Gaming Unreal Tournament 3 Beta Impressions

[Tim S]

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2007/..._impressions/1

With a new instalment just over the horizon the UT modding scene is set to explode all over again, so we go hands-on with the public beta to see what the fuss is all about and if the game can possibly live up to its ancestors.

[BioSniper]

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)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

It looks good, but its hard to see all of the images as they are so dark...

[Blademrk]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Blademrk

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]

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]

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

[HugoB]

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]

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]

That tornado looks pretty cool until the particals start coming through a solidwall - weak, espcially since it supposed tobe hardware.

[UncertainGod]

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.