Widescreen Gaming Forum

[quote]If i cant upgrade myPC by the time it comes out for it to run/look great enough, i can just pick it up for 360

You wanna play a first-person shooter with a friggn' controller? o_O
I have qquite a bit of shooters for the 360 and it works perfectly fine wiht me. If i can upgrade it my Pc enough so it looks relativly clsoe to Gears of War by the time the game comes out, of course i'll get it for PC. But If i cant, i'll get in on 360.

[quote][quote]If i cant upgrade myPC by the time it comes out for it to run/look great enough, i can just pick it up for 360

You wanna play a first-person shooter with a friggn' controller? o_O
I have qquite a bit of shooters for the 360 and it works perfectly fine wiht me. If i can upgrade it my Pc enough so it looks relativly clsoe to Gears of War by the time the game comes out, of course i'll get it for PC. But If i cant, i'll get in on 360.

It might work fine, but i won't work fine when you get online against other players with mouse and keyboard. PC versions are able to be customised and tweaked.

so is ut3 going to be DX9 or DX10?

so is ut3 going to be DX9 or DX10?

10 :P and 9

[quote]so is ut3 going to be DX9 or DX10?

10 :P and 9

To clearify:

Dx10 on Vista /w a dx10 card
DX9(C or L? I dident really catch the whole dx9l thing) on WinXP

There will also probably be a setting to go to DX9 if your DX10 card isnt good enough (such as a low end 8300 or something)

Does anyone expect a e6600 2gig 8800gtx system will run UT3 at full maximum graphics settings with no AA?

Does anyone expect a e6600 2gig 8800gtx system will run UT3 at full maximum graphics settings with no AA?

At 1680x1050 yes, yes i do.
Crysis can do it.

[quote]Does anyone expect a e6600 2gig 8800gtx system will run UT3 at full maximum graphics settings with no AA?

At 1680x1050 yes, yes i do.
Crysis can do it.

How do you know UT3 will? How do you know Crysis can do it?

UT 2004 was massivly cpu limited by the time you got to mid/ high end graphics cards. i can run ut2004 @ 1680x1050 0xAA or 6xAA at the same FPS number.... so unless its changed a lot i would say that UT3 will be similar. the first time they showed it was on 7800 Quad SLI (the GT version) so... it should run fine :P

UT 2004 was massivly cpu limited by the time you got to mid/ high end graphics cards. i can run ut2004 @ 1680x1050 0xAA or 6xAA at the same FPS number.... so unless its changed a lot i would say that UT3 will be similar. the first time they showed it was on 7800 Quad SLI (the GT version) so... it should run fine :P

Yeah I remember upgrading my FX5600 to a $800 ATI x800PRO and I didn't even see an increase in FPS!!! My CPU remained at P4 2.4ghz so UT2004 was very dependant on CPU. That being said, a 3.2ghz e6600 should do the trick along side an 8800gts I would imagine/hope/insist! What do you think?

[quote]UT 2004 was massivly cpu limited by the time you got to mid/ high end graphics cards. i can run ut2004 @ 1680x1050 0xAA or 6xAA at the same FPS number.... so unless its changed a lot i would say that UT3 will be similar. the first time they showed it was on 7800 Quad SLI (the GT version) so... it should run fine :P

Yeah I remember upgrading my FX5600 to a $800 ATI x800PRO and I didn't even see an increase in FPS!!! My CPU remained at P4 2.4ghz so UT2004 was very dependant on CPU. That being said, a 3.2ghz e6600 should do the trick along side an 8800gts I would imagine/hope/insist! What do you think?

i agree with that statment :)

The Unreal3 Engine is supposed to run very well on lower and mid level systems according to Epic. Also, remember that this is still a DX9 engine.

Epics games have always ran well on my systems in the past, and I have faith in them. I plan to build a new system in December anyways, but I think most people without top-of-the-line systems will see great performance.

This is certainly not the case with Rainbow Six Vegas.

I'm glad they included a single-player campaign. I'm not much into multiplayer myself, and I really wanted to see a good game using this engine.

http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?id=2469

new video

I'm glad they included a single-player campaign. I'm not much into multiplayer myself, and I really wanted to see a good game using this engine.

UT3 was in development as a multiplayer game for a few years now. I don't see how adding some singleplayer stuff to it is going to worth it. Either make a multiplayer-only game (maybe with bots), or a singleplayer-only game. Doing both generally results in mediocrity, as the neither part will be perfect.

some people just don't have highspeed

UT3 was in development as a multiplayer game for a few years now. I don't see how adding some singleplayer stuff to it is going to worth it. Either make a multiplayer-only game (maybe with bots), or a singleplayer-only game. Doing both generally results in mediocrity, as the neither part will be perfect.

I fully agree with this one.

Battlefield series
Quake 1-3 look waht happened the quake 4
UT series
Counter Strike

[quote]

UT3 was in development as a multiplayer game for a few years now. I don't see how adding some singleplayer stuff to it is going to worth it. Either make a multiplayer-only game (maybe with bots), or a singleplayer-only game. Doing both generally results in mediocrity, as the neither part will be perfect.

I fully agree with this one.

Battlefield series
Quake 1-3 look waht happened the quake 4
UT series
Counter Strike

Wait what are you listing games that are examples of? >.<

BF: Muiltiplayer with simple missions that offer the same gameplay as online but with bots and very simple story line explaining the maps mainly.

Quake 1-2: Both singleplayer campaigns with online play

Quake 3: Muitliplayer with simple singleplayer bot play

Quake 4: True to the old quake 1-2 style Single player campaign and muiltiplayer

UT: Muilti with simple missions, nothing differnt then online play.

CounterStrike: Online only

Another improvement to graphics, another game that needs a monster system to play it.

I guess you could say I'm underwhelmed.

But I'm still looking forward to it - especially if play.com sell it for £18 like they did 2004... :D

I feel the same way..

Unreal was awesome

Unreal 2 was Better

The tournament versions just annoyed me because I'm not a fan of death match at all and the single player Unreal 2 was incredible.

So instead of earning their 50$ for the next two games by continuing the story for us SP fans they went ahead and sold the same DM LAN game TWICE over with no update to the SP storyline.

If 2007 was going to be a continuation of the SP story line in Unreal 2 AND another Deathmatch tournament game they would surely have my $$ on release date... Since it's just another DM game on a Revolutionary new engine I think I'll wait til the hype dies down and pick it up when the cost drops under 50$

EDIT:

I need to read up on the game some more.. In the past they released UT2 as a separate game from the tournament versions.. I wouldn't mind having the option to buy a single player game using the engine in the UT story line..

I DO NOT expect them to release both in one box for 50$ and have both games be fantastic.

I feel the same way..

Unreal was awesome

Unreal 2 was Better

The tournament versions just annoyed me because I'm not a fan of death match at all and the single player Unreal 2 was incredible.

Unreal Tournament and Unreal are two totally different games.

Wait what are you listing games that are examples of? >.<

BF: Muiltiplayer with simple missions that offer the same gameplay as online but with bots and very simple story line explaining the maps mainly.

Quake 1-2: Both singleplayer campaigns with online play

Quake 3: Muitliplayer with simple singleplayer bot play

Quake 4: True to the old quake 1-2 style Single player campaign and muiltiplayer

UT: Muilti with simple missions, nothing differnt then online play.

CounterStrike: Online only

What I was saying, and I shold have elaborated was that most First person shooter (FPS) games that were designed for single player (SP) have been substandard for multiplayer (MP). The examples I previously used where supposed to be all FPS designed for MP action. Quake 1 & 2 well they might not have been soley MP as I never really played them, but Quake 4 was not designed for soley MP and had a great SP mode as I hear, and you can see what happened there to the MP side of things, its not a big as Quake 3's MP following.

BF-BF2 = MP
UT, as in Unreal Tournament not Unreal = MP
Quake 3 = MP
Counter strike = MP

Even thought some of these game you are able to play SP action, they are far more concentrated on MP modes. These MP games far surpass the SP designed games in many areas:
-Net coding
-game balancing,
-weapon balancing
-map design
-map balance
-game flow
-ability to run a competative environment without the need for a referee
-Some have the ability to duel

If you look at FarCry designed for SP for example, great SP game, but the MP in that is majorly flawed and in my opinion, compared with the likes of UT series, and BF series, sucked chocolate salty balls. In Farcry a player somtimes had to treck for minutes at a time to get back to the action after they die! There was also spawn killing iwhich was horrendously easy to do and happened quite alot which destroys a game, camping is way to easy...there was too many flaws too be taken seriously as a MP game.

To be fair, I would have to mention that the Halflife series was an exeption to this, as I think the MP coding was great, obviously had to be for Counterstrike to be such a popular game. But overall, if a game has a decent SP campaign, the MP usually is a ballsup.