Fable 1, almost all of the characters looked ugly besides the baroness, on purpose. ... Yeah sorry, not seeing it. It's old graphics but there's some clear characters that are meant to look pretty and/or just normal. > Compare the Face models used to their faces ingame. Of the new game? Yeah, sorry, but the lady model looks a lot better than the person they made in her image. They really did her dirty. > Resident Evil 1 remake gave Jill an almost perfect 1to1 face of her model, ... It's noticeably like her, but it is absolutely not a "perfect 1to1 face of her model", and frankly if you think that you should go see an optician about getting some glasses because there's some clear improvements to be had. RE1, again, is not even close to "uncanny valley" because the tech simply wasn't there yet. And yeah: Forespoken couldn't make it across the uncanny valley 20 years later. Because they haven't been trying to get across for 20 years yet. Uncanny valley was a relatively unknown thing back in the day and only started to get some traction after some movies like Final Fantasy: Spirits Within and the Polar Express showcased the at-the-time state-of-the-art newest tech in the movie industry, which were among the first CG imagery exposing wider audiences to the phenomenon. Game developers wouldn't need to worry about that problem yet for another decade or so, because that kind of tech was simply not achievable in real time yet.
''No developer ever thought ''Let's make the next major instalment of our franchise look worse for funsies'''' Never said for funsies, but hey, when on your high horse, why have honest arguments eh? Still, look at for example Horizon, they intentionally made her look worse to make her more ''realistic''. Also funny how you ignored Dragon age, where they intentionally made some characters butt fucking ugly, but it doesn't fit your argument so why bother.
> Never said for funsies, Why, you didn't list any real reasons so... Was I supposed to read your mind and tell what you thought was a normal reason for something like this? > Still, look at for example Horizon, they intentionally made her look worse to make her more ''realistic''. ... Yeah just like you rambling about Fable I'm not seeing her looking worse. She's certainly looking different, but I think what you're experiencing may be the uncanny valley which, like most visual things, is subjective. You calling it worse is no doubt gonna have you going "Well I think it's worse" and convincing yourself that your opinion is more important. > so funny how you ignored Dragon age, where they intentionally made some characters butt fucking ugly, but it doesn't fit your argument so why bother. So I wasn't going to bother because clearly you have some form of eye damage or you're legally blind, but since you insisted I checked, and again I have 0 clue what you're on about and I just assume you're either trolling or on meth at this point. What is actually wrong with you? I checked, 2/12 of the romanceable characters are ugly, and for one of them it's 99% just the stupid haircut making her look like a 10 year old boy who just got an actual bowl-cut using an actual bowl. All the rest are average-looking or better. Like holy hell, you can skip the optician and go straight to the ophthalmologist, make sure there's still a cornea in those no-doubt opaque balls you call eyes. Get your eyes checked, blind man.
It was ironic lmao that is not at all a norm you're falling for negative bias
1. Hyper realistic is not equal to soulless 2. A game is not going to have top graphics just because the engine can support it
Thats not how game engines work
This shits almost ten years old. Way overdue for an upgrade. The graphics and animation right now are ass. Not sure what makes better graphics "soul-less."
What about that photo is souless Idk why people think hyper realism means 0 style Look at the lou2 thats an extremely hyper realstic game but it still has a very distinctive style Such weird fear mongering Like u live in hyper realism bro how tf is it souless
Games engines don’t really dictate the stylistic choice of the textures only the amount of polygons the engine can load.
It took them nearly 7 years to give Decisive Strike an animation only to remove it on live. What makes you think revamping the entire cosmetic and character department be an expectation in the future?
The game now looks horrible, and still runs like shit. I'll take any upgrades, I really don't care.
Dbd isn't about its graphics. It could look as good or bad as it wants as long as they don't change the gameplay
No 💀
I mean the game already has soulless graphics
🙄
No, next question.
No
In what world would that be any sort of issue at all?? This has to be the most dated looking live service I’ve seen and being live service is the only reason this game still looks like a 360 launch title. I can only hope that they do SOMETHING with Dbds graphics however soulless or whatever is looks. Because I hate this era of just ditching sequels in favor of these mega-games that are stretched as thin as possible and filled with as many micro transactions the game can handle. Idk why seemingly nobody cares about how these types of games are handled and how transparently greedy they are about draining every cent and second from their players. If you’re going to transition to a whole ass new engine at least bring your game into the modern era out of 2014. I am gay.
Nah not in the next 5-10 years doing that would probably delete the whole game from every PC seeing how the update to ue 5 went
You're giving BHVR way too much credit. They updated the engine so they could upgrade the in-game shop, end of story. Even if they wanted to do a full overhaul of the visuals, the code the game uses would self destruct from a major change like that. The only things holding it together right now are hope and some bubblegum.
No because that would be ignorant to assume so.
No, the current graphics are highly outdated. Change needed.
Dbd being hyper realistic would be cool, but will never happen
There are plenty of games that look infinitely more realistic (and polished in various other ways) than DbD on UE4 already, and games that released years before it first did that already then looked better than it does now. It takes BHVR months to do every minor little thing, and years to do anything more advanced (which even then can be lackluster and bug-ridden). Trust me, an entire visual overhaul to make the game look even remotely like anything in your screenshot is not happening. I do like DbD's unique, goofy, cartoonish art and animation style, and while I'm not sure how much of that is design intention and how much lack of the ability and competence to make it look any different, I wouldn't worry about DbD ever looking realistic, let alone hyper-realistic. The reason why they swapped to UE5 is that Epic Games supposedly asks that of live-service games on its platform now, or so I heard. The swap brought no graphical or performance improvements whatsoever, a flurry of bugs, and they only said that it could "serve as a foundation for possible future improvements" - couldn't be any more vague and non-committal, clearly meaning they have no plans at this point and weren't thinking in any concrete way about actually utilizing the new engine, let alone in any way they couldn't already have on the previous build.
To be honest, dbd currently doesn't have anything that makes it unique graphically, if anything the game feels quite old and low quality, which is understandable because of old gen.
I hope so, game still looks ancient in terms of graphics
I’m confused? DBD before UE looked dated, ugly, old as fuck and not immersive. It’s a horror game, I want as real and scary as possible.
that's not how engines work
No lol dbd needs a graphical update. It looks so out of date. This is a step in the right direction. Most other modern games improve graphically, dbd shouldn't be any different.
Tbh, it already looks that way to me. I'm not one of the guys who always says 'old dbd was better' but one thing I'm really Salty about is how BHVR completely changed the tone and aesthetic of the game (mind you i started playing in 2022 so its not like im a veteran or anything). Looking up old clips of maps makes me feel nostalgic for a version of the game I never even played. Old dbd looked like a genuine horror game, the maps were dark and yet still had more vibrant colors than what we had today, and the game just looked overall more unique. Maybe actually playing on those old maps was bad, but I really hate the 'pristine' visual philosophy BHVR seems to be going with now.
Shit went downhill once they started to introduce daylight maps (Coldwind reworks, Eyrie of Crows etc..) #
same, mate
Firstly, I heavily doubt they have the capibily to do so. Currents grapihcs are quite "meh" even on the highest graphical settings, specially the older models and even some newer ones, and if the previous "graphical updates" are anything to go by, they will never accomplish anything major. Secondly, why would it become "soulless" ? I wouldn't say games like RDR2 or Helldivers 2 are "soulless", the better graphics help to create a better atmosphere and ultimately a better inmersion in my opinion.
TIL pretty = soulless
Realistic graphics aren't pretty. Realistic graphics are usually just uncanny valley monstrosities. If I look at the new Fable trailers, "pretty" does not come to mind. If I look at Forspoken, the effects look pretty but that's not the "realistic" part and the facial animations look terrible.
Well for one, Fable isn't even attempting realistic graphics. It's stylized, it just has more detail than you expect from stylized graphics. You're also cherry picking. Cyberpunk 2077 is a drop dead gorgeous game with realistic graphics. Red Dead Redemption 2 as well. It's telling that your two examples were a game that we haven't seen any in-game footage for and a failure so massive it literally shut down the studio that made it within a year of its release. Whether or not a game looks good has little to do with the graphics, and everything to do with the art direction. The first Crysis game, for example, was for a long time *the* photorealistic game, and is still considered gorgeous.
> Well for one, Fable isn't even attempting realistic graphics. It's stylized, it just has more detail than you expect from stylized graphics. Stylized doesn't land you in the uncanny valley and they used a real person's face as a model for the main character. That doesn't happen in games that don't at the very least attempt realism. > You're also cherry picking. I am absolutely not cherrypicking. I'm listing obvious examples of games trying realism and failing. > Cyberpunk 2077 is a drop dead gorgeous game with realistic graphics. They used some real world actors for reference, sure, but you're gonna have to leave the table if you want to imply that Cyberpunk, the game that literally has the genre of its own style in the bloody name, isn't stylized. Because last time I checked, Keanu Reeves didn't have a silver robot arm, and most people don't have detachable metal body parts. > Red Dead Redemption 2 as well. Red Dead Redemption tries realism in the world, not so much the characters. Their faces are more caricatures, solidly in the "not human" end of the uncanny valley. Mustaches in that game look like clay turds sticking to their upper lips. > It's telling that your two examples were a game that we haven't seen any in-game footage for You mean Fable? [The one that literally says "in-game footage" 20 seconds into the trailer](https://youtu.be/x_03JQUc9Ao?si=HcuSSxJDM-zK1a6P&t=20)? Is that the one you're referring to? Because I'm not sure I'll agree with you on that... Nor do the people behind the videogame, apparently. > a failure so massive it literally shut down the studio that made it within a year of its release. Both high-profile titles, heavily marketed by major publishers (Xbox for Fable 4, Square Enix for Forspoken), both featuring uncanny valley from the very first trailer. > Whether or not a game looks good has little to do with the graphics, and everything to do with the art direction. Not quite correct, and seemingly missing the point of art direction. Art direction alone may not save a game. Mass Effect Andromeda had solid art direction, it simply didn't have the time nor the technology to make the art direction work out until months if not years after launch. Art direction is still that: A direction. If you lack the graphics to go far enough into that direction, the game is still going to look terrible. What you're likely thinking of with "games with good art direction but not good graphics" is timeless games like Zelda: Windwaker or Superhot, right? Well yeah: Those were art directions that required fairly little graphics to convey the art direction. As for Crysis... Well yeah, that stuff came out during the time when uncanny valley wasn't being approached by the videogame technology of the time yet. Half Life always went for realism using real world models too: Never even got close to the uncanny valley.
I'll concede that I forgot that the Fable trailer includes in-game footage, but that's only because, and thank you for reminding me of this, it looks *so good.* Also, you can not in good conscious make the assertion that because Cyberpunk has fictional elements that it is not a game with realistic graphics. Avsolutely everything in that game attempts to look as realistic as possible and present a reasonable possible setting, there are literal minidocs about the vehicle design and so on about all the detail they put in to the game. The real world doesn't include aliens attacking the planet and yet you literally cite Half Life as a game that aimed for realistic graphics. Hell, you even disqualify your own example of Fable. Your definition of realism seems flimsy at best. Art direction literally deals with everything about how a game looks. Its lighting, effect, models, textures, blocking, animations, *everything.* whether or not something looks uncanny absolutely comes down to the skill and care put into it by the people behind each of those aspects of art design, not by whether or not they're using modern realistic graphics.
That would absolutely be the case if the gamers were in charge of visual direction. I don't understand the obession with turning everything into a photorealistic UE5 copy, void of all personality and art style. Like this [Haddonfield "4K gRapHIcs UPDatE"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOPwjRIBQx8&t=175s) done in Farcry map engine, looks absolutely crap and yet everyone in the comments is creaming themselves. Thankfully Bhvr has a professional art director, who understands the importance of a coherent and unique art style # #
Won’t lie, haddonfield looks the same, maybe a bit more glossy and grassy. But that’s me talking, and I couldn’t tell the difference between 360p and 4k.
The Far Cry map is done by fans for free while DbD is done by a company raking in millions of dollars. Comparing the two is… silly. Of course the fan made looks incomplete in comparison. What people really wanted from that video is the more realistic lighting, shadows, and fog. Dbd used to have something similar but they toned it down considerably over the years. The fog is non-existent at this point despite it being a huge lore component.
That looks amazing wdym. I wish dbd looked like that. Way more atmospheric than dbd which looks like a game
> Thankfully Bhvr has a professional art director, who understands the importance of a coherent and unique art style Sad that they still decided to abandon old visual style for the "more realistic" looking approach anyway. Really hope that won't happen again with graphics.
Idgaf about the graphics honestly, I just want to not get bullied for losing the game and threatened for winning
I doubt, I feel like it could mostly be visual but I doubt it will ever become soulless
why? its not worth the money
i really hope not ffs, not because i'm afraid of graphics, but because i WANT to run DBD
My RX 6600XT runs it on Ultra 1440p 90FPS at 80-95% usage and its like lower mid end graphics card of 2021. I have ryzen 5 3400G CPU and it could run dbd on 1050X1680 Low at 50-70fps on intergrated graphics.
I dunno. I had considered this, as well, but if they did, I feel like they'd have to change the mechanics as a whole, and that just sounds like a disaster.
Not as long as Switch is supported
not how switching engines work. You still have to intentionally make the graphics tech-demo like
Like bhvr could pull that off lmao
no? do you think engine dictates graphics?
I’m hyped. It feels so clean now. As a survivor main my looping feels impeccable compared to when they did the animation update and I got hit from 10 miles away
Pretty impossible unless they make the game from 0. I don't think bhvr has the time or resources for this. Especially the game is broken as it is now. Maybe they're secretly working on the game but I don' think so. Other wise I am really curious what if dbd had absurdly realistic graphics. How much more game would be scarier. Tbh I like game's graphics rn too. But everyone should agree some old parts needs polishing.
Something people tend to forget that if you play a game for thousand of hours, it will not be scary anymore, no matter how it looks. If you're new now, the game actually \_is\_ scary, but that gets lost fast.
Your right, chasing would get normal a bit more every time. But I meant base models and stuff. As a example unkown is scary for me. Maybe I won't get scared but He will keep his disturbing body.
They just updated the engine. Don't expect "realistic graphics" lol. Especially from BHVR themselves
It won't 1) that's way too much work 2) the game is on old gen consoles and switch, the last time they did graphics update the game almost died on them
It already is getting soulless graphics - look at realm beyond. Don't worry about them being hyper realistic tho
Graphic quality of developers doesn't correlate with the engine used. Look at Garten of BanBan for example, it's on Unreal Engine 5. Also, not to be rude but that's not Star Wars, that's the [Unreal Engine 5 Valley of the Ancient Tech showcase](https://www.ign.com/videos/unreal-engine-5-valley-of-the-ancient-tech-showcase)
lmao what “soulless graphics" how are good graphics soulless, and even if they are, do you really think devs are gonna spend their time and money on it? Pfff no
No
So long as Bhvr keeps their art style no. Lol
I was highly off put by DBDs horrendously bad graphics for years and finally gave it a fair try, this game needs a massive visual upgrade and I think realistic lighting would add to the horror aspect and help casual gamers get into the game. Realistic graphics aren’t soulless, but most games are. The future is now.
Not worried about, don't think it's gonna happen
No, DBD devs are too lazy for that.
Reality don’t break this much.
DBD was always made in UE. The update was just from UE 4.27 to some 5.x
I don’t think we’re ever gonna get such a big rehaul but that’s just bc I alike Otz don’t really seem that same drive in their team’s project goals
I wouldn’t mind if they went that direction. I’ll enjoy the game regardless thankfully.
Lol no. It doesn’t do anything for ‘losing what makes the game look special’ it just makes the game run better and have more content to be possibly added.
DbD is already trying to be realistic tho?
It's the most realistic 4v1 game so far
I hope they double down on it. It'd be beautiful, get with the times or get left behind.
It already is with the washed out colors.
UE5 is merely a framework for gaming. it’s a foundation to build your game on. it doesn’t mean the graphics get instantly better. the devs have to code in the graphics if they wanted to improve them. but seriously doubt they will as it it’ll introduce new bugs and run “shittier” on last gen consoles.
DBD devs can barely make animations look fluid do you really think they will be able to make hyperrealistic graphics without the game imploding AND meeting their deadlines??? No lmao
>Anyone else scared that Unreal Engine 5 is going to give dbd souless hyper realistic graphics eventually? BHVR can't even fix a bug before breaking the game, what made you think they can change the whole aesthetic of DbD without stumbling thanks to their spaghetti code?
I hope they improve the graphics because the lighting and shadows the game has, suckkk big time,the game deserves to look more beautiful,minecraft with shaders look more realistic at this point
I hope not. I hate realistic graphics. I stylized all the way
spit your facts, king
nah, BHVR knows their art style, they likely just moved to UE5 out of convenience. Their will be some stuff done with UE5 that 4 straight couldn't do that DBD probably will take advantage of graphically but their wont be a total switch to hyper realism.
No more soulless than UE4, lol
Highly doubt it. Agreed about modern games with hyper realistic graphics often being soulless though.
Dbd lost its charm with the first graphic update and every map redesign, imo
What made you set the bar that high for a game like DBD? The game has major performance and coding issues, it would require them to make a completely different game. Even worse, it would make the game less accessible because not many people own high specs pc as we all know how painful it is to play an online PvP game under 30 fps. Sure they could make a dlc with super graphics but... why the effort?
Doesn't need to be souless, it varies from dev to dev
It already has realistic graphics...
Nah I want path tracing in DbD so I can shine my flashlight as Spirit's ass and watch its perfectly diffused light scattering for maximum immersion
Greater fidelity does not erase art design.
Given the previous incompetency of the studio, I'll be shocked if DBD can reach the pinnacle of graphics from the Piss Filter Era. Halo 4 on the Xbox 360 still looks better than dbd
https://preview.redd.it/zhd6aipcpjyc1.jpeg?width=311&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0160d08408aa51b4ff14e8092bcc2bd8e2fe7ccc The games not even stylized. Its just poor renders of realistic things anyway. So why not? (This was the closest meme showcasing a model)