News Unreal Tournament 2007 gets substantial revamp

And I thought Fear ran badly :s


Meanwhile on the UT2007 front, Its far too early to complain that the game is running badly, its not due out until early 2007 (from the latest report I heard)
Thats a huge amount of tie to optimise it.

Epic said from the start there first priority was NOT graphics, and optimisation is likely to come under that.
Firstly they are making it fun to play, then making it look good and run well.

I have faith in Epic to make a game that can run on a wide variety of machines.

 

how DARE You slag off my favourite game!.

if you think the graphics are rubbish you must be crazy. http://www.beyondunreal.com/daedalus/singlepost.php?id=9398 check those and tell me this game is ugly. You could have at least attached an up to date picture to the article, that one is like a year old. grrr

and epic games are always v well optimised imo.

 

Read the article simosaurus.

He says that the stills look nothing like the actual game.

 

I think you should re-read the article Simosaurus, maybe more slowly. They didn't contradict a single thing you said there, they said the graphics were dissapointing, and that at the minute, the game doesn't run very well. They didn't say it was ugly, or that it looked rubish. They also didn't slag of your favourite game, which is frankly an odd statement to make considering it's not out yet. Theres still time to make it into a real-time Barbie-doll management sim before Chirstmass right now, so I don't think we should count on or expect anything this early.

 

i was joking with my first statement with the "how DARE you" and rubbish was just me saying it in my language i didnt mean to infer he called them rubbish

sry for any misunderstanding

 

The original Unreal engine was pioneered with "Unreal" and ran like a dog on current systems, Unreal Tournament came out later using an updated version and ran a lot better, especially after the first few patches.

Unreal engine 2 was pioneered with Unreal 2 wasn't it ? which if I remember right also ran like a dog on the current systems then used for the UT franchise later after better hardware was out and the engine was more optomised .. they're now pioneering Unreal engine 3 with the UT franchise for the first time, somehow I'm not expecting it to be as smooth as the UT series is used to.

Edit add from here :

DirectX 10 .. I'm expecting good things from it, not in the way of unheard of effects, but rather in games being able to use far more of ones we've already seen on account of going back to the drawing board with the architecture and allowing it to take advantage of the pure power we are capable of making these days.

Basically the current generation of graphics API's and cards have been added to and built on for what going on 10 years maybe now ? To try and put that in perspective for graphics architecture, its a bit like being asked to design a formula 1 care that has to have 4 seats, a fuel tank that only needs to be refilled once a week, space for 4 suitcases .. and so on. You end up with a car thats good, but you know it could be a lot better if the limitations were removed.

 

Why dont cards support future versions of DirectX?

 

Umm, not really possible. To put what I know simply, there need to be processing units on the card, that understand what they're supposed to do in the context of certain data. DX10 will bring new processing unit instructions. Basicly, there'll be new effects that will need specifically designed new instructions sets, shader models...all that jazz.

To future proof the cards, the companies would need to know what rules DX10 is going to be playing by, and I don't think even microsoft are fully sure what rules DX10 is going to be playing by yet

 

its probably just me but i own unreal 2004 and played it when it was released and never found it that good.

Now il admit the gameplay was good, everything about it was really nice but the thing that let me down was their was no "fun" factor. Perhaps its just me but i found it a simply normal well made shooter but nothing brilliant about it :S

For some reason i enjoyed battlefield and the desert combat mod allot more. I guess its because it was realistic and on relatable terrain but i dunno, sorry this was just a little blog from my head reguarding this

 

Yeah, Video cards suck...

 

So they lied about it being more like 99... sob sob

They lied to us from the beginning..... aaaarghhh

How could they do this.....

 

Noyou are wrong, the U2 engine came from the xbox Unreal title.

 

I think that's also incorrect. Unreal2 the game was originally built using Unreal Engine V2.0

The game was later ported to Xbox. Not to mention the fact that the Unreal Engines are designed with PC's in mind. They're not made for consoles.

 

In my most humble opinion, the gameplay of the original UT (CTFi to be specific) is still superior to any later versions that were released. The only thing that irritated me no end was the fact that the weapon firing always seemed out of sync or something. Really annoying. This was thankfully fixed in UT2003, but with this version came the wishy-washy gameplay, that reached its peak in UT2004 with vehicles added to the confusion. I really hope UT2007 will feature a more tight form of gameplay, but I'm not betting on it...

On somewhat of a sidenote: Unreal 2 was fairly boring, but the XMP mod (eXpanded MultiPlayer) was most excellent. The absolutely fluent battles across huge landscapes, the well-balanced player classes, the energy generator feature that was so successfully "borrowed" from Tribes2, and a decent implementation of vehicles... it was a real breath of fresh air. Too bad there wasn't a whole lot of interest from the gamer community. There now is a version for UT2004, although I must admit to never having tried it myself (http://www.free-monkey.com/).

 

hopefully epic can pull this off

unreal is one of my favorite FPS series

the games are nice

but due to the lack of "upgrade" in 2k4, it seems it never got much of a fanbase

and as such, there arent that many players on it ...

 

Which oddly looked the same as the ones in scarry movie 4.

I never got into the UT games much, probably because I dont have broadband, but 2004 was fun. It looks good enough that I would at least give it a shot when it comes out.

 

I want to know what is meant by "revamp" and what exactly bit-tech is talking about. This article shows really, really poor journalism. The description is terribly vague and no examples or comparisons were made to give us an idea of what they were talking about.

I had a chance to actually see UT2007 in action at GeForceLAN 2 last June (I've got pics of the event to prove it) and it ran great at 1280x1024 on a 7800GTX. The game also looked AMAZING, better than anything I've seen thus far with the exception of Crysis. I got to see a lot of what epic had been showing (updated version of the gameplay demo they played at E3 2005) plus a lot more of the graphics and artwork (fully rendered by a 7800GTX, in real-time) they had been working on at that time. Considering that what I saw looked as good or better than Gears of War, and I HIGHLY doubt Epic would lower the prettiness and performance (just doesn't happen) in the past year, I call ******** on this article until Bit-tech learns how to report things.

 

Seriously, grow up.

Shut down this site and never touch another video game. You have no idea what the hell you are talking about. This is yet another game you slammed with out really giving it a chance. Is this all you do? Find a popular game and slam it to get noticed? You're a joke.

Epic presented an early build at E3 this year, it's far from finished. You WON'T need 7900GTX's in SLI to run the game, stop pulling crap out of your ass.

There are E3 "previews" on this site where you claim you had a chance to look at a game and weren't impressed. When asking developers about your presence at E3 they all say "he must have just walked by, we didn't even talk to him." Prey and Huxley are the main ones that comes to mind, Human Head never even seen you, yet you bash the game as if you had a lot of time with it. Grow up, stop making up crap and passing it off as news.

 

Wow. Bit-tech really needs to do their homework, because this article has obviously made an impression on quite a lot of you despite being rather shoddily reported. Let me set the record straight...

Epic have said that UT2007 will run smoothly (though presumably at lower graphical detail) with a GF6800 and a mid-range CPU.

Why doesn't this mesh with the poor framerates on showings so far? Simple. After the engine's actually built, a lot of the optimisation of game code actually happens towards the end of the development cycle when most of the content is complete. Before the code is optimised, any performance issues you may see on machines running it are utterly irrelevant.

Case in point, the leaked Doom 3 alpha performed horribly on just about any system, but the final game worked pretty well across the board (other than low-end systems, as you'd expect). UT2007 is similar in that it uses a new engine (therefore with a lot of unoptimised code), and is still at least six months from release. However, Unreal games have a history of being ludicrously scaleable, and traditionally any setup capable of then-modern gaming can run the latest Unreal game pretty smoothly. You'll need a decent video card, because some integral features simply won't be supported by older DX-version cards, but other than that, the performance and visual gain between alpha and release should be even greater than that of Doom 3.

 

Also, if you actually spent time with UT2007 you would know the Darkwalkers are nothing like anything in HL2 or War of the Worlds. The Darkwalkers are actually flying vehicles, they hover above the ground and use 3 spikes that stick into the ground to move it along, they're not legs. Maybe Will Harris should have talked to Epic instead of just watching the short video clip on the wall inside the booth.