Who finds the Unreal 3 engine dissapoiting?

revenant said:
I seems like it's taking a hell of a long time to come out to the PC tho.. getting tired of waiting kind of..
Click to expand...


Well, it is. Sort of.

GoW is the flagship console game for the engine. UT 2007 is going to be the flagship PC game for the engine.

The UT series has had ups and downs, but is generally pretty well regarded. It also has a whole lot of things that are being built into it. It seems that this version is going to be combining some of the movement elements of the original UT (toned down from 2k3/4) with many of the gameplay options and elements that were introduced with 2k3/4 (go go onslaught!) as well as introducing at least one completely new gametype (Conquest), and creating a whole lot of maps for each gametype.

Doing all of that plus making sure the game works at the fundamental 1v1, deathmatch, team deathmatch level.

That's a lot of stuff to do. The game is going to be heavily scrutinized, not only for the new engine, but for all of the gameplay expectations. They're trying to make sure it comes out right.

And they're doing all of this during the creation of and after the release of Gears of War. So they've got a prime example of the engine on the market, there's another prime example coming out next year, and that one includes an editor.

Heh, I don't blame 'em for taking thier time. That series is decidedly my favorite for FPS games. I really don't want it to suck.
 
SX2233 said:
I think it's a engine that has doom3 like graphics with soft shadow and better bump mapping and a insane ammount of HDR and bloom but that's kind of it, I just beat Rainbow Six vegas (unreal engine based)
Click to expand...
I won't even attempt to decipher that run-on sentence.
 
Unreal Tournament 2004 looks better then many.........many games in my opinion. The environmental effects were unmatched. UE3 is going to be one of the most popular engines of 2007, and I think it will be the engine all these 8800 card's will be running.

You are entitled to your own opinion......it is just sad you are sad......why can't you be happy?


Also if I was a mod...and I am not because I have a life, and I don't give a shit about what you guys do. This post would be in probably PC Gaming or just the gaming forum since UE3 is general gaming.

Im glad we had this talk about graphics cards though? Err wait I mean....games
 
Silus said:
Are you serious ?
If you are, then my question is: What videos did you watch, to give you that impression ?
Did you see the G80 flythrough ? Or the overview video with commentary ?
Click to expand...

Link please :) I got several but i don't think i have the G80 one yet.

Yashu said:
I wish there were online games that both 360 and PCs could connect to then the question would be answered finally.
Click to expand...

Easy. Just plug a joypad to another PC and play on LAN.

TheRapture said:
High Definition for a tv is mostly, low definition for a GOOD computer screen, at least until you get to 1080...
Click to expand...

Agreed. When i read the specs of HDTV, the first thing that popped in my head was "DivX?" :p



Can anybody post some links to some video demos so we can actually compare?
 
Well considering Rainbow Six Vegas was an rushed-out Xbox 360 port for the PC (hence why it's poorly optimized and still has low res textures and geometry) it's not surprising that it doesn't look as good as UT2007, though I have to admit that the character models (of the Rainbow troopers, not the other characters) and the lighting/shadowing effects in the game are still quite impressive even if some of the environments lack detail.
 
EQTakeOffense said:
That's the thing that really bothers me. I have to agree with Blue that Crysis is amazing, but, I think alot has to do with hype. I haven't been totally blown away by it, but, I also don't know what the final product is going to look like. They never say 'This is Crysis on DX10' they always find someway around it, which makes me think one of two things: either it's running on DX10 hardware, and this is as good as it's going to be. Which, isn't saying it's bad, it's lovely, but still somewhat disapointing. Or, they don't want toshow what it's like on DX10 so when people by the product, and see what it's like, it'll be THE game to get for Vista/DX10.

So, I honestly have mixed feelings about Crysis.



I believe it's been pushed to Q3-2007
Click to expand...

my guess is IT IS on DX10

a friend an i have some come to the conclusion that DX10 realy wont look that much better then DX9 the big 2 will the speed and geometry shaders
that latter of which will mostly improve gameplay and some action eye candy
 
Blue Falcon said:
I did watch a flythrough video that was recently released although I'm not sure it was rendered on a G80. In fact that particular video is the one I had in mind when I posted that.

Don't get me wrong I'm still looking forward to Crysis like everyone else, I'm just not horribly impressed with the eye candy from what I've seen sofar. Maybe that will change when it's in our grubby gaming paws. :D
Click to expand...

So you watched the G80 flythrough...and you say it looks like "a mediocre DX9 title at best..."...
Can you please say which current title has better graphics than what you saw in Crysis videos ?
IMHO, only Alan Wake and Bioshock come close, in terms of graphics, as I mentioned before.
UT2007 or any other Unreal Engine 3 based game, is the one I think is "mediocre", when compared with these three upcoming titles,
 
A good engine is not judged solely by graphical features, as most of this stuff is child's play to implement. A good engine is stable, versatile and efficient with a robust and user-friendly toolkit. None of the other shit really matters.
Click to expand...

This is the complete truth.

The fact that UE3 is being used on 360 (I didn't know that until this thread) and the PC... and the dev cycle on it (games have come out within a reasonable time). It seems very versatile.

I like ID and unreal engines staggaring releases... because it gives the two champions of FPS design a chance to enjoy the limelight.

EDIT: I wanted to add that I agree with the poster that was talking about raytracing. I am excited by the idea of hardware raytracing and the elegant solutionss rather then the... well... basically hacks we are currently exploiting to make environments realistic.

Also about crysis, I think it will look great, but again I think the graphics we are seeing in the demos could be done just as well in ue3 or whatever... modern engine + speedtree for vegetation.

Also I gave props to d3 and unreal... but I think FEAR was a great engine... it was one of the first that scaled well right into quad SLI and beyond. FEAR did not show off any vegetation generation though... but who knows... maybe that was just a developer thing... I just wish deadwood map had better ground cover, hehe.
 
sabrewolf732 said:
You've come to this conclusion, based off of viewing two shitty youtube videos. Okay.
Click to expand...

No...
Download the high quality ones and you'll see what I mean. You should be able to find them @ fileshack and filefront for example.
 
Silus said:
No...
Download the high quality ones and you'll see what I mean. You should be able to find them @ fileshack and filefront for example.
Click to expand...


I have, and crysis being run on g80 and ue3 on older architecture has nothing to do with this? UE3 is capable of much more imo, crysis is also extremely nice. But remember, crysis is a generation above ue3.
 
Another point I'd like to make here is that the Unreal 3.0 Engine, like other engines, can and will start to look better over time as higher resolution textures, and more detailed models get used with it. Also, undoubtedly we will see various physics changes and enhancements in the game engine itself as time goes on.

Look at Quake 3, through Jedi Academy. There is a HUGE difference in visual quality in the later Q3 engine games than the earlier games based on the Q3 engine. Unreal engine games are the same. Republic Commando looks better than UT2004 does. I am sure there are other awesome looking Unreal 2.0/2.5 engine games out there, that look much better than UT2003 does, but I can't think of anything else at the moment. Lets not forget another huge leap from the early Lithtech engine games like Blood 2 and Shogo Mobile Armored Devision and Aliens vs. the Predator 2. The latter looking MUCH better than the first two.

For the other skeptics, remember that screenshots never look as good as the real game, and we aren't seeing final code on DX10 hardware on OUR monitors yet. I'd imagine that Crysis and UT2007 running on SLI'ed G80 cards on a highly overclocked Core 2 Duo, and a 30" monitor beats the piss out of what we've seen so far.

If UT2007 and Crysis don't look good to you right now, then you've obviously set expectations for graphics that can't be met at this stage of computer gaming technology.
 
sabrewolf732 said:
I have, and crysis being run on g80 and ue3 on older architecture has nothing to do with this? UE3 is capable of much more imo, crysis is also extremely nice. But remember, crysis is a generation above ue3.
Click to expand...

No it's not. As Dan_D already said, the engine evolves and it will evolve further, to prepare for the UT2007 launch. And so will Crysis engine, before the game is actually out.
Now, I'm comparing what we saw of UT2007 with what we saw of Crysis and IMHO, Crysis is by far, much more impressive graphically, than UT2007.

Plus, we've seen much more videos of Crysis running on "old architecture", which still looks impressive, than on G80. So, your point is mute.
 
Silus said:
No it's not. As Dan_D already said, the engine evolves and it will evolve further, to prepare for the UT2007 launch. And so will Crysis engine, before the game is actually out.
Now, I'm comparing what we saw of UT2007 with what we saw of Crysis and IMHO, Crysis is by far, much more impressive graphically, than UT2007.

Plus, we've seen much more videos of Crysis running on "old architecture", which still looks impressive, than on G80. So, your point is mute.
Click to expand...


UE3 has been out for a while now, There are a handful of games that use it. Crysis still has a while until anything comes of it. Crysis is a generation above ue3 :rolleyes:
 
sabrewolf732 said:
UE3 has been out for a while now, There are a handful of games that use it. Crysis still has a while until anything comes of it. Crysis is a generation above ue3 :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Agreed. Technologically speaking, UE3 is older than Crysis. UE3 based games still look fantastic and will continue to do so. My point was that even after UT2007's release, I'd expect more titles to be released that look better than UT2007 will.
 
Rhentno said:
How about this...I just want one new title to rationalize buying a new vidcard. My trusty 1900xt has been a trooper with the current gen, only Titan Quest (and of course Oblivion) really tax my card. I want to play Crysis, it really does look stunning, Quake Wars, again wow, and my favorite series UT. I'm gonna hold off judgement on the Unreal 3 engine until I see it full force in UT2K7 as that is what it was built for.
Click to expand...


Why dont you check what slovakinas and germans are doin with it?

www.elveon.com

Check the vids on the site, dont pay much attention to the dialogue though it has to be polished.

for more vids (lores) check

www.3djuegos.com, look for elveon.
 
Silus said:
No it's not. As Dan_D already said, the engine evolves and it will evolve further, to prepare for the UT2007 launch. And so will Crysis engine, before the game is actually out.
Now, I'm comparing what we saw of UT2007 with what we saw of Crysis and IMHO, Crysis is by far, much more impressive graphically, than UT2007.

Plus, we've seen much more videos of Crysis running on "old architecture", which still looks impressive, than on G80. So, your point is mute.
Click to expand...

Does anyone remember Call of Duty vs. Quake 3 Arena if I'm not wrong they use the same engine. If I'm wrong then compare Medal Of Honor to Quake 3 Arena.
 
One thing that people need to keep in mind about the UT2007 videos are they will not look as realistic as Crysis, etc. because it's set in non-realistic settings. That was the problem for me. With laser beams, shock waves, energy pulses, etc. in a futuristic building, it's hard for me to judge how good the graphics have increased because I can't say "That tree looks even more realistic!" because of the setting.
 
Chameleoki said:
One thing that people need to keep in mind about the UT2007 videos are they will not look as realistic as Crysis, etc. because it's set in non-realistic settings. That was the problem for me. With laser beams, shock waves, energy pulses, etc. in a futuristic building, it's hard for me to judge how good the graphics have increased because I can't say "That tree looks even more realistic!" because of the setting.
Click to expand...

The two styles may be different, but you can still compare geometric detail, and texturing between the two games. They will be very different games and will each have their own merits. Remember, it's not all about graphics. UT2004 isn't the most cutting edge game graphically, or technologically. I still play it all the damn time.
 
Dan_D said:
The two styles may be different, but you can still compare geometric detail, and texturing between the two games. They will be very different games and will each have their own merits. Remember, it's not all about graphics. UT2004 isn't the most cutting edge game graphically, or technologically. I still play it all the damn time.
Click to expand...


the gameplay and technique possible in 04 is just amazing. IMO, 04 doesn't look bad at all for how old it is. With everything on high, AA + AF it looks very good.
 
Yes, that was my point is that you can't say X looks better than Y when they are totally different enviromental settings.
 
Chameleoki said:
Yes, that was my point is that you can't say X looks better than Y when they are totally different enviromental settings.
Click to expand...

I disagree to an extent. I think you can evaluate them based on sheer polygon count and geometric detailing of the models, as well as the raw data behind the textures of object A vs object B. Granted such comparisons can be made on mathematical values, and even if you did the results would be entirely subjective. It is hard to compare things in two different games like that because there is almost nothing to compare "apples" to "apples" with. One way to do it though is to find similar objects in both games and evaluate those. The best objects to start with are humans, which are present in both games. Evaluate their geometric detail, texturing and polygon count from different angles. It will be easier to tell which is generally graphically superior to the other.

Again you can't eliminate a certain amount of subjective analysis, and some people would say game A looks better than game B, but even so, comparisons are inevitable and valid to some degree.
 
Chameleoki said:
One thing that people need to keep in mind about the UT2007 videos are they will not look as realistic as Crysis, etc. because it's set in non-realistic settings. That was the problem for me. With laser beams, shock waves, energy pulses, etc. in a futuristic building, it's hard for me to judge how good the graphics have increased because I can't say "That tree looks even more realistic!" because of the setting.
Click to expand...

I agree, I think Crysis is starting to fall into the uncanny valley. Even if you have more complex geometry, better textures, and better effects... if you take a "realistic" approach, it could potentially look worse than an unrealistic game with less going on.
 
I think you can evaluate them based on sheer polygon count and geometric detailing of the models,
Click to expand...

You cannot compare an ENGINE on these things... any engine can support detailed meshes. Quake1 engine could be made to have super high poly counts and extreme detailed meshes...

Engines these days are all about who supports what new hardware features, what addons (havok, speedtree, ect) and ease of development.

Maybe you were just talking about comparing actual games... but my point is valid about the way people argue about engines... they are missing the point.

say bring em both on. I don't care which looks better. I just want some more games to play on my nice new computer. I didn't build this thing to continue playing CS:Source and Guild Wars forever.
Click to expand...

Hell yeah... I want more then just FEAR combat and q4... I am half temped on picking up an old copy of UT2004 just to have something different. I have even poked around in the original doomGL DM ports... and I still log onto q3 (but there are annoying bugs)
 
Yashu said:
You cannot compare an ENGINE on these things... any engine can support detailed meshes. Quake1 engine could be made to have super high poly counts and extreme detailed meshes...

Engines these days are all about who supports what new hardware features, what addons (havok, speedtree, ect) and ease of development.

Maybe you were just talking about comparing actual games... but my point is valid about the way people argue about engines... they are missing the point.
Click to expand...

I was talking about game graphics, not the actual engines. I realize that the engine has little to do with the graphics it can support. That was a point I was trying to make earlier when I mentioned the fact that UE3 games will look better over time as newer titles get released.
 
Yashu said:
You cannot compare an ENGINE on these things... any engine can support detailed meshes. Quake1 engine could be made to have super high poly counts and extreme detailed meshes...

Engines these days are all about who supports what new hardware features, what addons (havok, speedtree, ect) and ease of development.

Maybe you were just talking about comparing actual games... but my point is valid about the way people argue about engines... they are missing the point.



Hell yeah... I want more then just FEAR combat and q4... I am half temped on picking up an old copy of UT2004 just to have something different. I have even poked around in the original doomGL DM ports... and I still log onto q3 (but there are annoying bugs)
Click to expand...


dude get ut04, totally worth the $10-$15 it costs. TAM is quite fun and there is still a somewhat active ictf community. The movement in 04 > * Most games just focus on aim, but the movement possible in 04 adds alot of depth.
 
I think I will grab it.

I was wanting a new game... was thinking maybe battlefield2 or the new one... I haven't played a war game in a while...

But UT... man I used to love the original unreal and original UT... I wanted to check out UT2004... I mean... the price is right... hehe.
 
You should get UT2004. It's cheap, and fun. Though I think that TAM sounds pretty gay, but that's just me.

Last man standing with teams and BS penalties doesn't sound appealing to me.
 
Dan_D said:
You should get UT2004. It's cheap, and fun. Though I think that TAM sounds pretty gay, but that's just me.

Last man standing with teams and BS penalties doesn't sound appealing to me.
Click to expand...

lol you haven't played it
:rolleyes: It's good for pubs. The penalties for competition though is retarded :rolleyes:
 
Graphically Rainbow 6 Vegas is very good, especially for the performance trade off, although it does require a high end system, but that's fair enough for high end graphics.

Back to the question about the Unreal 3 engine, you cannot judge the engine by one game, especially graphically, the engine is capable of a lot and not all effects might be used in one specific game, not only that but things like HDR exposure and blur effects are 100% the result of how the game developers tweak those settings and don't have a lot to do with the engine itself.
 
sabrewolf732 said:
lol you haven't played it
:rolleyes: It's good for pubs. The penalties for competition though is retarded :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Just doesn't sound like something I would enjoy playing.
 
@OP rainbow 6 does NOT do justice to the U3 engine. Do not base your opinions about the engine on that game.
Instead check out Gears of War to see what the engine is capable of.
It's without doubt the BEST looking game in history, period.

If you've ever done any type of 3d modeling, or game level design, you'll notice immediately how much farther ahead of any game up till now it is. I'm still amazed every time i play it how much detail there is in everything and the quality of work is just superb.

It's almost disheartening for me and others in the modding community when you look at games like this, because the bar is being set higher and higher by the newest games, and it's getting harder and harder to keep up with the 'professionals' when it comes to putting out custom content.
The days when you could whip out a 'good' custom map in a month are pretty much over. :(
 
Chameleoki said:
One thing that people need to keep in mind about the UT2007 videos are they will not look as realistic as Crysis, etc. because it's set in non-realistic settings. That was the problem for me. With laser beams, shock waves, energy pulses, etc. in a futuristic building, it's hard for me to judge how good the graphics have increased because I can't say "That tree looks even more realistic!" because of the setting.
Click to expand...

I guess maybe that's the problem with games I've seen based on the Unreal Engine 3. Crysis just seems "real". UE3 based games, do not. I don't play games just because they look good, of course, but today, graphics play an important role for me and if it looks more realistic, then I have to give the nod to that specific game.
This is the case here, where Crysis, when compared to UT2007 (two games not out yet), just looks much, much better.
 
I don't play games just because they look good, of course, but today, graphics play an important role for me and if it looks more realistic, then I have to give the nod to that specific game.
Click to expand...

That's one of the reasons I don't play WoW: the graphics are just cartoonish for me. I love EQ2's graphics for the sake of, even though it's fantasy based, it's still very real looking and for an MMO this is important to me. I feel like I can't put myself into WoW when my character looks so much like a Saturday morning cartoon. This is also why I haven't pick up Lego Starwars even though it's been reviewed highly is just because I can't immerse myself in a game that doesn't have some aspect of reality in it.
 
EQTakeOffense said:
That's one of the reasons I don't play WoW: the graphics are just cartoonish for me. I love EQ2's graphics for the sake of, even though it's fantasy based, it's still very real looking and for an MMO this is important to me. I feel like I can't put myself into WoW when my character looks so much like a Saturday morning cartoon. This is also why I haven't pick up Lego Starwars even though it's been reviewed highly is just because I can't immerse myself in a game that doesn't have some aspect of reality in it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Not that UE3 based games go as far as this. Far from it. They look very, very good. But when comparing them with games like Crysis or Alan Wake, that are close to being photorealistic, they lose big time IMHO.
I'm still waiting for UT2007 as much as any other PC gamer, since I enjoyed most of all the previous UTs.
 
My take: I think we're all spoiled now.

IMO nothing out now blows away 2004's HL2 in terms of graphics, and I think the improvements from now on will be in increased FPS and SMALL increases in realism.

I realize Crysis should blow me away, but it doesn't - I'm spoiled. IMO the only way to get "blown away" by a game anymore is to jump from a 6600GT to a 8800GTX.

Game play may make you say "wow!" as in gears of war and (for me) Company of Heroes, but graphically I'm like "yeah, looks good, nice". We EXPECT uber graphics nowadays. UT2007 and Crysis will both look good, what will set them apart is game play, i.e., the fun factor.

P.S. I want FarCry 1.6 patch for DX10 come march :D
 
toddw said:
My take: I think we're all spoiled now.

IMO nothing out now blows away 2004's HL2 in terms of graphics, and I think the improvements from now on will be in increased FPS and SMALL increases in realism.

I realize Crysis should blow me away, but it doesn't - I'm spoiled. IMO the only way to get "blown away" by a game anymore is to jump from a 6600GT to a 8800GTX.

Game play may make you say "wow!" as in gears of war and (for me) Company of Heroes, but graphically I'm like "yeah, looks good, nice". We EXPECT uber graphics nowadays. UT2007 and Crysis will both look good, what will set them apart is game play, i.e., the fun factor.

P.S. I want FarCry 1.6 patch for DX10 come march :D
Click to expand...

Although I agree that HL2 is still one of the best looking games out there, Crysis seems to go beyond that in almost every way possible. Envirorenment graphics are superb to say the least. HL2 ones were good at the time and they probably set a new standard, but Crysis is really pushing the limits IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top