Who finds the Unreal 3 engine dissapoiting?

S

SX2233

Gawd
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
874
I think it's a engine that has doom3 like graphics with soft shadow and better bump mapping and a insane ammount of HDR and bloom but that's kind of it, I just beat Rainbow Six vegas (unreal engine based)
 
SX2233 said:
I think it's a engine that has doom3 like graphics with soft shadow and better bump mapping and a insane ammount of HDR and bloom but that's kind of it, I just beat Rainbow Six vegas
Click to expand...

To be honest, the first time I saw some of the videos of Unreal 3 engine in action (namely UT2007 videos), I was amazed at how good it looked.
But then, I watched Crysis and Alan Wake's videos and Unreal 3 engine, doesn't look so good anymore.
Crysis is just beautiful to look at. IMHO, besides Alan Wake and maybe Bioshock, nothing really comes close to Crysis, in terms of graphics.
 
SX2233 said:
why?
Click to expand...

Sarcasm, because it appeared you were boasting that you beat Vegas and that nobody really gives two shits :D

Kyle - Don't be a dickhead. He was telling you to explain that he has spent a lot of time with the engine he was commening on . If things of this naturea are all you have to share, then I suggest you simply STFU next time. This is your warning.
 
MrFace said:
Sarcasm, because it appeared you were boasting that you beat Vegas and that nobody really gives two shits :D
Click to expand...
im glad someone figured it out.


but to answer the original question, the unreal 3 engine does look nice imo.
GOW looks decent on the xbox360...and thats with low-res gfx.
imagine it on a PC monitor with high resolution. plus epic seems to have the engine optimized very well, so it should run excellent on PCs.
 
Silus said:
To be honest, the first time I saw some of the videos of Unreal 3 engine in action (namely UT2007 videos), I was amazed at how good it looked.
But then, I watched Crysis and Alan Wake's videos and Unreal 3 engine, doesn't look so good anymore.
Crysis is just beautiful to look at. IMHO, besides Alan Wake and maybe Bioshock, nothing really comes close to Crysis, in terms of graphics.
Click to expand...


See I wish I knew which Crysis videos were making people go gaga because every one I've seen to date has left me horribly unimpressed. The graphics look like a mediocre DX9 title at best....

I'm still looking forward to it, of course.
 
I think UT2007 looks friggin beautiful. True, alot of it is just very detailed texturing, but the thing that makes the games so great is the shadows and blooms and such. Crysis has alot of cool aspects too, but for "most visually stunning" I'll give the nod to UT2007. For depth of the engine I might give the nod to Crysis.
 
Blue Falcon said:
See I wish I knew which Crysis videos were making people go gaga because every one I've seen to date has left me horribly unimpressed. The graphics look like a mediocre DX9 title at best....

I'm still looking forward to it, of course.
Click to expand...

Are you serious ?
If you are, then my question is: What videos did you watch, to give you that impression ?
Did you see the G80 flythrough ? Or the overview video with commentary ?
 
Blue Falcon said:
See I wish I knew which Crysis videos were making people go gaga because every one I've seen to date has left me horribly unimpressed. The graphics look like a mediocre DX9 title at best....

I'm still looking forward to it, of course.
Click to expand...

That is because every video you have seen of it was DX9 to my knowledge. They have confirmed "running on Vista" and they have confirmed "using 8800," but they have always dodged the DX10 question. And of course the game does have DX9 pathways. I have seen it run first hand on DX10 hardware and it is very impressive.
 
Silus said:
Are you serious ?
If you are, then my question is: What videos did you watch, to give you that impression ?
Did you see the G80 flythrough ? Or the overview video with commentary ?
Click to expand...

I did watch a flythrough video that was recently released although I'm not sure it was rendered on a G80. In fact that particular video is the one I had in mind when I posted that.

Don't get me wrong I'm still looking forward to Crysis like everyone else, I'm just not horribly impressed with the eye candy from what I've seen sofar. Maybe that will change when it's in our grubby gaming paws. :D
 
Im pretty sure that Gears of War was styled on the UE3 engine and its downright beautiful.

Hands down the best looking console game to date. 2 million copies sold, guess that's a pretty good gauge of what people think about the product.

I'm anxious to see Crysis and UT 2007 not so much for the DX10 but just to have some new stuff to play.
 
magoo said:
Im pretty sure that Gears of War was styled on the UE3 engine and its downright beautiful.

Hands down the best looking console game to date. 2 million copies sold, guess that's a pretty good gauge of what people think about the product.

I'm anxious to see Crysis and UT 2007 not so much for the DX10 but just to have some new stuff to play.
Click to expand...

I'm almost exclusively a PC gamer, and I am impressed with the XBox 360 and I've been playing the hell out of Gears of War.
 
How about this...I just want one new title to rationalize buying a new vidcard. My trusty 1900xt has been a trooper with the current gen, only Titan Quest (and of course Oblivion) really tax my card. I want to play Crysis, it really does look stunning, Quake Wars, again wow, and my favorite series UT. I'm gonna hold off judgement on the Unreal 3 engine until I see it full force in UT2K7 as that is what it was built for.
 
I don't think we've seen near the limits of the UE3. I do remember Mark Rein or Tim Sweeney stating that the game will be able to take advantage of, and look even better, on video cards with 1GB of RAM, it can utilize that storage space for even better looking textures. Also, we haven't seen it in DX10 yet, everything you've seen is DX9 so far.
 
I think it's a engine that has doom3 like graphics with soft shadow and better bump mapping and a insane ammount of HDR and bloom but that's kind of it,
Click to expand...

Dude... you are setting your sights too fucking high...

Doom3 is still an *awsome* game engine... if ue3 made competent improvements to that kind of technology then it is a really good engine and there is nothing to complain about.

Seriously... we are at the absolute edge of dx9 graphics... ue3 is a great engine... even d3 is still a good engine. The oblivion engine is good... but remember that, in these days, texture quality and environment is what sets games apart. A good modern engine can do just about anything... it is up to the game designers to take advantage of all the tech a modern engine offers.

That is something alot of people forget.

Oblivion could have been built on any one of several modern engines and it would have looked just as good... it is about the game designers... textures, meshes, shaders, environments... these things are created by an art department... and they are what makes a game good.

ue3 is DX10 too... I think there is technology there that we haven't even seen yet.

I can't wait until UT2007...
 
Dan_D said:
I'm almost exclusively a PC gamer, and I am impressed with the XBox 360 and I've been playing the hell out of Gears of War.
Click to expand...


Me 2... i just spent a shit ton of money on a new c2de6600 and a 8800gtx. I havent touched my pc in a week because of gow.

Thing is... on my 24" dell monitor using the 360 VGA cable @ 1920x1080 gow looks amazing! I cant think of a single pc game that looks this good and is out right now.
 
A good modern engine can do just about anything... it is up to the game designers to take advantage of all the tech a modern engine offers.
Click to expand...

I, don't agree. Games are limited by what the developers can do within a game engine and the current hardware. HL2 is a 'modern' engine, but some graphics cards can't do bloom effects, HDR+AA, things like that.

In the case of Crysis, you should read the article about Ray Tracing that [H] put up a day or two ago. It takes alot of CPU/GPU power to do real-time water reflection, so even if a game developer wanted to put real-time water reflections with height displacement, it's gonna take alot of CPU/GPU power to do that, and as such is limited by the hardware. That's not saying that UE3/Crysis2 will make games look better, but I find your broad state 'A modern engine can do just about anything' rather flawed because you blame game designers for not taking advantage of modern engines while ignoring hardware, time, costs, talent, game play fesability, or even physics. While physics has come along way in games, it still has a long way to go.

While I do agree that some eingines can stretch their legs to offer better graphics, such as a modified D3 Engine, this isn't really the game developers fault in the first place. The engine was written during a time that only allowed certain visual/physic effects to happen. I don't think it's fair to blame an engines limitations about what it can and can not do on the artist/developers.

EDIT: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=334

An interesting special effect which I want to present here in more detail is water. As we expect it from nature water should reflect the surrounding environment and it should be possible to look through the water with some refractions going on. Water in motion should not look flat; there should be some visible height differences in the waves. I want to present you some examples of water in games that we have seen the last years. Of course these “optimizations” had to be done to make the game render fast enough, so this should not be a critic of the game or company itself. It should just show how water looks today in some games, what it lacks and how it could look in ray tracing games.
Click to expand...
 
SoniCraze said:
Me 2... i just spent a shit ton of money on a new c2de6600 and a 8800gtx. I havent touched my pc in a week because of gow.

.
Click to expand...



Dude....if I could hook up a mouse and keyboard to an Xbox 360 or a PS3, I would play alot more FPS Console games....but controlling one of those with two shitty thumbsticks is the epitomy of lame. WHERE'S MY FRACKING MOUSELOOK!!!! :p

I still prefer my PC for gaming, but I only play racing games on my console....my 7 year old son can switch back and forth no problem, but I am stuck in my ways since I have been playing PC based FPS games on an inverted mouse since about 1994.


EDIT - thread back on topic...
 
R6: Vegas has been the most impressive(graphically) game I've installed on my box. I haven't seen a better looking game.
 
I'm more excited about the gameplay elements in Crysis than the actual graphics...

I hate in oblivion how I can walk through a bush (without any recourse), hit a tree with my sword (and have it spark and make the same noise that hitting the ground does). etc. etc.

And volumetric clouds are awesome, along with the amazing lighting quality...

Great framework for future games IMO, even if I don't like the whole FPS concept...
 
Dude....if I could hook up a mouse and keyboard to an Xbox 360 or a PS3, I would play alot more FPS Console games....but controlling one of those with two shitty thumbsticks is the epitomy of lame. WHERE'S MY FRACKING MOUSELOOK!!!!
Click to expand...

a little OT: Have you ever actually sat down to play a console FPS? I mean sat down and spent time going through each level of a game from the beginning.

I hear alot of people say what you are saying...

I got an old xbox recently and tried out Painkiller for some undead action... and after a little while of that and playing my girl on halo split screen... I can tell you that you can be almost as good with the paddles as I can with a mouse and keyboard.

For me, actually, I may be even better... I have had my mouse and keyboard controls the same since quake1, and while I finish in the upper quarter on q4 or FEAR matches, my controls have become very cumbersom with modern games. I can strafe around a target ALOT better with the paddle. Modern games are all about strafing... while my mouse and keyboard settings are centered around a different style... but anyhow... I think there are probably console gamers that could kick your pants off with a paddle... I wish there were online games that both 360 and PCs could connect to then the question would be answered finally.
 
Yashu said:
a little OT: Have you ever actually sat down to play a console FPS? I mean sat down and spent time going through each level of a game from the beginning.

I hear alot of people say what you are saying...

I got an old xbox recently and tried out Painkiller for some undead action... and after a little while of that and playing my girl on halo split screen... I can tell you that you can be almost as good with the paddles as I can with a mouse and keyboard.

For me, actually, I may be even better... I have had my mouse and keyboard controls the same since quake1, and while I finish in the upper quarter on q4 or FEAR matches, my controls have become very cumbersom with modern games. I can strafe around a target ALOT better with the paddle. Modern games are all about strafing... while my mouse and keyboard settings are centered around a different style... but anyhow... I think there are probably console gamers that could kick your pants off with a paddle... I wish there were online games that both 360 and PCs could connect to then the question would be answered finally.
Click to expand...


A mouse is faster, and a mouse is more precise.

Console games approach this technical truth by altering the hit boxes, and adding auto aiming features. Additionally, after playing both the XBox and PC versions of Republic Commando, I noticed that the enemies take less damage, and deal less damage too. I've noticed this on a lot of games that are cross platform.

That answers the question sufficiently for me.
 
UE3 seems like Doom3 but with normal mapping instead of the horrid bump mapping, and better textures (Just because the games are newer) In my book that's really darn good. Don't judge the engine by mediocre stuff like Rainbow 6.
 
Dan_D said:
A mouse is faster, and a mouse is more precise.

Console games approach this technical truth by altering the hit boxes, and adding auto aiming features. Additionally, after playing both the XBox and PC versions of Republic Commando, I noticed that the enemies take less damage, and deal less damage too. I've noticed this on a lot of games that are cross platform.

That answers the question sufficiently for me.
Click to expand...


The bold part is especially true.

More than that, does anyone remember playing Halo for the first time on a PC? All of a sudden the sniper rifle was my favourite weapon; the game had been designed around you not being able to aim very well.
 
If you are judging the UE3 engine on R6:Vegas then you are playing the wrong game. That game has no where near the detail of GOW or UT2007 if you haven't noticed.

My point is, you can have the best game engine in the world, but if your level consists of an empty box with one light hanging from the ceiling, it's going to look like crap regardless.

Of course, I'm not saying that Vegas looks like crap, but it does look dated compared to GOW from what I've seen on my friends Xbox.

To the guy who said GOW is low resolution because it's a console game: WTF are you smoking? It's only low res if you don't own an HDTV, otherwise it plays at 720p or 1080i.
 
...the Unreal3 engine seems like a dam fine one! However it is up to the developers, to use the engine to its fullest. To create "immersion" one needs more, than just smoke and mirrors...and um crates. The other engines that the second guy started bah, bla'n about are great too. The guys that purchase these great engines...its up to them to make a product worth your 59.95 or whatever. I was not dissapointed with the Unreal3 demo stuff, but then again I look forward to UT2007! We just need the hardware to run this shit ... I guess!
 
jaguax said:
To the guy who said GOW is low resolution because it's a console game: WTF are you smoking? It's only low res if you don't own an HDTV, otherwise it plays at 720p or 1080i.
Click to expand...
you call 1280x720 hi-res?
i should be asking, WTF are u smoking?!
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
UE3 seems like Doom3 but with normal mapping instead of the horrid bump mapping, and better textures
Click to expand...
Doom 3 does use normal maps. Normal maps contain height information derived from component color maps, while bump maps are derived from a grayscale image. Texture resolution is also not a feature of an engine. The maximum texture size is determined by the capability of the API/hardware (for DX10, we're at 8096x8096). The Doom 3 engine can utilize any power-of-two surface maps.

A good engine is not judged solely by graphical features, as most of this stuff is child's play to implement. A good engine is stable, versatile and efficient with a robust and user-friendly toolkit. None of the other shit really matters.

From what I've seen, UE3 is a very solid engine.
 
I've finished R6: Vegas also and I believe UE3's shadowing/lighting/shader effects are top notch.. the only thing that detracted from the experience were the toned down textures/geometry. Well, my computer isn't the best so I doubt i could run higher res textures anyways. But all in all, the UE3 engine makes me remember the first time i played the unreal 2 engine. Something about it seems familiar.

R6: Vegas definitely doesn't show the engine's potential.. I think that textures and geometry were scaled down on purpose so people right now could run the game at decent FPS.
 
phide said:
Doom 3 does use normal maps. Normal maps contain height information derived from component color maps, while bump maps are derived from a grayscale image. Texture resolution is also not a feature of an engine. The maximum texture size is determined by the capability of the API/hardware (for DX10, we're at 8096x8096). The Doom 3 engine can utilize any power-of-two surface maps.
Click to expand...

Really, I hadn't seen any? I thought it was all bump mapping from the screens. Well, I never bought the game. Also, I know the difference, but thanks for the explanation anyway.

Again, I know textures aren't a function of the engine. That's why I put "because the game are newer" in parenthesizes.
 
Maybe you're thinking of displacement mapping or virtual displacement mapping/parallax mapping. Parallax maps can be derived from normal maps (there's a tool for Doom 3 to do this), but there was no VDM in the shipping game that I know of.
 
SoniCraze said:
Me 2... i just spent a shit ton of money on a new c2de6600 and a 8800gtx. I havent touched my pc in a week because of gow.

Thing is... on my 24" dell monitor using the 360 VGA cable @ 1920x1080 gow looks amazing! I cant think of a single pc game that looks this good and is out right now.
Click to expand...

I have been playing Gear of War on my 37" LCD HDTV and it is awesome, 2 of my kids play with me online and I tell you kids have far better response time than this 40 year old timer, cause they kick my ass in almost every match we play. :p :D
 
Dan_D said:
I'm almost exclusively a PC gamer, and I am impressed with the XBox 360 and I've been playing the hell out of Gears of War.
Click to expand...

me also.. but I have been thinking about getting a 360 just for GoW.. and some racing games.. but GoW does look really nice. I think the U3 engine has potential... I seems like it's taking a hell of a long time to come out to the PC tho.. getting tired of waiting kind of..
 
Yashu said:
a little OT: Have you ever actually sat down to play a console FPS? I mean sat down and spent time going through each level of a game from the beginning.


For me, actually, I may be even better... I have had my mouse and keyboard controls the same since quake1, and while I finish in the upper quarter on q4 or FEAR matches, my controls have become very cumbersom with modern games. I can strafe around a target ALOT better with the paddle. Modern games are all about strafing... .
Click to expand...


Yes, I own an XBox, and I have tried several different FPS console games. I have tried XBox 360 RainbowSix Vegas....there is no comparison to the control I have with a mouse and keyboard for strafing. I strafe FINE with my kewyboard for left and right (S and D) while right mouse controls forward, and F is backwards. I can strafe circles around an object or player, etc., very easily. Second nature.

The paddles suck IMO, and I would be GLAD to play ANY console gamer on the same game with me on my mouse and KB. It would be murder :p and the console guy would hate me for owning him.
 
rahavsmt said:
Then what does the HD in HDTV means?
Click to expand...

High Definition for a tv is mostly, low definition for a GOOD computer screen, at least until you get to 1080...


Now give me a tv in 1680x1050 or better default res and THAT will be truly "high def" tv :D

Remember, normal tv is like 512x384 or 640x480 or something low like that. Terrible.
 
MrFace said:
Sarcasm, because it appeared you were boasting that you beat Vegas and that nobody really gives two shits :D

Kyle - Don't be a dickhead. He was telling you to explain that he has spent a lot of time with the engine he was commening on . If things of this naturea are all you have to share, then I suggest you simply STFU next time. This is your warning.
Click to expand...

lolness
 
Spewn said:
R6: Vegas has been the most impressive(graphically) game I've installed on my box. I haven't seen a better looking game.
Click to expand...

it looks good, but it doesn't look realistic like some of the HL2 scenes I've seen
 
SX2233 said:
Who finds the Unreal 3 engine dissapointing?
Click to expand...

Not me. Not by a long shot, and I've seen both engine demos and game content in person. Its all about the devs and what they do with the tools they have.
 
I don't find it dissapointing at all. The graphics look great plus if it lives up to UE2's effiecientcy as an engine and game running on a server I would buy it right away and sure many others will too, not that i'm not anyway. compared to BF2 you can run alot more players with less bandwith and less strain on the same server. Graphics arn't everything. And BF2 is how many years newer?!
 
TheRapture said:
High Definition for a tv is mostly, low definition for a GOOD computer screen, at least until you get to 1080...


Now give me a tv in 1680x1050 or better default res and THAT will be truly "high def" tv :D

Remember, normal tv is like 512x384 or 640x480 or something low like that. Terrible.
Click to expand...

I've got a 720p tv, and the detail is not limited by that resolution. Trust me, FEAR on that thing is AWESOME.

and I believe normal tv is 320x240.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top