bit-gamer.net

Unreal Tournament 3 Beta Impressions

Comments 1 to 25 of 44

Reply
BioSniper 25th October 2007, 07:57 Quote
Quote:
Just be careful when you do – one single shot will knock you off the hoverboard and leave

Leave... the sentence unfinished is my best guess (the error is on page two down the bottom) :p

Having played the beta/demo thing they released myself I can't help but feel a little disappointed by it all and I also felt hindered by the graphics engine due to its dark gritty nature and over-detailed art direction. I guess its a matter of personal preference but I still prefer UT2004.
Clocked 25th October 2007, 08:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe
...twitching like a pro-gamer on caffeine pills

Thanks for that one, my coffee is now all over the screen of my lcd.

Looks good, can't wait, need better computer, not fair.....
Henk 25th October 2007, 08:46 Quote
The downside with the good graphics is that in this fast-paced game you rarely look closely at all the detail since you just float around very fast and look for something to shoot at :| My screen being an old 17" with 12ms doesn't really help either :(

But on the upside, the game really makes good use of my quad, about 75% load on all four cores when using a lot of bots ;)
Elz 25th October 2007, 08:50 Quote
I'm surprised about the constant assertion in that article that the textures are great. I mean they look alright, but when I played it I thought they looked a little low-res ...and indeed they are: As I found out later, in the beta only the low to medium textures are included (medium being level 3 on the slider in the graphics options, which goes up to 5).

So in fact it should look even better! I mean they look alright as it is, but to me they looked very conspiciously 'medium' in an environemnt that's otherwise so graphically impresive. Honestly, it looks a little odd like that...
yakyb 25th October 2007, 09:00 Quote
the game is fantstic very impressed runs very smoothly on my 1950pro on med settings ive had this on pre order for a while now and most certainly not going to remove it as for the physx side of things i was maybe thinking of getting one but im going to hold out until some physx effects are availible on youtube before making a desicion
[USRF]Obiwan 25th October 2007, 09:39 Quote
It could be me, but the screens look ugly as hell, its looking like a brushed painting (from a housepainter)
The only good looking unreal game, was the first Unreal and not the mulitplayer noncense but the single player version.
pozo 25th October 2007, 09:55 Quote
About the engine/game numbering: is it confirmed they see 2003/2004 as two games? To me 2004 felt more like an add-on or expansion to 2003 than a game in it's own right.
yakyb 25th October 2007, 10:19 Quote
the game looks nice no doubt about it id agree the levels are a little static but this is a beta and a small amount of chosen levels. Looking at the vids on youtube it looks very impressive with collapsable scenery etc
Mankz 25th October 2007, 10:20 Quote
It looks good, but its hard to see all of the images as they are so dark...
Blademrk 25th October 2007, 10:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by pozo
About the engine/game numbering: is it confirmed they see 2003/2004 as two games? To me 2004 felt more like an add-on or expansion to 2003 than a game in it's own right.

2004 definitly felt more like an update to 2003 than a proper sequal.

Can't wait for this one, but I have a feeling it won't run that well on my A64 3500+ / nvidia 6600 GTOC. I seriously need to upgrade.
UncertainGod 25th October 2007, 10:36 Quote
I am very happy with how the BETA looked, I just want to get my hands on a warfare map though, that's the game format that will push this game over the previous versions.
sandys 25th October 2007, 10:44 Quote
Bit of a shame about the lack of Physx acceleration this was a title that was supposed to show what it could do in an actual game not in some mod :(
Bauul 25th October 2007, 11:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blademrk
Quote:
Originally Posted by pozo
About the engine/game numbering: is it confirmed they see 2003/2004 as two games? To me 2004 felt more like an add-on or expansion to 2003 than a game in it's own right.

2004 definitly felt more like an update to 2003 than a proper sequal.

Can't wait for this one, but I have a feeling it won't run that well on my A64 3500+ / nvidia 6600 GTOC. I seriously need to upgrade.

Personally I always felt 2003 was a rushed, unfinished game, and 2004 was the actual, finished article, like 2003 was 2004's Beta test. Indeed, 2004 superceded 2003 so much they stopped producing 2003, you can't buy new copies of it any more. To be honest, fair enough, 2004 contained all the content from 2003 anyway.

On the subject of UT3 though, it'd be interesting to see how much content is included in the final game. Ut2004 seemed to be packed to the rim with levels, modes and weapons, I almost felt it was too packed, as you always got distracted by some of the bigger games and barely touched some of the other modes, so I wonder if they do a bit of stream lining or they continue to through everything they possibly can into the game.
DeXtmL 25th October 2007, 11:46 Quote
UT3 looks great. and the gameplay is so smooth.
The hoverboard does really speed up the battle, without it i have to wait in the base for new spawning vehicle when fight in a relatively large map.
The only sadness comes from the fact that this demo doesn't give us any stunning phys effect.

My overall feeling is UNREAL.
UncertainGod 25th October 2007, 11:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandys
Bit of a shame about the lack of Physx acceleration this was a title that was supposed to show what it could do in an actual game not in some mod :(

Have you actually had a look at the physX maps?

http://www.ageia.com/physx/ut3.html

I think getting to play on giant maps with huge frikkin' tornado's in the middle is quite worth it. Plus there is the inherent performance boost of offloading the normal physics effects onto the PFU, seems to give about a 10-15 fps advantage if you are physX enabled
Hugo 25th October 2007, 12:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by UncertainGod
Plus there is the inherent performance boost of offloading the normal physics effects onto the PFU, seems to give about a 10-15 fps advantage if you are physX enabled

[citation needed]

The problem I (and I think Joe) see is that the majority of people won't spend ~£100 to play 'bonus maps' when you can play the main game without. Obviously PhysX can't be a requirement of the main game if it's too attract a major audience and therein lies the problem.
CardJoe 25th October 2007, 12:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archangel
[citation needed]

The problem I (and I think Joe) see is that the majority of people won't spend ~£100 to play 'bonus maps' when you can play the main game without. Obviously PhysX can't be a requirement of the main game if it's too attract a major audience and therein lies the problem.

I'm in two minds. The same was said about Quake "you can run it in software, so why would you by a GPU?"

Time will tell. My own view of Physx is that they are an important innovation, but they have so far failed to make a decent market impact. If they can make the impact they need to then it could change the face of gaming, but whether anyone will buy it or not to get that changed faced remains to be seen.
p3n 25th October 2007, 12:51 Quote
That tornado looks pretty cool until the particals start coming through a solidwall - weak, espcially since it supposed tobe hardware.
UncertainGod 25th October 2007, 12:52 Quote
Archangel, do people buy into the better x360 packages/xbox live subscriptions. Will people pay the extra subscription to play with the extra bits of Hellgate London?

The market is well used to people paying a bit more to get some extra snazzyness. I will be buying a PhysX card soon as I want to see what they can do in the unreal universe, plus the physX only servers that will be running these maps probably won't be filled with quite so many moron's who don't know there arse from there elbow.
Jamie 25th October 2007, 13:01 Quote
What PhysX needs is a noticable gameplay advance over a computer running no PhysX card - additional content is what drives people to front the money.

All previous UT games have looked very sterile to me, this one actually looks more atmospheric. I like!
TGImages 25th October 2007, 14:22 Quote
Actually I'm kinda disappointed.

Ignoring the stuttering sound and regular freezes (after all it is beta), I thought that the graphics and effects were great and the sound was well done. However, compared to UT2004, I feel the game play just isn't there. It feels too loose and sloopy. The wheeled vehicles seem bouncier and not at all realistic for size/weight. Overall I feel like I'm just barely in control of my bot.

I will reserve final judgement for the release version however, other than some eye/ear candy, I can't say that I'm impressed with it.
zabe 25th October 2007, 14:24 Quote
Is it me or UT3 is very influenced by the "decayed"-like art style from Gears of War? Which is always a good thing, the game has become, not darker, but maybe a bit deeper... In image quality anyway. I'm still not very confident on physix hardware... seriously, if I have 4 cores in my intel cpu, why on earth would I want a PPU when my cpus can handle it comfortably? To leave them idle without doing any work? Because, not even UT3 will be able to exploit four cores, that's a long way from these days. Anyhow, great game!!
yakyb 25th October 2007, 16:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by zabe
Is it me or UT3 is very influenced by the "decayed"-like art style from Gears of War?
you may find that gears of war is influenced by UT3
knuck 25th October 2007, 16:25 Quote
I can understand those who say they are disapointed by the lack of inovation that ut3 brought (or should bring) but think of it like CSS when it came out. The game could not change too much when it comes to gameplay/weapons or else the old players would complain too much. It is what happened with CSS and it's also why 1.6 is still alive. I doubt epic could afford to split the UT community one more time like they did when 2k3 came out and that is why they released a game very similar to both ut99 and 2k4, to reunite the two communities

I personally think its fine because i am conservative when it comes to gaming, but I can understand why some people are really not interested in the game
UncertainGod 25th October 2007, 16:27 Quote
zabe, I think you will find that the style is what the Unreal 3.0 engine does best, just like Valves source engine produces a certain look to a game, so will unreal 3.0. And as far as you quad core being able to handle the proccessing of a massively parallel architecture who's sole purpose in life is to crunch physics equations, just no.

CPU is a general processing unit, GPU is a graphics proccessing unit and now PPU are physics proccessing units, in time both the GPU and the PPU will be replaced by a GPGPU setup that still has the massively parallel proccessing ability that CPU's lack but a more flexible function base.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums