But the average player can't even play it that way, due to hardware limitations. The game developer are the ones who are doing their best to let as many as possible play their games. It's not about the tools you have, it's about how you ise them.

@@labrats3d Read the comment again

@@Vinicius-zu3nx You may do it instead. He meant the developers of UE5, I meant the game developers. Of they really just would "check this box" to get this and that, all games would be about 5 FPS.

@@labrats3d he said it actually increased performance by 5 fps.

@@labrats3d wtf why do you always have to 'but' others?

Should i pull up an ancient Unity version like Unity 3 and do the exact same zoom away? It's not even difficult.

Ikr?! That was amazing

@@Kanakotka with 100 000 high quality trees and maintaining decent fps?

It was a good tech overview though i am interested on how will it effect environmental objects in the distance when a moving object is hitting them then going towards the camera. Still in games that is left in prerendered or prebaked animations due to how high detail the rest of the software can be in video settings.

@@Kanakotka Great, and now you have your game running at 3fps. 👍

😅👍

i see what u did there

ba dum tsss......

@@sunnythegreat9617 *Applauses*

The Unreal Engine contains a certain _Unity_ of its tools, I don't think I need to worry about picking a _Game Maker_ any more. I can just start from _Scratch_ .

Probably the most mind blowing part about this. I'm really interested to see how that is possible.

@@victorkreig6089 who made nanite

@@victorkreig6089 Huh?

@@victorkreig6089 what are you talking about victor

@@victorkreig6089 could you link a source? If what you say is true, it's an interesting argument

i can't wait for this to be common in games, imagine mirrors actually being helpfull in pvp shooters.

I can imagine it being a hit with horror games

It's insane, as if you're watching a video

Imagine that in VR... but I don't think Lumen works in VR yet. Hopefully soon.

I said "Jeeeeez" out loud to myself when I saw that. 🤯

You are entirely right. People dont see that this could also be a bad thing.

It's fine Unreal Engine's source code is open for everyone to see, and both Lumen and Nanite's technology are very well documented. I don't think it will take too much for other companies to start adopting technology like this

agreed, game engines alone give games a very specific feel, mostly source tbh lol but itd be sad for everything to be on one engine

@@AsperTheDog That's good to know. Thanks for the information.

Unreal actually has lower market share than Unity so it's nowher close to a monopoly.

I hope developers will take the extra time to activate the thing for every individual tree tho :)

the 5.1 update is what the 5.0 update should have been, Those are mainly unfinished cut out feature of the 5.0.

@@norbertherterich4750 they can just ctrl c+v it or ctrl+d

And now think about that UE4 has 27. Now look at the first update of UE5 and imagine what can they do with 26 more...

Nigga wtf are you talking about "for a 0.1 update" they can name is whatever the fuck they want It's not like it's set in stone how much actual changes an update must have for it to jump from one decimal to another...

And its also *free* ?? Wtf LMAOO

@@typorium9272 Free until like 1 million in sales, with megascans, metahumans, and I think the sample projects all usable in productions.

@@owenb6499 You're right, but still, its a realllly good offer I think :)

@@typorium9272 extremely good package I love unreal! It seems like they actually care about indies / making the engine as usable as possible.

Naughty Dog engine is incredible too

I'm even just thinking about a game like VRChat being on UE 5.1. Currently we deal with poorly optimized avatars and worlds. But with this tech, it would drastically increase the headroom and capability of people to create content for the game.

*In real time* too!

Seeing this, I have zero doubt unreal engine renders will be completely indistinguishable from real world 10 years from now. Less than that even.

You can already

@@TechyBen there are already videos of 3090/3090 ti doing this, bet now with a 4090

that's engineering for you

It doesn't work on older hardware in SM5 mode. You need a video card that supports SM6 and they forgot to disclose that part. This is just another Crysis scam repeat. For maximum financial terrorism. Because financial terrorism was not nuked at the correct time.

@@fa-pm5dr You mean financial terrorism. Go check if it works in SM5 mode first before you get all excited about financial terrorism and illegal scams in every bedroom.

@Jack0834 Exactly. Why the fuck they don't include a cash printer and a new video card if that Crysis scam repeat only works in SM6 mode ? Explain that financial terrorism scam and that illegal engineering right here, Jack.

It's memory. Swapping meshes uses texture memory bus on gpu. If you aren't swapping meshes, you don't have to wait on them to load

I believe that the fascinated should always go deeper.

20 years ago I used to render this kind of environments with Brazil rendering and it took hours to render one image. Unreal engine really blows my mind... 🤯

And they would ask "but is it fun" and you'd go "meeh, sort of for few hours". Counter Strike, Quake 3 Arena, Half-Life, etc. All looked worse than today's average game but people played those for hundreds if not thousands of hours. They have a cult status. Games today improve on visuals to get you to buy new release and story is same old with a bit of a twist and majority of it locked behind DLC.

@@japie8466 I wasn't a professional dev back then - I just messed around with things like this in high school, or even jr. high in the late 90s, and on a typical home PC, it wasn't really even possible, and took hours to render just stuff with a little glass and reflective surfaces, or any slightly complex geometry. The exponential increase in computing power has been insane, but is quickly reaching the limits imposed by real physics, due to how small the circuits are getting in terms of nanometers.

hello ex-geometry dash youtuber SEA

If you show this to most people above 60 years of age you will see what showing to someone 20 years ago would look like.

People have been saying that exact line for 30+ years.. And as always we’ll see a gradual increase for next ten years and when ten years have passed you’ll say “oh, well that wasn’t as exciting as I thought it’d be”.. And then you’ll say it again

@@Primitive01 techonolgies are advancing exponentially, so we don't really know what we'll have in 10 years

@@RP-wk6ge We don’t know but it’ll be a gradual journey, it won’t just jump out like BLAM!

@@Primitive01 The jump from the 2000s to 2010s was phenomenal, but since then hasnt been that amazing. My gripe with increased tech is that modern games are harder to create, so big releases are becoming more rare as production cycles become longer. Whereas a game like Fallout New Vegas took a year or two to create, yet its more fun than some modern games that took 8 years.

@@phrog849 It’s phenomenal when you look back, it wasn’t phenomenal at the time because it was a gradual improvement… Fallout New Vegas is a crusty looking game by any standards, every Fallout game is crusty, they look and feel about 15 years old… When you say 2010s what do you mean? Do you mean “around” 2010 or up until 2019? Because Red Dead 2 was released in 2018, GoW in 2018 too and they looked amazing compared to anything that had ever been released.. Then TLOU2 came in 2020 and is hands down the best looking game out, by a MILE and still is to this day… But it was gradual, I can’t really remember too much in the early 2010s but FF15 came out in 2016, best looking game ever released, then GoW and Red Dead in 2018, then TLOU2 in 2020.. As a console gets older devs get to know it better and utilise its capabilities better.. Over the next few years we’ll see games look better and better on the whole but every couple of years we should get a “wow” game where they push the limits… But still, in 10 years it won’t be THAT impressive because in 2026 or whatever random year there will be games that you’d consider mind blowing today.. It’s all gradual, you only really notice the difference when looking about over a long period, you don’t notice the leaps as we progress into them

Can I ask you how you learned? Was it through a school or is it possible to do it alone even today?

Could you send me some courses please? :( please please please 🙏

I already learned 3D modeling in Blender but it was almost 10 years ago, a lot has changed since... My last use of Blender was maybe in 2019-2020

Truer word have never been written!

The FACT

And it’s an actual blessing!

When you typed your comment. Thought was conveyed to others.

That’s a nice profile pic

Not even remotely Unreal didn't invent this

@@victorkreig6089Marks point is being able to do it within THIS engine IS revolutionary! There is nothing out there currently that can do that currently.

Nanites are not deformable...

destruction is a whole other story, things have to be made in a completely different way to work with that, though Im interested to see how much can be done with these systems in a big finished game rather than just environment renders

This is true next gen. Everyone talks about graphics being maxed out but now we need destructible environments and more physics within these new games.

True photorealism in the most complex scenes that nature can produce. Beautiful technology.

The layer bars were more difficult to do, the development team said so. You are stupid to think otherwise.

@@GardenGuy1943 ok

​@@vladpalets ok

@@EXRDaBeasta ok

going though that cut frame by frame is amazing, it's like watching the future of gaming load in as the trees go from what we're used to, to what we imagine

Its insane that the mad lads at epic literally made the "enhance" button from CSI

Wow totally unreal, love it

but still not enough triangles!

Thank white people for this technological breakthrough, yet the 4antiwh1te diversity crew still says that white people are evil.

it'd be really cool if ue5 worked with the oculus quest 2

@@hutch1010 I mean you airlink the quest.

@@Gothdir I think you mean pcvr? Games that are streamed from the pc to your headset. The only downside is you either need a decent 5ghz router setup, or a wired connection. Either way, you also need a pc that can outmatch the Quest 2 and all of its performant, eye-tricking tomfoolery.

How is performance can you get 90 fps out of a avarage VR PC let's say a Nvidia 3070 and a previous gen AMD Ryzen 5

@@andersmalmgren6528 I airlink/virtual desktop from my quest 2 and play games just fine, i literally use a 1080 ti lmao, if you have a 3070 I think you will be fine.

It's wild how insane the performance gains have been for the last five or so years. We truly have bottomed out as far as requirements go... at least for production-ready projects. Sure, there are tons of edge cases destroying your framerate, this will always be a thing with 3D applications in particular - hell, fresh devs will wreck your fps with the simplest of 2D-games because of all kinds of errors you can make. Still, with a bit of effort, games look as good as they ever will, and this time it's the truth. Compare GoW 2018 with 2022. Both gorgeous, but it's all a matter of authoring now. Even VR is closing gaps quickly. Like, really, really quickly. Foveated techniques are about to crash the party, and if UE5x didn't already provide all kinds of benefits, many more are to come. Nanite is dope, but also, funnily enough, only a tiny part of the massive revolution happening in this space. It's getting easier and more convenient by the month, and I'm super hyped to get to use it.

I'm really happy John Carmack's MegaTexture/Virtual Texturing tech has a spiritual successor, it was really impressive

I see what you did there

such things as nanite should be in a gpu drivers not in game engines.

@@shulehr I'm a programmer and (former) game dev and what you just said is certifiably stupid and you should probably delete that comment

Its hilarious how they basically snuck a complete revolution into a .1. It's such a huge leap forward it should be Unreal engine 6.

@@presidentresident right? a release level with these changes can only mean a much bigger change in 6 (at least that's what I hope for...)

How long will it be before we can expect to see these techniques used in games?

@@RoboWeener Well considering that this tech can be used as of right now, if a team starts working on a game today... Maybe 4-5 years until we see a finished game with this level of detail.

@@MrMaKeMeDiNnEr Wouldn't they be able to implement this tech into games already in development currently?

A greek mythology themed game where you fight medusa just by looking at your shield reflection

Could be used in more creative ways than generic fighting/battle stuff.

It would be like in FEAR where you see the enemy walking, by looking at the shadow cast from him, just taken way further.

That, or simply one step closer towards realistic visuals where you're not taken out of the scene by screen space reflections that come and go. Little things like that can really add up and creative people can put them to good use

I want a mirror to see what the guards are doing as I lockpick.

Honestly, Blueprints make everything so fun that I would recommend trying it for that reason anyways.

Unreal sparked joy in my game dev workflow. Unity feels so damn outdated by comparison. The complexity level for implementing basic game features in UE is so much lower, as they provide many useful abstractions in their library. No dull coding for hours, I just go anc implement the mechanics I want with blueprints.

@@leo8292 I felt the same.

@@Teddy_Graham The faster the better, but anything from the last 5-10 years WILL work it just may be painfully slow. You definitely want as much RAM as possible too.

this is not a videogame , this thing will take a least10 years to start show in some games

Go play NFS hot pursuit 2010.

We seriously haven't seen much yet. Unreal engine 5 is still very new and big games take many years. I think helblade 2 will be a good showcase to what's possible

Not realistic, not yet...

Atari 2600 games are close

I find this stuff more fascinating than actual games - I'm just randomly a nerd for increased graphic processing technology

haha same here

x2

I am studying game development, and I will make sure to do so for all my upcoming game projects with foliage!

That reminds me of crysis back in the day - my first gaming pc in 2006 - My friends and I joked that playing on low settings was actually beneficial as there were no bushes to hide behind for people

That's what you get for camping

@@thunderb00m don’t think you quite understand the point of a ghillie suit then. You’re supposed to be remaining still using the foliage to your advantage… it’s not really camping when you’re playing a military simulator and you’re providing sniper over watch for your squad. Bloody console kiddies

@@TheShipMunksTV I love you, make a game where camouflage is a huge point of the game haha. Fed up with games holding my hands with red dots above peoples heads and names giving away positions. I wanna be scared not knowing if I’m being watched haha

What does the master class cover?

@Snoozy Pretty much everything. Programming, environment creation, materials, lighting, 3D Modeling, animation, and particle effects. There are also advanced chapters on landscapes and lighting, as well as a course showing how to create a game step by step

@@GamingGrenade1 What is the minimum required Computer hardware one needs in order to learn UE 5.

What do u mean harder it gets to replicate

@@taranhase4396 It's very difficult to create a copy of reality because of the fact that there are so many infinite variables. For example, if you see a leaf fall on the ground in real life, there's literally infinite possibilities to how that can happen and what influences that. Now imagine recreating that in a game...

@@JUNGLY108 arrh now I understand yes they would have to code all possibilities which in our generation is probably not possible, maybe in 2050 though ??

@@taranhase4396 Sooner, just ask Ray Kurzweil. Seriously, technology advances in a somewhat chaotic, but exponential fashion. Like how nanites replacing the LOD's is just a total game changer, and is totally game breaking. Rarely in life you get something better, at a lower cost(GPU wise). Now, consider how this will work in other fields. If we hit a point where AI can improve itself in 2031, by 2035 we will have kids creating their own digital worlds the size of the observable universe.

@@taranhase4396 It’s definitely possible and way closer than 2050

On the other hand, expect to see game storage size skyrocket again as every item in the game gets the 48k hyperreal treatment since it doesnt affect frame rates as much

everyone in any industry wishes they had ten years ago what they have now.

Combine this and neural learning systems like DLSS 3 and FSR 3 means next-gen worlds are on the horizon running on current hardware. We didn’t really see a visual jump from last gen to this gen. I have a feeling we’ll see a large jump in the next few years, but it will be software leading the charge.

I worked on a similar technique back in the 90s, we called it dynamic mesh sampling but it is essentially the same concept, we used it to simplify models for ray traced rendering. Back then it was just research as the processing power required was beyond reasonable back then. Good to see the concept has now become mainstream, they have done some great work here to get this kind of thing working so smoothly and seamlessly.

@@_Refurbished_ I'm not sure we'll see a HUGE jump in how realistic stuff is on its own (just because things can only get so realistic), but what we will see a huge jump in is file sizes, world sizes, how good worlds look from far away, rendering techniques, and animations. The real thing that visually needs to be improved is physics and animation triggers, that's where games have a long way to go.

That's what i was thinking. It's crazy at all to even see another solution for this, especially one that increases fps while looking even better and also saving time?? Jesus

Prety much my biggest issue with games has been the awful pop-in textures of trees.

@@AlexSchwartzATV Yeah it's counter intuitive as fuck

It actually makes sense though, to be fair. Nanite is essentially dynamically selecting the most optimal LOD as far as having polygons map to pixels is concerned (ie it tries to have 1 polygon _roughly_ map to a few pixels), so it's able to optimise the poly count on-the-fly to a significantly better degree than traditional LODs. Essentially imagine if you had an unlimited amount of LODs for your mesh, so that the engine is able to select the best LOD and _only_ the best LOD. That's effectively what Nanite is doing, except on-the-fly.

I nearly choked on my coffee when i saw that. In a single line thats like going from a drive to a friends house in the next city, to half the distance to the sun.

While it seems a huge change in reality it is just a doubling of the precision, eg change the datatype from float to double. Good change but also very easy to do :)

@@mercior I understand what you are saying. But I am not sure term "doubling" is a right choice of word here. Yeah, the presicion went from 7 to 15 decimal places but that is 8 orders of magnitude. Calling that a double because (double the numbers) is interesting way of explaining it. And I kinda like your approach here, nice way of simplifying it in a simple way without going into much detail.

@@_sky_3123 right, if it was a literal string "doubling" makes sense lol.

@@_sky_3123 I refer to doubling the precision of the datatype, ie going from 4 bytes to 8 bytes, which yes will increase the actual decimal numbers you can store with those bytes by many orders of magnitude. In the actual code you are just swapping that datatype.

Omg this is so cool so now buildings, floiage won't tax the engine as hard as traditional methods have for all these years. Nanite is the biggest gaming tech we have seen in 20 years

@@deluxo2901 they’ve been saying these things about the ue5 for a couple years now and I’m not seeing it. Their demos always look incredible but this stuff hasn’t actually made it into real games yet

@@HieronymousLex Games can take years to develop and UE5 has only been out for around a year IIRC. Along with that , many large game studios use their own engine (Frostbite for Battlefield, RED for CP2077, etc.) and switching to a new engine is a time consuming and labor intensive process that prevents them from working on games and therefore making money.

Literally

@@HieronymousLex Do you not know how long AAA games take to develop? And we don't take Ubishit and Activision games as AAA because they are just copy paste of their previous games.

i appreciate it as well. i was a gamer kid in the early 90s and i played unreal games from the very start aboard the Vortex Rikers... right up to the latest tournaments, and now my favorite games are built on the platform they developed! Unreal is ironically the most real contributor to good games for us to play!

I remember picking up my first copy of Unreal, playing a game, and almost immediately diving into the engine. I almost failed CS because I spent an entire year building and testing levels instead of learning autocad, but I was finally able to convince the admins that just as much, if not more, work went into building good levels. It really sparked a lifelong passion, and as you said, they have continued to impress.

That helped thanks! If someone needs extra steps: select all -> right click -> asset actions -> bulk edit via property matrix

that tear may also be for another reason. I learned the hard way that its way too easy to get sucked into game development with high expectations and keep trying to make games that are way beyond your ability. though yes, its really impressive and I wanna see these things used to their full potential

While it looks amazing, yes, it's Unreal so implementation will be super convoluted and likely incompatible with other things that are either already implemented into an existing game, or with certain features or details that you deem more important for your game. Unreal Engine is by far the most Unuser-friendly of the public game engines out there which is why a lot of developers, especially indie developers prefer Unity. Plus Unity uses C# scripting which is much more game development-friendly.

@@leeroyjenkins0 C# was pushed by Microsoft a couple decades ago to be the go to language for indie game development; so much that Unity adopted it as their scripting language as did several other engines. The language has evolved over time with some updates to the framework specifically having game development in mind. As such, there is so much more support, community help, online courses, references, code snippets, etc for game dev in C# than in C++. C++ is technically faster, but not to any degree noticeable by a human or to any degree that would make any significant difference in your game (if it does then more than what language being used should be considered as to why your performance is bad).

​@@TwistedSisler Microsofts decision to create C# did not have anything to do with game development. Microsoft created C# because Java creators didn't want Microsoft to make their own version out of it to fit their needs. The main reason for C# is Web development. While C# can be and is used by some engines, it is NOT the primary use for it. Actually, there is no primary use. C# is just an high level language with potential to program nearly everything in a short timespan. Microsoft did never push any update where game development was a specific focus. While engines like unity are using the language as a script language, the Framework behind it (.Net) isn't even used. I'll be more precise later. C# does not have more community help and online courses than C++. Even tho C# has a really large community, C++ is around a much longer time and still has a large community especially in game development. Most game engines still are working with C++ directly or underneath, like Unreal Engine, Frostbite, Cryengine and even Unity engine itself. C++ is faster than C# when both are in their supposed environment. C++ compiles to native code, while C# is compiled to an assembler like language (IL-Code) and is then run in a framework (.NET) to be just-in-time-compiled to native code while runtime. Also C# uses a system called "Garbage Collector", which manages the memory, more specific the object lifetime, of your application. This way the programmer doesn't have to care about memory management most of the time on his own, which leads to less programming errors and easier programming. The performance comparison between C# and C++ is immense. In some cases C# takes the doubled time of C++ for the same task. In most software application this is not noticable for the user, which is true, BUT it would be noticable in performance relying programs like games. HOWEVER, for an engine like Unity this performance comparison isn't necessary true. Unity has two compilers. Mono and IL2CPP. With Mono it also runs with JIT-Compiler and comes with the performance overhead. In this case it runs in a similar environment like .NET from Microsoft. With IL2CPP C# gets transpiled to C++, and then fully compiled to native code, which cut's out the performance overhead, but can reduce compatibility with 3rd party C# libraries. But no matter which one you use, the C# part only matters for backend scripts, which most of the time aren't the performance relevant ones, even tho it's possible to mess it up there. The tricky and technical part is how the engine works, how it renders different things and how it manages the data it get's provided by the backend. And this part of the engine is written in C++.

@@leeroyjenkins0 C# isn't necessary more "game-development-friendly", it's generally more "developer-friendly". It's easier to learn for programmers, and it generally is considered less error-prone, because technical pitfalls are hidden or abstracted away from the developer.

Yeah, it's so surprising and just unreal. Usually something must give when you increase to that level of detail, but this thing even increases performance.

Don't forget it will use less install space for textures, now that it's only 1 texture rather than like 5+ LOD textures used. I can see a space savings of at least a good few gigs up to about 10+ given the game.

@@Atixtasy i dunno if you have tried to download any of these but that desert landscape is like 130gbs or something crazy. this detail isn't free.

@@0xsergy Jesus...why so big?

@@KindNine maybe its a big map? i didn't download it yet, gotta make room on my full C drive because epic games is installed there... even if the maps are saved on another drive.

Complex mathematics mixed with powerful hardware. To get this kind of performance out of Unreal Engine 5 it needs at least a GTX 1080 / RX Vega 64. That is for low details with upscaling. Not looking as sharp as this video. Meanwhile, almost half of steam users still own GPUs less powerful than a GTX 1070 / RX 590.

@@eye776 doesn't sound like that's a new problem though... i've never upgraded my GPU until the games started to require it.

@@MoxFreakinFulder No it's not a new problem, just pointing it out.

You need a 3K pc to run this in real time

@@eye776 my 3060 is hopefully enough

从阿凡达视频复制黏贴是吧

@@user-ir6to3dp1l No, this was my own original comment. Must've been a coincidence.

Not until next 10 years

can't wait to 5.2, 5.3, 5.5 and 6.0. If they still in 5.0 and can get all this, think about the next ones. They will get more realistic than my life lol.

See you in like 6 years

Now you never need to go outside to get great graphics ever again...

@@thothheartmaat2833 screw reality

@@thatguyyoudontknow You should have said Unreal lol

@@dddripz I failed you all. Hah

VR games are about to be too realistic

Taking the time to jump into different versions of the engine and loading up scenes is awesome. I logged in just to upvote this video. And I don't even use Unreal (yet).

This. Dude is probably using a 3090 or 4090. It remains to be seen how performance will be on console

It's inevitable. Unreal is the leader so it has already "catched up"

Not worked with Unreal for a looong time. Does deferred have too much overhead for VR or is it like in Unity, where you can use deferred in VR, but the lack of MSAA just makes it look miserable?

@@DarthHunter5 latter i believe

The only thing that I worry about is that file sizes for lush, immersive games are going to EXPLODE soon. It's absolutely fantastic and a huge step forward that the game engine allows our processors to at least handle the load, but the data needed for all these high-poly meshes has to be kept somewhere. However, I think that a solution may be right under our noses: AI algorithms and dedicated AI hardware. I think that we could shrink the overall game size tremendously by incorporating single-purpose analog AI chips into our computer setups. The game developer could create a high-poly design in the game engine, then reduce a large amount of the poly count to a "seed" for the algorithm to reconstruct in-game. They could use this for fleshing out polygons _and_ textures. And the tech is already there. There are a couple companies out there that already manufacture AI accelerator chips on little M.2 cards. We'd just be waiting for a game studio to bridge that gap and utilize it, to showcase the massive potential.

@@pirojfmifhghek566 Either AI or game textures have to undergo a better compression method…

@@christophervanzetta From what I've seen, they're already compressed to hell and back. That's always going to be step #1 in the process, but I think they're getting seriously diminishing returns at this point.

EPIC is the name of a company made an unreal engine.

yeah what sucks is huge companies take years to switch to new versions of software. AAA games will still be a few years off from using this as they still need to finish projects they're working on.

@@parkerwinton5661 One thing that will encourage them will be the amount of money that could be saved. Of cause many companies will need to develope their own version of this technology in house and apply it to their own game engines.

He already has time stamps

@@wit1952 yeah but these are for my personal use....

I think that’s the AO range, since it seems to affect the shadowing intensity from a distance. I’m sure that would hardly be noticeable in game, but I did notice that as well

Yep, I saw that too. The transition is smoother but you can still see how at a distance, all the trees start to look bright green. Still good progress though

This is basically what I dreamed of as a kid, I'm the same age as you.

@@actuallynotsteve right? I remember watching the original toy story in theaters, dreaming if games would ever look that good. Well we've passed that, infact I'd say 5.1 has many movies made in the last 3-5 years looking pretty piss poor lol.

yeah I was thinking of how shocked I was when I first saw Tomb Raider... and now, this

Just think of those of us to started in the 80s on 8-bit machines

@@capitalb5889 I was born in the 80's and started gaming on an NES... which happens to be an 8 bit machine.