Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Unreal Tournament 3 Performance Revealed

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the winning-the-tourney dept.

PC Games (Games) 85

Vigile writes "The Unreal Tournament 3 demo will be dropping sometime in the next two weeks. With a launch on the PC, PS3, Xbox 360 and even an in-box Linux client it will definitely be one of the most widely-played titles this holiday. With an early take on the UT3 demo's performance, PC Perspective has put up an article that compares cards from NVIDIA and AMD in both single and dual-GPU configurations to see which are the best performers. It turns out that even mid-range cards are going to be more than capable of playing UT3 at impressive image quality levels."

cancel ×

85 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

UT3 vs. TF2 (1)

Puff of Logic (895805) | more than 6 years ago | (#20955881)

Looks good, and I'll definitely be checking it out. However, I wonder how much of UT3's thunder will be stolen by the gem of pure awesomeness that is TF2? For myself, TF2 is the only game in town for FPS action at the moment. The vehicles in UT3 might be a definite point in its favour, though, so I'm looking forward to the demo that's dropping later today.

Re:UT3 vs. TF2 (1)

Pengo (28814) | more than 6 years ago | (#20955979)



I am not a typical FPS gamer, but for me TF2 is like giving a fat-man the keys to the twinky factory. I just can't get enough of it!!

There are only a couple minor complaints about game-balance swirling around (Scouts shooter is a little over the top), but it's a real blast. To get this kind of online experience without having to do any kind of recurring payments is really a nice change from the trend of online-only gaming.

Don't give them any ideas... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20956059)

But seriously, online FPS games never charge you recurring payments just to get online.

Re:UT3 vs. TF2 (1)

Puff of Logic (895805) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956319)

There are only a couple minor complaints about game-balance swirling around (Scouts shooter is a little over the top), but it's a real blast. To get this kind of online experience without having to do any kind of recurring payments is really a nice change from the trend of online-only gaming.
Personally, I'm extremely impressed that they managed to create so fine a balance with so many classes. I also thoroughly enjoy the fact that it's flatly impossible to win without teamwork against opponents of any real skill. I'm hoping that a lot of game companies take note of the graphics too, in the sense that there is a large contingent of gamers out there (I believe) who don't want to have "realistic" graphics, but prefer more stylised visuals. I absolutely love the fact that I can instantly identify someone's class in TF2 purely from their silhouette.

So yes, in my mind TF2 has set the standard for graphical and audio style, exquisite gameplay, and a spot-on sense of humour. It will be interested to see if TF2 has staying power against the likes of UT3. Time will tell!

Re:UT3 vs. TF2 (2, Interesting)

Aeiri (713218) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956395)

There are only a few differences between TFC and TF2... I'm curious why people are so amazed at TF2 when it is a dumbed down version of TFC. Not to say I don't like TF2, it's just that as a TFC addict for 8 years it's amazing that people didn't know about this game...

Re:UT3 vs. TF2 (2, Insightful)

Puff of Logic (895805) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956707)

There are only a few differences between TFC and TF2... I'm curious why people are so amazed at TF2 when it is a dumbed down version of TFC. Not to say I don't like TF2, it's just that as a TFC addict for 8 years it's amazing that people didn't know about this game...
See, I can appreciate your sentiments, but I really hate to hear people use the phrase "dumbed-down" with respect to games (that said, it is certainly applicable in some cases). In my view, TF2 is a distillation of all that is good about team-based shooters, with very little of the annoying crap. Perhaps TF2 is "dumbed-down" in the same way that WoW is "dumbed-down" in many people's eyes, but in both instances I think these games have tried to simply get rid of a lot of the annoying crap seen in their respective genres. WoW has been mind-boggling successful because of this, and I believe that TF2 will enjoy the same sort of success (although obviously on a much smaller level numbers-wise).

I suppose the question you might ask yourself is not why people didn't know about TFC (which presumably most of us did), but why TF2 is enjoying such a positive response. While you note that there are only a few differences between TF2 and TFC, I put it to you that those differences are fundamental to this positive response.

cheers.

Re:UT3 vs. TF2 (4, Interesting)

Aeiri (713218) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957159)

See, I can appreciate your sentiments, but I really hate to hear people use the phrase "dumbed-down" with respect to games (that said, it is certainly applicable in some cases). In my view, TF2 is a distillation of all that is good about team-based shooters, with very little of the annoying crap. Perhaps TF2 is "dumbed-down" in the same way that WoW is "dumbed-down" in many people's eyes, but in both instances I think these games have tried to simply get rid of a lot of the annoying crap seen in their respective genres.


See, my view is that TFC is a distillation of all that is good about team-based shooters already, and that TF2 removed some elements which took some of the skill out of the game. It's still fun, but it's not quite as difficult.

The big change is that they got rid of grenades. Each class had a standard grenade and a class specific grenade that did different things. This made going outside of your base more like entering a minefield and you had to hurry around know exactly where you wanted to go.

Now for class specific analysis.

Medic: First off, in TFC the class wasn't called a medic, it was a combat medic. The medic had two shotguns, the super needle gun (as they do now), and the health "weapon" was only short range, it didn't have magical homing abilities. Also the lack of concussion grenades is a real bummer. A trained medic could fly across the map with those things, but even so, it didn't seem unbalanced because of the way the maps were designed. You couldn't just fly to the flag and fly back, you still had to get into the base. Just a bunch of walking was taken out and your health took a big hit from the fall.

Spy: This is where my real complaints come in. In TFC the spy couldn't cloak, the cloak replaced what was in TFC as the "feign death". So as a spy, you could pretend to die and you would lay on the ground, defenseless, appearing dead to the casual observer. You couldn't move around, and you had to do it convincingly otherwise people would just shoot your corpse and kill you. Another thing about the spy class is that the disguise time is about 3 seconds now. Before it was about 10-20 seconds, so you had to plan all of your attacks, and execute them without hitch because you couldn't just disappear and run away. No pistol either, just a tranquilizer dart that would slow your enemy down. No instant kill sentry weapon, only 2 grenades (one building destroy, essentially). Despite this, a good player as a spy would probably be on top of the server.

Scout, Sniper, Demoman, Pyro, Soldier, Engineer: Practically identical, with very minor changes

So really, the real changes were the Medic and the Spy. The rest were interface changes (such as the Engineer's build system or the Spy's cloaking system), but those were for the better.

So they took the skill out of two classes that didn't cause any balancing issues in the first place. Watching a spy in TFC would be 100 times better than watching someone play Splinter Cell. Yet now, all I see is people cloaking in the wrong occasions revealing their location, stabbing someone or shooting someone, and cloaking and running away. Cloak and dagger tactics in the literal sense. That's not what the class used to be about. It took considerable effort to pretend to be one of the crowd, then sneak around and destroy a sentry. Stab someone, hide, feign, disguise again. Pretend to die in the right occasion, pop up when nobody is around, kill, etc.

Re:UT3 vs. TF2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20957915)

IF you want a follow up to TFC that is more like TFC play fortress forever. only a few differences from TFC, and those are more minor than the TF2 changes.

Re:UT3 vs. TF2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20959447)

As a long time TFC player (and someone who has put more than 60hrs into TF2 already), I'll have to disagree with you. The spy in TFC was a *terrible* class. No skilled player ever falls for feign death, and disguises in TFC are easy to spot (especially since they still bleed when disguised, while your teammates don't). The spy in TF2 is actually *useful* this time around, with the cloaking addition and sapping abilities (and the fact that disguised spys no longer bleed, unless FF is on).

The scout in TFC was also similarly terrible (especially compared to the "medic"), and is now a blast to play in TF2- doublejumping + scattergun is an awesome combination.

The medic was great in TFC, I agree with you, but it was a medic in name-only. The only use of the "med-pack" in TFC was to infect the newbies on the other team, and we all know how much "skill" that takes. . . Playing an actual healing-medic is *fun* in TF2, especially when you're paired with another good heavy, soldier, or pyro. If you miss your combat + aerial abilities from TFC's medic, just play a scout in TF2.

While I'll miss conc jumps and perfectly-timed-EMP-throws, I don't miss the grenade spam. (Seriously, have you even *tried* playing the attacking team on dustbowl in TFC? Good luck making it out the front door in under 5 minutes...)

Re:UT3 vs. TF2 (3, Interesting)

Aeiri (713218) | more than 6 years ago | (#20960083)

No skilled player ever falls for feign death, and disguises in TFC are easy to spot (especially since they still bleed when disguised, while your teammates don't).


Yes you do. You just don't know it.

Most good spies will disguise as their own team and look like they are attacking with them, then have a bind that feigns + drops backpack. Completely convincing and nobody will ever notice the difference in a large firefight.

Re:UT3 vs. TF2 (1)

oceanclub (654183) | more than 6 years ago | (#20965147)

"The big change is that they got rid of grenades. Each class had a standard grenade and a class specific grenade that did different things. This made going outside of your base more like entering a minefield and you had to hurry around know exactly where you wanted to go."

Thank God they got rid of grenades. Every player spamming a map with grenades is not fun. Removal of "sudden death syndrome" is welcome.

P.

Re:UT3 vs. TF2 (1)

shoptroll (544006) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956247)

They both appeal to different sub-genres of FPS games. TF2 is class based multiplayer, UT3 is more "old-skool" style DM, CTF and other game modes. Apples to Orange mainly.

Re:UT3 vs. TF2 (1)

Puff of Logic (895805) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956535)

They both appeal to different sub-genres of FPS games. TF2 is class based multiplayer, UT3 is more "old-skool" style DM, CTF and other game modes. Apples to Orange mainly.
I rather suspected that this would be the case. It's actually nice to have the option, now that I think about it. I've been a huge fan of class-based shooters for a long time now and arguably haven't played "old school" deathmatch play since Quake. Perhaps I'll pick up UT3 to back that old feeling of only giving a crap about me! ;)

Re:UT3 vs. TF2 (1)

dohzer (867770) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956405)

I loved the original UT, but didn't like the addition of vehicles in 2k3. Assuming they are similar, it isn't really a plus in my eyes.

Re:UT3 vs. TF2 (1)

Puff of Logic (895805) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956579)

I loved the original UT, but didn't like the addition of vehicles in 2k3. Assuming they are similar, it isn't really a plus in my eyes.
Presumably there will be maps on which vehicles are unavailable, so hopefully the back-to-basics deathmatch will be an option on at least some UT3 maps. That said, I was actually intrigued to read about a map in the demo that sounds to be almost entirely vehicle-based. I must confess that flying around in FPS games is loads of fun to me, but I don't much care for ground-based vehicles. That map definitely sounded intriguing though.

Re:UT3 vs. TF2 (1)

Solra Bizna (716281) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956859)

2k3's vehicle support was incomplete, and not enabled during the normal course of play. 2k3 was more like a demo for 2k4 than a self-contained game. (I hear they allowed you to get a partial refund on a purchase of 2k4 by providing proof of purchase of 2k3.) 2k4's vehicle support is much more well-rounded and fun, though it still has problems. (maybe I just think so because nothing is fun at 10fps, but meh.)

-:sigma.SB

UT2k4 and vehicles (1)

tjwhaynes (114792) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957403)

I skipped over UT2k3 but bought (for my 64bit AMD Linux box) UT2k4 soon after launch after playing the demo. The vehicles make a HUGE difference to the game play, especially on Onslaught mode. Well coordinated teams which are prepared to use the vehicles to gain a strategic advantage rip through the levels. Speed between objectives is one major advantage, as is the heavy weaponry you can bring to bear on choke points.

Now, if DM is your thing, I can see that the vehicles are merely "meh". If Assault or Onslaught are more your focus, then the vehicles change the game play, speeding up the devastation and allowing a more frenzied game.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Re:UT3 vs. TF2 (1)

Spokehedz (599285) | more than 6 years ago | (#20959861)

TF2 doesn't work in Linux. Not even in Cedega.

I am also saddened by the lack of Portal playing. 49 bucks for the orange box, for nothing at the moment.

Linux client == Instant Purchase from me

Don't forget Quake Wars (1)

MaineCoon (12585) | more than 6 years ago | (#20959971)

TF2 is great for small map tight shooters, ala traditional Quake/early UT style play. Quake Wars, however, is also a very good shooter, and makes a fine addition into the Battlefield/Battlefront/vehicle UT (call it strategic shooter?) FPS sub-genre.

Linux but no Mac? (2, Interesting)

njfuzzy (734116) | more than 6 years ago | (#20955969)

That seems odd. A linux client, but not a Mac client? Less than 1% of the desktop market versus around 6% (and much higher outside of business), and they go for the smaller of the two? Or does the summary just leave out the Mac release?

Re:Linux but no Mac? (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956161)

You say 1% but that's not in proportion to the number of people who would purchase the game.

1% is probably an accurate amount of desktops with Linux on in the world but since geeks are more likely to be purchasing UT then your Mum's windows box from the low budget store I would say that the amount is higher then 1% .

Re:Linux but no Mac? (2, Funny)

xhrit (915936) | more than 6 years ago | (#20958713)

That, and there are the linux nerds like me who will purchase one copy for every computer in the house, for when i host lan parties. Next month I will be spending about 500$ on linux games - and that is just quake wars and UT3.

Re:Linux but no Mac? (1)

nojjynb (1003593) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956163)

A few articles this summer or /. said that it was going to have Windows, Mac, and Linux clients, so I'm assuming that this article just left it out.

Re:Linux but no Mac? (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956165)

Yeah, according to random web chatter, there will be an OS X client using Cider. If there's a Linux client, it's pretty safe to say they'll also have an OS X client, even if the Cider bit is completely off-base.

Re:Linux but no Mac? (1)

chicagoan (670650) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956255)

I think this has to do with the fact that UT traditionally also has a linux server version as well. So most of the code is already ported for linux, they go a litter further with the client port as well.

Re:Linux but no Mac? (0)

Ravalox (640829) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956291)

That may be more about ease of development; all the linux tools are freely available while there are license and development tool complications for porting to the Mac.

Re:Linux but no Mac? (3, Insightful)

Solra Bizna (716281) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956999)

there are license and development tool complications for porting to the Mac.

Ummmm... like what?

On Linux, you have the option of GCC and SDL. On OSX, you have the option of... GCC and SDL. I'm not seeing the complications here.

-:sigma.SB

P.S. 2k4 for Mac used SDL.

Re:Linux but no Mac? (2, Funny)

realmolo (574068) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956329)

It makes sense.

The Linux client can be a fucking TARBALL and the Linux crowd would be happy. They don't have to package it at all, or even go to much effort to make sure it works well. Linux users (of which I am one, at least part-time) are prepared to jump through hoops to make this game work, and don't expect it be very polished.

On the Mac side, however, they'd have to actually test the thing and package it correctly and support it. A much more expensive/time-consuming proposition than simply dumping the Linux binaries on the CD and saying "Here it is, guys. You're on your own".

Re:Linux but no Mac? (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957657)

Yep, pretty much the same reason I didn't buy UT2k4 until about a year ago. Plus by that time it'd dropped to 1/5th of its original price.

Re:Linux but no Mac? (3, Insightful)

SirTalon42 (751509) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957885)

Sounds like you didn't buy UT2004. They did a great job of packaging it, having a nice GUI installer, and quite stable (including supporting installing it for just the current user or system wide).

Re:Linux but no Mac? (1)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 6 years ago | (#20962347)

Boy are we ever. The Linux client that shipped with UT2k4 crashed constantly and we played it anyway. On the up side the performance was better than on windows and after they cleared up the initial issues it was tight as hell.

Now where the fuck is our editor?!!

Re:Linux but no Mac? (3, Informative)

Ren.Tamek (898017) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956343)

Gears of War and UT3 are coming to the Mac [macworld.com] , according to Epic's Mark Rein. Leaving it out of the news post is just an oversight.

buy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20956015)

i should prolly preorder this, but, im hoping i can get it the day it comes out (and not have homework or tests)

Haha... better late than never (1)

shoptroll (544006) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956157)

FYI, the demo was just released today. Talk about being late to the party?

Re:Haha... better late than never (1)

zariok (470553) | more than 6 years ago | (#20959873)

Beta Demo.

Re:Haha... better late than never (1)

shoptroll (544006) | more than 6 years ago | (#20963333)

Aka public beta. Same thing the UT2003 and UT2004 demos were labeled as. Because Epic is using this to solicit feedback and bug reports from the wild, and generate some buzz for the actual release next month. Good example of why demos should come out before the product launches.

Yay in-box Linux Client (1)

Craig Maloney (1104) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956283)

The in-box Linux client of UT2004 made several sales of the game for me and my friends. It's one of the few FPS games we've kept playing, and it's still a fun game. Knowing that Linux is inside the retail box means I'll be picking it up ASAP.

Thank you EPIC!

UT3 PC Demo is out NOW! (5, Informative)

anti-human 1 (911677) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956285)

get downloading!
Worthplaying [worthplaying.com]
Gamershell [gamershell.com]
Computer Games.ro [computergames.ro]
Fileplanet [fileplanet.com]
3D Gamers [3dgamers.com]

I just ripped the links off Voodoo Extreme [ve3d.com] . reply with more mirrors!

Re:UT3 PC Demo is out NOW! (1)

MrBandersnatch (544818) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956831)

Thanks for the heads-up. Sadly they are all giving me max 15Kbps so Im going to wait for the nzb.

Re:UT3 PC Demo is out NOW! (2, Informative)

funkify (749441) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957743)

Here's a faster (for me) mirror:

filefront.com [filefront.com]

numbering system (1)

gauntlet420 (646001) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956515)

Considering the fact that I already own three games in the Unreal Tournament franchise, how the fourth game in the Tournament series can be called '3' is beyond me...

1. Unreal Tournament

2. Unreal Tournament 2003

3. Unreal Tournament 2004

4. Unreal Tournament 3 (?)

Such pedantics will not affect my purchase of said game, however, provided my rig has enough balls to render the game at a reasonable frame rate.

Re:numbering system (1)

shoptroll (544006) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956659)

UT200X was originally called Unreal Tournament 2. There was a leaked beta before they had the 200X monkier tacked on and the splash screen clearly said "Unreal Tournament 2". The original reason for the year being added one was they planned on annual incremental updates to the game but that didn't pan out. Unreal Tournament 3 was originally UT 2007, but they dropped the year and went back to the normal numbering system.

Re:numbering system (1)

MortimerV (896247) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957061)

UT 2004 also contained all of UT 2003's content. It was the same game, just a slightly newer edition. Epic even had a mail-in rebate for 2003 owners who purchased 2004, since 2004 was essentially an expansion if you already had 2003.

Re:numbering system (1)

brunascle (994197) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957609)

IIRC, the main addition in UT2004 was the vehicles, which may have been Epic's response to Halo's success on the PC.

personally i liked 2003 better. i dont remember how, but i definitely remember the controls feeling different with 2004, and i had already gotten pretty good with 2003 so it was like starting all over again.

Re:numbering system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20956745)

Unreal engine 3 = Unreal Tournament 3.

That's why. UT2k4 was only a better version of UT2k3 which were both Unreal engine 2.

Re:numbering system (1)

Solra Bizna (716281) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957075)

UT2k4 was only a better version of UT2k3 which were both Unreal engine 2.

Actually, from what I hear, 2k3 was only a worse version of 2k4. They knew they weren't going to finish the game they wanted on time, so they polished what they had and released 2k3 for the interim.

So it doesn't really count. (In fact, I haven't even played it.)

-:sigma.SB

Re:numbering system (1)

DFENS619 (1008187) | more than 6 years ago | (#20958365)

heres how it makes sense... 1. UT - unreal engine 2. UT 2003 - unreal 2 engine 3. UT 2004 - unreal 2 engine 4. UT3 - unreal 3 engine

"Impressive" image quality levels (1)

ben there... (946946) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956547)

FTFS:

"It turns out that even mid-range cards are going to be more than capable of playing UT3 at impressive image quality levels."
Actually, no. That looks like crap [pcper.com] . The bridge, the mountain, if you can call it that. And I cherry-picked a good screenshot.

It doesn't really compare to most modern [enemyterritory.com] games [gamershell.com] .

Re:"Impressive" image quality levels (1)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957101)

Have to agree, looked at the screenshots and was not impressed at all. Very...meh I guess.
And it looks like it requires quite a bit of horsepower to boot.

Ah well, lots of other ways to waste my time right now anyways ;)

Re:"Impressive" image quality levels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20970287)

"Ah well, lots of other ways to waste my time right now anyways ;)"
What, like watching gay porn? Taking the meat suppository? Rump wrangling? What?

Re:"Impressive" image quality levels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20957255)

To be fair, the compression on those JPGs is very noticeable. Compression artifacts are visible all over any sharp edges. I wouldn't use those screenshots as any sort of indication of quality.

Re:"Impressive" image quality levels (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957441)

First thing I noticed was all the craggy rough textured natural look to the UT3 screenshot, compared to the aliasing on the pipes, buildings, and bridge in the Enemy Territory shot. The ET background had some extra mountain polygons, but otherwise didn't have the draw distance.

Crysis on the other hand is wow. But it's going to need more watts from my GPU than a hair dryer.

Re:"Impressive" image quality levels (1)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957835)

Man, I hope that screenshot is somehow messed up by image compression or something, because otherwise they're going to need to call it "nearsightedness simulator 2007". The only thing that's not fuzzy as hell is the guy's arm and weapon. Say hello to gaming-induced headaches.

Re:"Impressive" image quality levels (2, Funny)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957911)

Look at it this way - the clever programmers at Epic managed to do for saturation what Doom 3 did for brightness.

Re:"Impressive" image quality levels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20958483)

Keep in mind that AA is not yet enabled (according to the article)

Re:"Impressive" image quality levels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20961247)

Look at those sharp knees. This game is well below my standards.

What? (4, Informative)

ahoehn (301327) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956575)

It turns out that even mid-range cards are going to be more than capable of playing UT3 at impressive image quality levels.
Yeah, sure, midrange cards with a $1,000 CPU [newegg.com] .

Seriously. How about some benchmarks with a mid/low range CPU?

I think I can safely assume that if bits of the demo dropped to 20FPS [pcper.com] with a Intel Core 2 Duo Extreme X6800, 4 Gigs of RAM and an Nvidia 8800GTS, there's really no point in even trying on a midrange machine.

Why can't I find the button to digg this article down?

Re:What? (3, Informative)

p0tat03 (985078) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956947)

Agreed. Seriously, an AMD 2900XT and a NVidia 8800GTX are not "mid range" cards. Even the 8800GTS is a upper-mid range card that's considerably above most "middies" like the 8600 series, or even the standard 8800 320MB series. It only reaffirms the assumption that UT3 is going to require a behemoth of a machine to look remotely good.

And I will continue playing TF2 on my old box with a X1600, and it will run smooth as butter and still look great.

Re:What? (2, Informative)

nuzak (959558) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957497)

Having a single 2900 or 88000 is considered "mid-range" on the gamer scene these days. It's seriously out of whack -- not only is the upfront cost high, which I can deal with by waiting a bit, but the power consumptions on these things is outright insane, to the point where it gets really noticeable on the electric bill.

Re:What? (1)

Durinthal (791855) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956989)

I think I can safely assume that if bits of the demo dropped to 20FPS with a Intel Core 2 Duo Extreme X6800, 4 Gigs of RAM and an Nvidia 8800GTS, there's really no point in even trying on a midrange machine.

Did you see the settings at which that those benchmarks were taken? Don't set them that high on a midrange machine.

I'm in the middle of the download, but I'll post my own results when I get in (Core 2 Duo E6300, 7600GT).

Re:What? (1)

Solra Bizna (716281) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957115)

I think I can safely assume that if bits of the demo dropped to 20FPS with a Intel Core 2 Duo Extreme X6800, 4 Gigs of RAM and an Nvidia 8800GTS, there's really no point in even trying on a midrange machine.

...Oh no. Where does that put my AGP 4x dual-CPU 1.25GHz G4 with 2GB of 167MHz DDR RAM? Will I be able to play UT3 on it?

...Why is everyone laughing at me?

-:sigma.SB

No, they are laughing at me (1)

Immerial (1093103) | more than 6 years ago | (#20958327)

I can't wait to try it out on my smokin' 2.4Ghz P4, 1GB RAM, 256MB 9600 Pro !!! [sniff] Seriously though, I'll post some low/minimal data when I've got it... just for ha ha's.

Re:No, they are laughing at me (1)

dal11 (831361) | more than 6 years ago | (#20959469)

Good luck :) my Athlon 64 3700 2gb ram and geforce 6800gs choked big time, 800x600 15 fps on simple DM match. According to the requirements I'm at the bottom of the barrel.Were in the same boat. :'( Time to start saving.

Re:No, they are laughing at me (1)

Immerial (1093103) | more than 6 years ago | (#20961709)

Interesting... I average 22-25fps in DM at 800x600 (lowest detail settings, of course). The lowest it got was 14 fps when I had a lot of action going on. But I also experienced random freezes. Sometimes it would come out of the freeze and other times I had to kill it. The bummer with killing it was I would have to restart in order to get it to launch again. Well it is a beta! :) The freezes are the worst part. The graphics at the lowest setting reminds me of the days of doom- mmm.... big blocky pixels.

Re:No, they are laughing at me (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 6 years ago | (#20975055)

It actually CRASHED trying to start it on my 1.6 Core 2 Duo with a... uh... GMA X3100...

Re:What? (1)

MLS100 (1073958) | more than 6 years ago | (#20958777)

Look at the resolutions used in those benchmarks, 2560x1600 - come on, who owns a monitor that goes up that high?

At a normal resolution you should see much better numbers.

I think the point of the article is to really focus on the performance of those video cards, thus they use insane spec hardware to give the video card as much headroom as possible so you know how well each card performs and not to give people a realistic expectation of their system performance.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20960387)

How about looking at a better, yet cheaper CPU?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115028 [newegg.com]

The E6850 is $700 less than the X6800. It has a new stepping (G0), and I don't think the unlocked multiplier of the X6800 is worth the difference in money.

Re:What? (1)

WhoBeDaPlaya (984958) | more than 6 years ago | (#20961205)

Err... you do know that they did that to isolate the effect of the vid card right?
You wouldn't want to bench an 8800 Ultra on a P2-300 right? Talk about a Ferrari with golf cart wheels.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20970615)

My machine is an AM2 5600 with the 8800GTS and my fps has yet to drop less than 50, even in the most fierce firefights. Now, talk about the UI and the network browser and you'll have some problems.

Poor card coverage IMO (3, Insightful)

MrBandersnatch (544818) | more than 6 years ago | (#20956755)

Game performance reviews that just target the latest cards annoy me now. A quick look at http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html [steampowered.com] shows that the latest ATI and NVidia card represent about 6-7% of users. While doing a wider range of cards obviously takes longer, looking at performance on the most popular cards of the last gen would sure be informative.

Torrent please! (1)

MK_CSGuy (953563) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957389)

They should have at least supplied a torrent... I'm downloading it right now and it is really really slow (think single digit Kb/s - pointless, really).

Re:Torrent please! (1)

Nahor (41537) | more than 6 years ago | (#20961271)

See my other comment [slashdot.org]

[Oops] Re:Torrent please! (1)

Nahor (41537) | more than 6 years ago | (#20961323)

Oopsie here [slashdot.org] is the good one :p

Re:Torrent please! (1)

EvilXenu (706326) | more than 6 years ago | (#20963781)

Usenet is where it's at. That's how I downloaded my copy of the demo. Giganews + Newsleecher == Downloading goodness!

Xbox 360??? (1)

SalMoriarty (211240) | more than 6 years ago | (#20957621)

"The Unreal Tournament 3 demo will be dropping sometime in the next two weeks. With a launch on the PC, PS3,
Xbox 360 and even an in-box Linux client it will definitely be one of the most widely-played titles this holiday."
i could've swore this title was a ps3-exclusive on the consoles...

Re:Xbox 360??? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20957785)

It is - for a limited time.

Re:Xbox 360??? (1)

evwah (954864) | more than 6 years ago | (#20958127)

are you kidding me? the Unreal Tournament franchise has always had a massive core of PC users. thats where the game exists. it would be suicide for them to release it exclusively on a console that isn't even selling.

well unless you consider the fact that they are licensing the unreal engine 3... thats where they REALLY get their bread and butter.

Re:Xbox 360??? (1)

pthor1231 (885423) | more than 6 years ago | (#20958331)

He meant ps3 exclusive with regard to the console release, not the entire game release.

Demo installer doesn't work in XP x64 (1)

Dracoirs (700803) | more than 6 years ago | (#20958779)

How am I supposed to play this at work if I can't install it on my Windows XP Pro x64 installation!!?!?? I even ran the installer on a x32 WinXP, getting the .msi from the temp directory and running that and it told me it couldn't load without being run by the setup.exe. Damn them for using lousy installer packaging software.

Re:Demo installer doesn't work in XP x64 (1)

smash (1351) | more than 6 years ago | (#20964141)

I'm sure all 3 of you XP64 using gamers out there must be pissed.

OMFG!! (3, Insightful)

MrBandersnatch (544818) | more than 6 years ago | (#20959483)

Whoever designed the front end UI needs SLAPPING. Hard. Very hard. And often.

Re:OMFG!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20964963)

Hmm, I'm in two minds about it. I love the look of it, a lot. It's very arty, nothing like the kinda cold, pseudo-windows look of before. But the consolefied elements grate a tad: I'd be a lot happier with it if, when using a mouse to select menu options, that DAMNED white bar wouldn't follow where the cursor is, and would just "jump" to each menu option as you move over it. As it is, if you look closely, it's the menu options themselves that "spring" up when you can click on them, but it's hard to notice because of that lazy white bar rolling around all the time. Bad move, Epic.

And the UK keyboard email address bug is just sad. I know it's a beta, guys, but come on!

You want me to hold him for you? (1)

Scooter (8281) | more than 6 years ago | (#20969757)

You know I'm not sure which bit puzzles me the most - the "designed for irritation" menu system, or the absolutely dire performance.. Just to put my comments into context - my PC, whilst not exactly cutting edge, is not ancient either, and probably quite typical of PC specs out there today. It's 2-3 years old and runs a 3.2Ghz Prescott P4, with 1Gb of dual channel DDR2, and an nVidia 6800 ultra (in an AGP slot).

I started off by turning up all the dials to maximum - max detail, texture detail, and maximum res for my Samsung panel - 1600x1050. I knew this was more than my video card could handle from a playable
frame rate perspective, but I wanted to see what I was missing, looks-wise and if it was worth spending some cash on a new PCI express board, a quad core cpu, 2Gb of ram and an 8800. I can't say I was impressed to be honest: whilst the detail on some of the models - especially the gun models was nice, the overall effect was quite flat. The lighting didn't look at all impressive, and to me, doesn't measure up to HL2 or Quake4. Nothing jumps out at me to say "wow this is the next level up from Q3/Unreal2 engined games"

I started backing things off then to get the game up to speed. I ended up with everything at minimum and the screen res at 640x480 with 50% rendering (the minimum)and it not only looked worse than the original Doom, but still ran like a 3 legged dog after a night out on the ale. No where near playable speeds. Is this thing written in bash or something? This coupled with the UI problems (the mouse pointer moves like it's in treacle, the selections in the key config screen move about whilst your trying to get your sluggish pointer on them, it takes several layers of menus to get to anything if you try it whilst a game is in progress, and of course, no frigging @ symbol) left me thinking : "and they call this progress? - bring back Unreal2 XMP". Then, just to confirm my conclusion, the game hung. It's capped at 60fps, which back in the Q2 days was widely accepted as the *minimum* frame rate for competitive play.

I know it's labelled as a beta, and I can let them off the @ sign thing, but it's a monumentally bad move to release anything that performs this badly for public review - beta or not. It's a shame, as I think it actually has the makings of a half decent game (although they need to rationalise the weapons: dump all the gloop guns, and 34 different plasma rifles).

BTW - I'm sure most of the Slashdot audience already know this, but you can type an "@" by holding ALT and typing it's ASCII code: 64 on the numeric pad. This worked for me, and then it made me go and set up my keys again once I'd registered....

In summary - it's a nice looking game, and has some good features, but it isn't all that, and doesn't make me want to rush out and buy it (and a new PC :P)

Cheers,
Scoot.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>