Bleedblue12345
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2004
- Messages
- 1,942
What will the physx card bring to the table in this game?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Unreal Tourney 3 (2007) Physx
- Thread starter Bleedblue12345
- Start date
Yep. I've got one PCI slot left and I'd rather fill it with the Killer NIC than a PhysX card honestly.
That quote is over a year old, so depending on how well hardware card sells are going, they might have removed the need.
Same thing that got rid of PS3 exclusives, why limit your customer base?
LuminaryJanitor
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 2,340
Seems unlikely at this point (though you sound a bit skeptical, so I probably don't have to tell you that
).Remember the days when shooters had secret levels? It used to be near universal (IIRC...), but it's something you never see nowadays. And for one simple reason: Content is so time-consuming ( = expensive) to create that building a level which only a small fraction of players will see just can't be justified.
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,136
Epic is not fool enough to require something as rare as a Physx card for /any/ part of such a high-dollar, extremely popular title. As others have said, that would just be alienating the huge portion of the hardcore gaming community that does not own any Physx hardware.
Or, it'd drive sales of the PhysX cards because the hardcore gamers wouldn't mind plunking down $150-170 for a PhysX card plus the game. ("Hey, free game!") And if they limit it to only certain levels? So what.
Every time I hear about the "hardcore gamers" voting with their wallets I laugh. Because it never, ever happens. In the choice between a new game and supposed ethics, the game always, always wins. (Doesn't hurt that the ethics, aren't.)
And for the record; my latest build has PhysX. (CoX player. I'll take another dozen FPS, thanks.)
Most gamers have middle -> low end hardware. http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html
Epic knows this, and they know people won't shell out $150 for a game they may or may not like.
Heck almost 50% of the people above are still using AGP boards.
Epic knows this, and they know people won't shell out $150 for a game they may or may not like.
Heck almost 50% of the people above are still using AGP boards.
Actually it wouldn't do jack for the card and would cripple the game.
Most hardcore UT players are all about fast frags, go to any dedicated UT forum and you will see a wall of hatred thrown at physx and destructable environments.
It was the idiocy of "graphics = gameplay", which I'll not epic said, that caused UT2003 to tank compared to UT99. And the hardcore UT players have already pretty much damned UT3 to suck because of the physx issue.
Let's also keep in mind that the hardcore UT players only ever play a handful of maps, and it's never the good looking ones. It's the ones that represent old school CTF/DM.
Forcing physx content will be the fastest way to utterly destroying the multiplayer community base for this game in record time.
I doubt epic is that stupid.
Aye
Maps played in TDM
Goliath
Waisten
Goose2k4
Campgrounds
Grendelkeep
Idoma (if server has like 6 people in it)
Seraphim_LE
Maps played in TAM
Goliath
Waisten
Goose2k4
Campgrounds
Grendelkeep
Idoma
Pipeworks
Under_LE
So lets see.. no graphically stunning maps at all, 5 are community made. Most actually have quite dull textures. And a lot of people play with settings on low/lowest. I used to do low texture settings and high character detail so they will stick out better on the non UTcomp servers.
Fact is, UT community wants great game play maps, not gimmicky physx maps. Epic knows that, I hope.
Maps played in TDM
Goliath
Waisten
Goose2k4
Campgrounds
Grendelkeep
Idoma (if server has like 6 people in it)
Seraphim_LE
Maps played in TAM
Goliath
Waisten
Goose2k4
Campgrounds
Grendelkeep
Idoma
Pipeworks
Under_LE
So lets see.. no graphically stunning maps at all, 5 are community made. Most actually have quite dull textures. And a lot of people play with settings on low/lowest. I used to do low texture settings and high character detail so they will stick out better on the non UTcomp servers.
Fact is, UT community wants great game play maps, not gimmicky physx maps. Epic knows that, I hope.
Welcome to the Internets.
Every last one of them is going to whine at the top of their lungs no matter what. And when it comes out, they'll buy it anyways, even after screaming how it's going to suck for the past year. And they'll buy all the add-on packs. They'll whine the maps are ugly, they'll whine the levels suck, they'll whine the weapons are unbalanced, they'll whine about the netcode, they'll whine about the server code, and so on.
Just like every time.
If the whiners ever actually did what they continually claim they're going to, EA would've gone into bankruptcy ages ago, GF8800GTX's would be $250, and we'd have stopped getting sequels sometime back in 2003.
Sigh the comment above yours proves you're completely out of touch with the UT community.
It's never been about GFX, if anything is going to ruin the game, it won't be high system specs, it will be physx changing the game play. At which point it deserves to tank.
You forget, a lot of hardcore UT players didn't buy 2k3 because it turned into a gfx fest, many who did quit playing, and the game died off pretty fast. 2k4 suffered as well.
As for EA, EA's games don't have the fan crowd of a UT game.
Physx in UT is as smart as sticking your dick into a pencil sharpener. It might just prove that physx isn't needed in some games and set the movement back.
@Shlomo
Remove grendel from TDM, good players do not play it. Add Antalus.
It's never been about GFX, if anything is going to ruin the game, it won't be high system specs, it will be physx changing the game play. At which point it deserves to tank.
You forget, a lot of hardcore UT players didn't buy 2k3 because it turned into a gfx fest, many who did quit playing, and the game died off pretty fast. 2k4 suffered as well.
As for EA, EA's games don't have the fan crowd of a UT game.
Physx in UT is as smart as sticking your dick into a pencil sharpener. It might just prove that physx isn't needed in some games and set the movement back.
@Shlomo
Remove grendel from TDM, good players do not play it. Add Antalus.
LuminaryJanitor
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 2,340
The game is reported to have 36-48 maps. Anyone bitching that loudly about maybe three of those requiring a PhysX card is just embarrassing themselves.
Heh... that's the way it tends to go, ain't it? Anyone been to the NMA forums and seen the, ahem, fallout over that Fallout 3 preview?
Uberbob102000
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2006
- Messages
- 2,243
What are these "hardcore" players scared of a new challenge with destructable enviroments. I agree that its not a good idea on epics part but these guys sound like a bunch of whining grown men who live in their parents basement and weigh more that most midsized sedans.
That_Sound_Guy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2002
- Messages
- 3,093
Truth!
A game that looks great with bad gameplay will not survive these days. Look at Doom 3, STALKER, Painkiller. Games looked GREAT but lacked big time int he replay/online play aspect thus dieing off. Thats what killed UT2K3/2K4 for the UT99 players, strictly driven by graphics, ruined in gameplay. I certainly hope Epic/Midway get the hint.
I saw the newest UT demo movie, and it made me a sad panda.
Heres to hoping graphics arent superior once again, as I could care less for some awesome explosion if Im not enjoying the game.What the hell do you have against good graphics? Ever think that you might be able to have graphics and gameplay both? UT2004 is more popular than UT2003 because they fixed some gameplay aspects of the game and tuned it to behave more like UT99. Honestly, I think that these "hardcore" gamers are nothing more than a bunch of babies that are scared of change. I think they bitch about games looking too good ruining gameplay because their parents can't afford the good hardware to run it.
Graphics don't make a good game alone but there is no reason why good games can't have good graphics.
Graphics don't make a good game alone but there is no reason why good games can't have good graphics.
peacetilence
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,343
No one even plays anything aside from Torlan Onslaught in UT2004 since like it's been released so I doubt anyones going to play the Phsyx levels in UT2007. Sucks because I'm all for innovative technology and games. PC gamers don't seem like the brightest bunch anymore though, content with poor quality console ports and spending excess amounts money on hardware which has little practical benefit and no real innovative games to take advantage of.
. Sucks because I'm all for innovative technology and games. PC gamers don't seem like the brightest bunch anymore though, content with poor quality console ports and spending excess amounts money on hardware which has little practical benefit and no real innovative games to take advantage of.AnnoyedDragon
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2007
- Messages
- 122
Content? More like having Xbox's greasy left overs crammed down our throats whether we like it or not. I am quite frankly sick of seeing new games that don't take advantage of the hardware on todays G80/Conroe generation PCs, just because it was also launched on consoles.
That_Sound_Guy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2002
- Messages
- 3,093
Well of the games I play graphics have ruled way over playability in my opinion. I was a diehard UT99 player and I cant stand UT2k4 because of all the bs now. Nothing like dodging around a corner and getting stuck on a pipe sticking out of a random wall just for graphical effect.
I played the crap out of UT99' and I really didn't like 2003. I do very much enjoy UT2004 even though it's really just a tweaked version of UT2003 with some new maps and a couple of new game modes. Really though they fixed all I needed to have fixed to really enjoy it.
People bitch and complain about complex environments but I say that's a good thing. Being able to perform in all kinds of environments and maps is a good thing. I am pretty good at FPS games and I've never whined about a map being too complex or pretty. I pride myself on being able to take on anyone in any setting. If I lose I don't blame FPS fluctuations or objects on the map. If I lose it's because I need to improve, not because of the map or some other lame excuse.
It's not complex maps people are upset about, it's dynamic complex maps. Destructive environments would suck it UT3. Have you ever played a glass map in Counter-Strike? Now imagine the same thing be an integral part of UT3...
[21CW]killerofall
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2006
- Messages
- 4,064
I think that would make the game more difficult and require more planning on the player's part in order to not get killed. Plus shooting people through objects or killing them with debris sounds more realistic and would also make the game more challenging. It also doesn't hurt that I have a physx card that I got for free at a lan
.Are you kidding me? People bitch about this? Personally more destruction would be awesome. It would add a new element to the game. Cover would only work as long as it can hold up to enemy fire. That's the way games should be. I want destructable environments and additional hazards on the map. I just can't stand it when people whine about having such things in so called competitive games. Go back to CS if you don't like progress. I want to have to play games differently than we do now, I want to do something new. I want new experiences in games.
Yep, probably get like 3 extra shards of shrapnel and half the frame rate and reduced quality visuals... The card has been out for well over a year and its just as bad if not worse now that it was at launch.
I love it.
Uberbob102000
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2006
- Messages
- 2,243
I'm going to have to agree with Dan_D on this one. I think it would be awesome to play on destructible maps. Don't like that sniper? Pull out your rocket, redeemer, large weapon of choice and send his tower to the ground. That guy hiding behind cover? same thing.
Those guys are just whining because they are scared of change and probably suck anyway and don't want to get pwned more.
Those guys are just whining because they are scared of change and probably suck anyway and don't want to get pwned more.
jonneymendoza
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 6,395
LOL i gotta disagree with all the people that dont want destructable enviornments. i hope and prey that UT3 includes this has it will make it much more realistic and innovating. if people are complaining about this and surely they wont like crysis because the whole enviornment is destructable, even the terrain itself! so pleas epic, dont listen to these fools, make UT maps fully destructable
Me too. Dan, you've made some solid points - thanks for typing so that I didn't have to
To the chap further up who thinks UT2K4 ONS is simply Torlan - get out there mate, try something other than the Atari demo servers
Maybe youre location bound? I'm in the UK and have access to some great servers with reasonable ping - TCP Funhouse & Parasite Lost are a couple of great clans that always have quality custom content open for all. They both welcome random players.Open up your UT2K4 game browser, sort by server name and get going! Torlan is still fun with a good bunch of people, but theres so much more out there still.
LOL i gotta disagree with all the people that dont want destructable enviornments. i hope and prey that UT3 includes this has it will make it much more realistic and innovating. if people are complaining about this and surely they wont like crysis because the whole enviornment is destructable, even the terrain itself! so pleas epic, dont listen to these fools, make UT maps fully destructable
Agreed. I think it's time games had something new to offer gameplay wise. Destructable environments are on way this can happen.
Me too. Dan, you've made some solid points - thanks for typing so that I didn't have to
To the chap further up who thinks UT2K4 ONS is simply Torlan - get out there mate, try something other than the Atari demo servers
Open up your UT2K4 game browser, sort by server name and get going! Torlan is still fun with a good bunch of people, but theres so much more out there still.
Agreed. I haven't played Torlan in a very long time. There are plenty of other great maps out there. Torlan is a good map but I think it was played so much simply because it was in the Demo.
That's precisely why I want destructable maps. No permanent cover will cause players to rethink their strategy and it will change how all of us play. Those old games are still out there if you are afraid of change but I think innovation is good and it's been awhile since we had something new besides updated graphics every couple of years.
jonneymendoza
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 6,395
yup, to implement this on both single and online multiplayer will simply be amazing. if UT managed to pull this off, concider me sold in buying a physix card...
That's what the PhysX card should be able to offer but the truth is it is an unknown as to whether or not it can actually pull that type of gameplay off. Even if it can the software certainly isn't likely to be able to do so to a large degree for some time.
WintersFury
Gawd
- Joined
- May 19, 2007
- Messages
- 555
I'd actually be interested in FPS games again if I could blow up the buildings and all that people were hiding it or duck down into a crater left by a big explosion and all that.
I was really hopeful for things like that with the launch of the PhysX cards, but it looks like I'll still be waiting a while yet to pick up a new fps title.
I was really hopeful for things like that with the launch of the PhysX cards, but it looks like I'll still be waiting a while yet to pick up a new fps title.
Well I have high hopes for Crysis being a good game. Hopefully there will be a free demo released and you'll be able to check that out at no cost to you.
jonneymendoza
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 6,395
yea and destructable environments would spell the end of camping
imagine if battlefield 3 had destructable enviroments ie the whole map and its buildings could possibly be wiped out through all the carnage? that would be sweet.
imagine if battlefield 3 had destructable enviroments ie the whole map and its buildings could possibly be wiped out through all the carnage? that would be sweet.
SkaarjMaster
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2002
- Messages
- 1,572
I have to agree with Dan_D as well. I've played all the UT series games and the next step for UT would be destructible environments and I would welcome them. Besides, if it gets rid of camping so much the better. I don't think it will be in UT3 though and will probably end up in the next one (UT4?). I haven't decided yet if I would shell out the extra cash for a Physx card unless there was some great benefit though.
As far as gameplay vs. visuals, there has been a constant debate raging over this for years at BeyondUnreal forums, UnrealPlayground forums and other UT and non-UT related forums across the globe. From my experience, most people prefer higher frame rates with good gameplay but I think a good portion of the community also likes the good graphics. I think UT2004 tried to strike a good balance between gameplay and visuals and did a good job, especially with the release of community custom maps. I have around 400 plus total maps installed for UT2004 right now and you pretty much can find plenty to play no matter what side of the fence you are on. I hope more people download custom maps for UT3, because I'm sure there will be some great ones.
I don't think it will be in UT3 though and will probably end up in the next one (UT4?). I haven't decided yet if I would shell out the extra cash for a Physx card unless there was some great benefit though.As far as gameplay vs. visuals, there has been a constant debate raging over this for years at BeyondUnreal forums, UnrealPlayground forums and other UT and non-UT related forums across the globe. From my experience, most people prefer higher frame rates with good gameplay but I think a good portion of the community also likes the good graphics. I think UT2004 tried to strike a good balance between gameplay and visuals and did a good job, especially with the release of community custom maps. I have around 400 plus total maps installed for UT2004 right now and you pretty much can find plenty to play no matter what side of the fence you are on. I hope more people download custom maps for UT3, because I'm sure there will be some great ones.
This hit the nail on the head. If they have destructable maps as a part of the gameplay. I'll toss the game in the garbage and remove it. I've done it with other games.
It would be horrible for CTF and TDM, I'll laugh as the ladders die off fast and all the UT fans piss all over the games image and go back to playing UT99.
Good for single would suck ass for a run and gun multi game unless you just hate gameplay and love bling.
If they do it, it will be the last game from epic I buy, which isn't that big of a deal since the only games I buy from them are the unreal games.
The UT series will become like tribes for me, once good, yet utterly ruined and shat on by stupid ideas. I could say the same for Quake4 as well.
And despite the rig in my sig I still play all DM FPS 800x600 all low. I can remove the graphical crap I do not want that just takes away from the frag. If I'm forced to deal with physx, you can't turn of a blow up wall, it will probably be around then I hang up my mouse for FPS and move back to arcade PCB's and consoles.
Now physics in crysis seems good, but then again that's single player.
I knew someone with this mentality would chime in and while I respect your opinon, I disagree on so many fronts. Just what the hell do you people have against gameplay changes? I think it would add a new element to gaming rather than recycling the typical FPS game we've all been playing since Quake I hit 10 years ago. Very little has changed gameplay wise in the last few years and it's time that it did. So what if you can blow up walls? That will force people to play differently and quit camping. I don't see how this hurts competitive gaming at all. It simply changes it, makes it different and adds new dynamics to it.
Granted change isn't always good but it's not always bad either. I say give it a chance before you trash talk something that hasn't even been done yet.
I agree that destructable environments would be a nice feature, but I also have doubts as to weather or not the PPU can deliver. It has thus far failed to live to up any of it's expectations. Some people blame the card itself, others say it's a support issue. Whatever the reason, it hasn't delivered and somehow I doubt UT will be "the game" that makes the PPU shine.