I never really liked the gameplay, but I have high hopes about the new engine... 
Hehe fair point yer, although tharr be no sprayin n prayin when I'm playing
. I didn't say I find CS realistic and UT not, I just feel that CS requires considerably more skill. Either way they're all just games so best not to get too serious about them 
@Madman:
@The Very End: I do have the graphics as high as they'll go in the demo, and yes my PC will play it fine, take my word for it, the graphics aren't that special.
@bbman: I don't really see how the 'new' engine is any different to the old one :S I really don't.
I tried it out earlier, runs smooth, even across 3 screens, very happy 
.
Although it's not revolutionary in any way (I did have fun in that strider thingy), i'm sure it will be taking up a fair chunk of my non-LFS gaming time once it's released. Hmm, or maybe HL2 Ep2, so many choices atm 
.Although it's not revolutionary in any way (I did have fun in that strider thingy
), i'm sure it will be taking up a fair chunk of my non-LFS gaming time once it's released. Hmm, or maybe HL2 Ep2, so many choices atm I downloaded it to my D drive, installing it on my E drive, and of course I had to free up a few gigs on the C drive to make this possible..
The somewhat surprising thing is that it runs smoothly (6800GT / amd3800+) but the 'been there done that' feeling seems to remain.
But I'll probably go back to Quake3 (demo only) for my weekly 10 minutes of FPS fun..
The somewhat surprising thing is that it runs smoothly (6800GT / amd3800+) but the 'been there done that' feeling seems to remain.
But I'll probably go back to Quake3 (demo only) for my weekly 10 minutes of FPS fun..
I never said the vehicles were copies but the style of the game has virtually cloned Halo which I hate, UT was all about fast paced head on battle's now its just some futuristic war game which we have enough of. I started on UT99 (G.O.T.Y Copy) and loved it, then I went and got myself 2003 and loved that even more. I'd rather spend 45 minutes on multiplayer Doom95 then even bother with this new release, tis an epic failure.
I'd rather spend 45 minutes on multiplayer Doom95 than ANYTHING
I see your point... I definitely is a step up from the old engine, but from the screens and the hype I hoped for something more spectacular... Although getting smooth fps with such detailed models and those nice looking volumetric smoke and explosions is an achievement in itself...
Thank you, I thought I was the only one... Really poor installer-programming (to say the least)... Who in his right mind would first unpack all data to the Temp-Folder and THEN copy it to the designated partition? :doh:
Finally got around to installing the demo, and I'm having some major graphical issues. Random polygons seem to be invisible and show messy tracers of what is around them. I can't tell what's what sometimes. Gameplay is still the same old UT though; good or bad depending on how you look at it. I bet this will run flawlessly on my other rig, so I'll have to see next time I go home for a weekend.
It's been confirmed that the graphics aren't truly representative of the final game- some textures have been dumbed down a bit to keep the demo file size down.
http://forums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=579184
For me it depends what kind of mood I'm in. I'm actually having a blast with UT in short bursts- I think it's pretty fun. Personally I wasn't really expecting massive gameplay changes because I've figured there probably aren't really too many ways (armed with keyboard and mouse) to approach running around shooting people in the face. Hehe- it's UT- not the bleedin' splish splash show!
Each to his own
I love this game, its just a nice cool down game, fun and quick paced, rather then being competitive in Cod2..
Well we have a different point of veiw
Lol, epic failure :P
Whereas I enjoy the more map-based games in UT, rather than deathmatch, mainly because I'm not too good at deathmatch roles, whereas I'm better at achieving objectives.
Disagree with you
The fun part with UT is deathmath.
It`s simple, but damn it is fun! Fast paced action and a lot of gore, what more could you ask for? In Ut2004 I found it very borring in the assault mission, not to mention the load time, omg!
looks alot like halo i tried to download but it said 2 hours till finished.
I'm having a blast with the Vehicle CTF at the moment, great fun!
Downloaded it exclusively to look at the pretty pictures and wow, what a disappointment. It looks absolutely horrendous. It could be the engine is holding back on purpose because of my system (Athlon XP and a 7600GT), but even at max details/resolution it looks horrible here (and runs hopelessly slow)!
First off it's the bloom. It looks as if someone has given my retinas a once over with 1000 grit sand paper. It's ridiculous. Real life just doesn't look like that. Not even movies look like that. I just don't get why they keep putting in that stupid effect.
Then there's the glossy finish on every single surface. Rock faces, brick walls, asphalt... It's all shiny! It's as if someone's given the world a layer of clear coat. Not even Bio Shock was this bad (and that was bad).
Another thing is that god awful detail texture they have smeared across everything. It looks wrong on so many levels when you have random cracks and bumps running though everything, regardless of material. At least use one that mimics the look of the material it's on.
Even the general content design (something Epic is traditionally is very good at) is way below par in my opinion. There's just too much clutter and noise, and too little color variation. Everything looks like a big blob of perlin noise from afar. After all the hype I'm just thoroughly disappointed by the look of it.
I'm sure it's great fun though, and that's really all that matters, but still... wow.
First off it's the bloom. It looks as if someone has given my retinas a once over with 1000 grit sand paper. It's ridiculous. Real life just doesn't look like that. Not even movies look like that. I just don't get why they keep putting in that stupid effect.
Then there's the glossy finish on every single surface. Rock faces, brick walls, asphalt... It's all shiny! It's as if someone's given the world a layer of clear coat. Not even Bio Shock was this bad (and that was bad).
Another thing is that god awful detail texture they have smeared across everything. It looks wrong on so many levels when you have random cracks and bumps running though everything, regardless of material. At least use one that mimics the look of the material it's on.
Even the general content design (something Epic is traditionally is very good at) is way below par in my opinion. There's just too much clutter and noise, and too little color variation. Everything looks like a big blob of perlin noise from afar. After all the hype I'm just thoroughly disappointed by the look of it.
I'm sure it's great fun though, and that's really all that matters, but still... wow.
What option are you using for post-processing in the video options? Imo only default looks passable- muted looks too dull and the other 2 are too extreme. Wish there was a way to turn post processing off though- as the game would run smoother for sure.
edit: you can change some ini settings in this file - UTEngine.ini - to turn off things like bloom.
UTEngine.ini
[SystemSettings]
MotionBlur=False
DepthOfField=False
Bloom=False
It was a bright sunny day here- and I usually like to walk around and look at textures to train my eye, and I noticed lots of surfaces which were displaying a bloom effect. But I agree that many games (especially recent games) are getting it all wrong. Not that games should look realistic, it depends what kind of mood you're after- but these things could be used much more sparingly for greater effect imo.
One thing I was keen to check out with the new Unreal engine was the advertised paralax mapping- which has been seen in a few games recently, but I haven't noticed it in the latest UT. Maybe it's just not working on my system (a SM3 effect only perhaps?).
Anyway- interesting to hear so many different views on the graphics. I think i'll reserve judgement until the full game, which should allow better graphics customisation options/better textures & meshes etc. Also, I'd love to see it running with AA, but that might require a fairly hefty upgrade
apparently renaming it to bioshock.exe helps if you have a nvidia card with the latest drivers (enables you to set aa the colours are less dull and stuff like that)
That may be true, and to a certain extent i agree with what you said. But an argument about a sheen on things not being true to life seems somewhat silly when there's a humungous tripod robot shooting weird plasma lazer stuff at you at the same time
Heh, point taken.
I know I probably look more at the tiny little details that most people (being a 3D graphics geek tends to do that to a person), but I just can't stand the recent trend of making everything shiny, no matter what the material actually is. I think brick walls will still be fairly diffuse in the year 2400.Unless they've been covered in some other futuristic, destruction-resistant material that is... That could make sense I guess.
Yep. Real life has bloom (of sorts), it just doesn't look anything like what you see in UT3. The way they first draw everything perfectly sharp and in focus, and then overlay a semi transparent blob of the "high intensity areas" is just wrong.
That I can agree with. Team Fortress 2 is one of the best looking games I've ever tried, and that sure isn't realistic. I get the feeling that Epic were shooting for a fairly realistic look though, they just didn't do it very well.
My card is SM3 capable, but I couldn't really see any parallax-mapping. The previously mentioned brick walls seemed pretty flat anyway.
Unreal Tournament 3 Demo...
(71 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG