News Unreal Tournament 2007 gets substantial revamp

Someone called DeathBooger is telling Bit-tech to grow up? Oh the irony.

 

They sound like a couple of angry coders from Epic

TBH that piece of news is simply Bit-Techs opinions and information they have gathered, it doesn't say it's all fact does it. Where do all your facts come from anyway?

What I read from that is that it was dissapointing at that current stage of the build and hopefully it will be what we are expecting once its finished. Whats wrong with that???, it's there opinion. As well as that it keeps peoples expectations a little lower which can only be a benefeit as most games are so overly hyped anyway so if it is good people will be more impressed and will buy the game.

You really do need to work on you manners DeathBooger and TBH I would preffer people to nit pick at stuff than just give it a 5 star award incase they hurt peoples feelings.

If you dont like Bit then don't read it

 

TBH, I'm more inclined to think one angry coder violating some extra rules

So, the article says "we hope it gets better from what it is now, because at the current stage it's dissapointing" and that ignites a flamewar? I hope CPUs get faster in the future because my general computing experince is still dissapointingly slow, and I hope all games get more lifelike graphics because it's still not picture-perfect.

Prerelease products aren't perfect, and that's what the article says. To hope a prerelease is improved by shipping time isn't really much to ask for, and certainly is not the lighter that got those flames going white-hot. :fireextinguisher:

 

The problem is that Bit-tech is reporting their impressions of a demo that was shown, but instead of saying "oh this is what we thought" they title the article"UT2007 gets substantial REVAMP" - substantial revamp is the key phrase!!! That insinuates that the norm has changed. It doesn't change expectations, it shifts expectations completely to a completely different level, so to speak. That title suggests that Epic has completely changed UT2007 - the graphics, the gameplay, everything. Why? Because they said "substantial revamped", when people read that they automatically assume huge changes. And then the article doesn't even go on to talk about ANY kind of revamping!! They don't compare anything, they don't give any details other than the extemely vague "the framerate sucks and we're disappointed with the graphics" along with a picture with the caption "Pictures don't tell the whole story." (not verbatim, but same overall message). WTF is that supposed to mean?! I've SEEN the damn game in action with my own eyes on a 30 ft. projector being run and played by Epic guys almost a year ago and it looked extremely good and ran great at high res. with lots of detail on a 7800GTX!! (it was the 7800GTX launch party after all) To hear Bit-tech say that the graphics sucked AND the frame rate sucked I just have to call ********, unless of course they actually report facts and opinions based in reality comparing what we've seen in the past to what they're seeing now. It's just terrible journalism and gives the reader the wrong impression. This is the only site that's reported any kind of revamp of UT2007 EVER.

 

Well, I've been to E3 too this year and saw the 'behind-closed-doos' presentation of UT2007 and I too must say I was a little disappointed with the performance of the game, especially knowing it was running on dual 7900GTX! But when I asked about the performance, it was clear they needed to do some optimisations. Gameplay looked pretty cool though (hectic as I like it).

What's strange...I only got a private demo of Elveon, an RPG made with the Unreal3 engine, and this was running incredibly smooth (on a single 7800GTX). Amazing what they're doing with this game AND the technology (for example: for trees they use speedtree for the upper part, but in-house developed technology for the bottom part of the trees because they needed more detail).

 

Guys. I'm not saying it won't work well on lower systems. I'm not saying that it won't be great, or scaleable, or ace when it's finished. I'm just saying that on the code I saw, it didn't look awesome.

I've seen the game many times before now, so I know how it's progressing along.

And for a game that is supposed to be released in 2006 (which original interviews will tell you) it ain't that close.

'Deathbooger' - what, are you calling around everyone post-E3 to check if I saw them? As for me slamming a popular game just to get noticed... I think you'll find that other games sites didn't rate Huxley or Prey either, so I'm far from alone. Why don't you link us to your website / magazine / dev company / opinions of the game? I'm eager to see your take.

Strages: in terms of the 'substantial revamp' I was referring to the gameplay, which I noted in the article now had mission-based objectives and new forms of gameplay, as well as things like land destruction and much more vehicle play. We'll be doing an in-depth preview on the game pretty soon - why do you think bit-tech would be out to mislead you? It's not like we have any particular agenda?

 

well said from the man in red ^^

they never bashed the game really, they said performance was under par at this point

but everyone knows that games get optimised alot before launch

and as said, atleast they have the gameplay going (most important part of a game)

 

Have to add to that that indeed also Huxley seemed to perform alot under par. So optimisation will definitely be needed to sell these games to a large audience, since not everyone has dual 7900GTXs!