Gaming Unreal Tournament 3 Beta Impressions

What PhysX needs is a noticable gameplay advance over a computer running no PhysX card - additional content is what drives people to front the money.

All previous UT games have looked very sterile to me, this one actually looks more atmospheric. I like!

 

Actually I'm kinda disappointed.

Ignoring the stuttering sound and regular freezes (after all it is beta), I thought that the graphics and effects were great and the sound was well done. However, compared to UT2004, I feel the game play just isn't there. It feels too loose and sloopy. The wheeled vehicles seem bouncier and not at all realistic for size/weight. Overall I feel like I'm just barely in control of my bot.

I will reserve final judgement for the release version however, other than some eye/ear candy, I can't say that I'm impressed with it.

 

Is it me or UT3 is very influenced by the "decayed"-like art style from Gears of War? Which is always a good thing, the game has become, not darker, but maybe a bit deeper... In image quality anyway. I'm still not very confident on physix hardware... seriously, if I have 4 cores in my intel cpu, why on earth would I want a PPU when my cpus can handle it comfortably? To leave them idle without doing any work? Because, not even UT3 will be able to exploit four cores, that's a long way from these days. Anyhow, great game!!

 

you may find that gears of war is influenced by UT3

 

I can understand those who say they are disapointed by the lack of inovation that ut3 brought (or should bring) but think of it like CSS when it came out. The game could not change too much when it comes to gameplay/weapons or else the old players would complain too much. It is what happened with CSS and it's also why 1.6 is still alive. I doubt epic could afford to split the UT community one more time like they did when 2k3 came out and that is why they released a game very similar to both ut99 and 2k4, to reunite the two communities

I personally think its fine because i am conservative when it comes to gaming, but I can understand why some people are really not interested in the game

 

zabe, I think you will find that the style is what the Unreal 3.0 engine does best, just like Valves source engine produces a certain look to a game, so will unreal 3.0. And as far as you quad core being able to handle the proccessing of a massively parallel architecture who's sole purpose in life is to crunch physics equations, just no.

CPU is a general processing unit, GPU is a graphics proccessing unit and now PPU are physics proccessing units, in time both the GPU and the PPU will be replaced by a GPGPU setup that still has the massively parallel proccessing ability that CPU's lack but a more flexible function base.

 

Well, I play my share of games, even on an aging midrange PC (P-D 930, 7600gt) I can run this very well @ 1680x1050, and to me the textures look great. The most hardcore games will turn all the options down anyways, and Unreal is just keeping an even bigger pool of potential buyers open by offering a beta that is a relatively SANE download size yet still looks good and runs smooth on older-gen hardware.

Gameplay is a little different from UT2k4, and it's a little more leveled out b/w the best and worst players. I like the hoverboard feature a TON more than the translocator, but I would still like that back for the non-vehicle maps.

 

OMG!!! UT3 is looking so great, i cant wait for the release, even though i have to by a new computer to play it ^^

 

Here is a question... With most gamers having dual or quad core processors in the first place, is there really any advantage to having a ppu? It seems to me that the usefullness will wear off with this whole focus on paralellisation.

But then again, perhaps the PhysX processor can do some math faster then an actual processor.. (although i doubt it).

 

I'm confused....

First I read:

Then I read:

Which one is correct?

 

game coming in November on PC

 

The publisher and the developer reckon differ on the dates I'm afraid. Epic says the first, but Midway says the latter.

 

The only thing that really matters is the PC version, and that is coming this year.

 

Well my PC sux atm, and since my friend has a M+K setup along with a PS3 it matters to me.....

 

sucks to be you.

 

Trust me, it just generally sucks to be a PS3 owner most of the time.

 

Why? I can probably play at settings comparable to a $1500 computer on something that cost my friend $499 and it's free to me...so tbh it's pretty sweet

 

explain......actually don't explain....but I'd like to hear you reasoning.....

 

I spend more time running linux and playing movies on the damned thing than I do playing games. Although shortly that should change as I'll be playing Ratchet and Clank and Skate once my RMA exchange actually takes place.

 

RMA exchange? What happened? Arch, just like the 360, the PS3 will have good games come out by its 1-year b-day (US atleast) and tbh isn't being able to do multiple things on the PS3 a good thing, right? (i.e. running Ubuntu, using it as a media server, upconverting 1080p DVD player, etc.) I don't get how that "sucks" to own one.....I'm envious....also have you tried Motorstorm, Warhawk, RFoM, NFL '08, etc. to fill the void until the really good games debut this November-Xmas?