Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Preview of Unreal Tournament 2 192

Posted by michael from the head-shot dept.
An Anonymous Coward writes: "Looks like we can finally have a glance at the Unreal Tournament 2 screenshots and a nice preview. Wow, games these days are just too real (but you wont hear me complain!). Enjoy!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Preview of Unreal Tournament 2 More

Preview of Unreal Tournament 2

Comments Filter:

  • Linux Version (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Cheesy Fool ( 530943 ) on Saturday January 12, 2002 @10:25AM (#2828352) Homepage
    Will there be a Linux version?
    • wth, HOW is asking if there will be a linux version insightful?

      (and btw, probably yes, there's working Unreal/Unreal Tourny ports in Linux already.. although according to Tim Sweeny Epic are taking a DirectX centric approach to the Unreal engine these days, so I'm not sure if a port would be as easy to implement.)
      • (and btw, probably yes, there's working Unreal/Unreal Tourny ports in Linux already.. although according to Tim Sweeny Epic are taking a DirectX centric approach to the Unreal engine these days, so I'm not sure if a port would be as easy to implement.)

        That's too bad, because I'll only buy a linux version. I'm still waiting for the single player version of Wolfenstein before I buy that. Until then, I guess I'll have to settle for UT and Quake3.

  • Here's an interesting bit... (Score:4, Informative)

    by FauxPasIII ( 75900 ) on Saturday January 12, 2002 @10:28AM (#2828359)
    They're apparently including vehicles [gamespot.com] this time around, Tribes 2 style.

  • Looks nice (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Fembot ( 442827 )
    It all looks and sounds very impressive, but one of my reasons for liking the original was it ran on machines that quake3 really didnt run too well on.

    Sounds damm funky but I bet it doesnt play very well over a modem

  • Graphics Hardware (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ween ( 13381 ) on Saturday January 12, 2002 @10:29AM (#2828365)
    As for the systems that the player will need, we are trying to scale it for the lower-end PCs to the absolute high-end PCs. I can't be more specific, as we are still optimizing the game at this time.


    I hope they truly mean low end hardware, and not a Duron 1ghz and a Geforce 2

    • Re:Graphics Hardware (Score:4, Funny)

      by Bert Peers ( 120166 ) on Saturday January 12, 2002 @10:33AM (#2828376) Homepage
      I hope they truly mean low end hardware, and not a Duron 1ghz and a Geforce 2


      Yeah, that's how the game got its name -- after playtesting it on a 486, in 320x240 in 16 color mode to get *some* framerate, the toss-up was for "dopey" or "unreal".

    • I hate to break it to you, but by the time Unreal 2 hits the shelves, a 1Ghz Duron and GF2 *will* be considered the lower-end for FPS, if they aren't already.

      Hell, I have a 1Ghz TBird with a GF2, and usually the max res I can use (to maintain > ~60 fps) is 800x600. I don't expect the next generation of 3d engines to be able to run at or even near the levels of current engines WRT hardware.

      sedawkgrep
    • Well at the time Unreal Tournament was released I had just bought a 500 mhz athlon with 256 megs of ram and a tnt ultra 32mb card. that was really hightech back then and the framerate i got was about 50 in 1024*768 32bits. I expect about the same to be true on the top hardware in 2048*1536 32bits when unreal tournament 2 comes out . It'll run on crappy machines, but in 800*600 16 bit. The crappy machine will be the machine that was state of the art when I bought it, that 500mhz athlon.

  • PC Gamer cover story (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wpmegee ( 325603 ) <wpmegee@NOsPAm.yahoo.com> on Saturday January 12, 2002 @10:37AM (#2828385)
    The February issue of PC Gamer [pcgamer.com] has UT2 as its cover story. The website hasn't been updated yet, but the magazine's already hit bookstores.
  • Here's a mirror [temp123.org].
  • Let's see. Unreal was supposed to be released shortly after Quake, but ended up beeing about two years late. Is there any real reason to expect that the Unreal 2 engine will slip any less?
    • How about: they've learned from the Unreal delay, now have a better clue of how much time it takes to do this and that AND they can probably re-use a lot of code. Enough reason?

  • Sniper Rifle (Score:4, Funny)

    by nzhavok ( 254960 ) on Saturday January 12, 2002 @10:46AM (#2828403) Homepage
    The sniper rifle has been replaced by an "instant hit lightning gun" which does the same thing. Oh man that sucks I always liked the sniper rifle, I thought it was a nice touch compared to all the sci-fi weapons. Besides which "I sniped that bitch between the eyes" has a nicer ring to it than "I insta-lightninged the sucker".

    The article says that it makes the snip^H^H^H^H intant-hit-lightning-gunner more visible, I suppose this is some justification because we all know sniping is lame ;-)
    • Nothing pleases me more than the idiots who complain, at length, when someone uses a rail gun in Quake III Arena for what it's SUPPOSED to be used for-- sniping. Heaven forbid anyone should sit in one place, laying waste to their enemies (be it in CTF, or DM).

      • Re:Sniper Rifle (Score:2, Informative)

        by nzhavok ( 254960 )
        Well I haven't played Q3 since I finished Uni (hey those iMacs where good for something after all) but if I remember it right you could usually see where the person with the railgun was because it left a trail. UT didn't have this but now UT2 will.

        I don't really have a problem with snipers, I just found it amusing what they where replacing the sniper rifle with.

        BTW does anybody know how horrible it is to play FPS games with only one mouse button!
      • it's different in q3a though the rail actually takes skill in timing and aim to use so those who are good at it deserve their "rail whore" titles. Picking a guy off from across the map in UT is trivial where as it's not so easy in q3 probably due to dynamics in aiming. UT lets you get on top of the guy, quake will too but it becomes more difficult to aim as zoom increases. Most people I know use only minor zoom increments in quake 3 for this reason.
        • They have tons of mods to run on servers to make the sniper rifle more unwieldy. The question is in the future won't they have automatic componsation for sway and twitching in sniper rifles?
        • See, and that's the way I feel about it too, but go play some CTF or DM today, and be a rail-whore-- watch the idiots almost instantly start ragging on you about 'camping' (even though you've only been still for maybe half a minute, if that), then make it their point in life to take their frustration with the rail-gun out on you.

          I haven't really played UT all that much, but if what some other posters have said (in reply to my original post) it already sounds like a better environment for the wannabe sniper. =)
          • Yeah..I love that. If you are not moving 100% of the time, you must be camping.

            I like the tac-ops mods and things like counterstrike, strikeforce, tactical ops, etc... It's hilarious when you get some newbie fresh from Q3Arena on one of those.

            They just run right into the middle of a fight and are dead in 3 seconds, then spend the rest of the time bitching about how slow everyone is moving, camping, sniping, etc...

            Hell, even half the CS players seem to get upset if they get sniped because someone is guarding their objective.

      • Re:Sniper Rifle (Score:4, Insightful)

        by eddy the lip ( 20794 ) on Saturday January 12, 2002 @01:31PM (#2828928)

        this is something that i found interesting when i made the switch from Q2 to UT - what was considered acceptable behaviour seemed much different. Q2 had a kind of Broughton's rules and if you deviated from those, abuse was heaped upon you, but in UT, any kind of slimy behaviour was ok. i liked that. maybe this was in part because of the thought that went into the gameplay. you simply couldn't do things like spawn camp

        but, damn, i am going to miss the sniper rifle...

    • Why is sniping lame? Using the BFG is lame. Rockets are lame.

      Sniping kicks ass. It kicks ass even MORE when you do it with a plasma gun....

      Look for : Your head was blown off by nowonmai

      At a UT server near you!
      • Because the majority of new players use the sniper rifle as their weapon of choice because they are too inept to use anything else and think getting a kill for every 10 deaths is good for a newbie. Theres no skill involved, just hope that they won't be spotted befor they get a kill.

        Then there is the other type of sniper who is experienced with other weapons and who will only pull out the sniper rifle to mess with you, like when you get killed out of nowhere 5 times in a row and still have know idea where they are. OK so this guy isn't "lame" but at least frustrating.
        • I must be seeing uber-newbies who blow themselves up with rockets before I can snipe them.

          I just wish UT had a shot gun... and dancing women that blew up into guts and cash!
      • Snipers generally don't kick ass (except for the few very skilled ones). Sniper bullets are easily avoided by using translocator and/or dodging frequently.

        Shock rifle whores (==players who can do the famous shock-combo while running) kick ass though. :)
    • The Chaos UT mod that shipped with UT Game of the Year edition tweaked the sniper rifle in a manner similar to this. Either you could use the normal CUT sniper rifle, in which case you had to lead your target a bit (and the bullets richoched, which rocks ass), or you could use the instant-hit rocket-propelled bullet sniper rifle (hey, if you can detonate a small nuke in the arena, I can have RPB sniper rifles!) which leaves a trail of smoke back to your position. And does >150 damage with a headshot.
    • Oh man that sucks I always liked the sniper rifle

      I agree. I much prefer the more realistic weapons to the silly sci-fi stuff. I'd like to see some UT servers that offered realistic weapons for 'serious' play and others that had the sci-fi ones for 'light relief'.

      In reality, it wouldn't be at all easy to determine where a sniper was shooting at you from. Sniping (and camping) are legitimate tactics in the game and it's too bad if you get fragged. I know it's damned annoying but then that's what soldiers are trained to do in real life! I've got no time for those players who think it's cheating somehow.

      • Re:Sniper Rifle (Score:2, Informative)

        by SuzanneA ( 526699 )
        I'd like to see some UT servers that offered realistic weapons for 'serious' play

        What you want then, is Infilitration, Tactical Ops, Covert Forces and/or Strike Force. They are 'realism' CT-like mods for UT, and they (at least Infil, TO and SF, I haven't tried CF) have quite a few servers running them.

        There are also other realism mods in the working: SAS:Into the Lion's den, Platoon 19, Blitzkrieg: 1941, and more.

    • I was just thinking that. I love snipping in the face CTF level. I really get a kick out of pissing all the little teenage kids off but snipping the hell out of them. I love reading comments like "Hey, WHAT THE F&#$!" or "STOP SNIPPING YOU SICK F@#$!" and laughing my ass off. Its great when spotting the immature ones and sniping them near respawn spots just to piss them off more. :-) I love playing dirty.

      I wonder if there will be any other weapons like the snipper with the new version.

      It is also rumoured that there will be vehicles like tanks and trucks similiar to tribes2 in the new ut. The face level might suck without the snipper riffle but it would be alot of fun to just drive a truck over to the other base and steal the flag before the other team could respond.

  • One question: (Score:3, Funny)

    by larien ( 5608 ) on Saturday January 12, 2002 @10:49AM (#2828408) Homepage Journal
    How do these game developers ever get out of the beta stage when they can test the game against each other?

    Another game on the 'to buy' list for next year...

  • What would be really cool to see would be programmers actually constructing arenas out of real models or something and getting images from them for their game. Also, doing the same with the guns and the people. That would be awesome and probably wouldn't be as hard on a system.

  • Weak. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Decimal Dave ( 411182 )
    Those screen shots look good...but not great.

    Personally, I won't be impressed until 3D environments are detailed enough that all of the game's sound effects are generated in real-time by the physics engine.
    • Personally, I won't be impressed until 3D environments are detailed enough that all of the game's sound effects are generated in real-time by the physics engine.

      So, in other words, you want the level editors to have to model everything at the molecular level.

      And then do all the physics at the same level.

      Isn't there some computing axiom somewhere that states that an emulator is never as fast as the original unless the emulator is using substantially better hardware?

      The molecular computing that the universe does any time something happens is pretty damn fast (i.e. instantaneous) to begin with. Building a computer to emulate the universe (in real time) isn't possible in this universe. Building a computer to emulate an area the size of a UT2 map (in real time) would take up more space than the actual UT2 map would in real life, and that's just for storage.

      This is exactly why game programmers go to great pains to cut corners where it won't be noticeable, and also why the few who can do it well are gods in my book.

      I just responded to a troll, didn't I?
      • Well, you can emulate sound effects without emulationg at the molecular level - you can do it as pressure waves - still a waste of time at the moment. Its kind of like saying "Don't use textures, I want everything to be done as very small polygons with a solid colour!"

        But it would still be way less than a molecule level simulator.
      • It is possible to do sound simulation on a higher level than molecular! Consider if each material in a game had a sound assigned to it, and when hit with another material, the sounds were combined and some echo effects were calculated. Perhaps even that is a little simple, but modelling realistic sounds on a molecular level is quite unnecessary.

        Also, I would like to point out that IT IS technically possible to model the universe within a game! Consider that the real universe has virtually infinite cycles per second. You can take a given amount of time and continually halve it and never reach zero. A game only ever needs to perform a maximum of say... 60 cycles per second. So the key to emulating the universe is making a CPU small enough and getting the frequency high enough. Of course, since as far as any human can tell, the universe has no boundaries, it may be infinite and hence no emulation can be performed. But that is all quite redundant when it comes to games. In a game we deal with a relatively very small universe, and it is very possible to emulate that to a decent level of accuracy.

        It's similar to how we haven't found the boundaries of our own universe. Whilst they are not defined and the boundaries of game universes are, the boundaries of how realistic games may get still remain undefined.
      • ah, your forgetting, a map in a computer game ISN'T the size of the entire universe :)

        also, there's the detail of the physics generating the sound..

        it's feasible.. vaguely, to have a 'base sound' for all surfaces that's modified by the properties of that surface... depending on how far you took it.. having a passable simulation of real sound is probably workable.

        (doing it in a 'True physics' way is probably impossible though.. like you said)
      • Isn't there some computing axiom somewhere that states that an emulator is never as fast as the original unless the emulator is using substantially better hardware?

        Sure. A computer that works on the same principles as what it is you're trying to emulate will take just as much space to do the emulation. But remember, we really don't have to get that good. I'd think that 0.1 mm would be about the maximum 'granularity' needed. Furthermore, there's sub-molecular computing devices on the horizon. And as someone pointed out, the universe runs a very high framerate (10^43 fps, or thereabouts), one much higher than we need to run a realistic emulation.

  • Will they have an updated level editor to go with this? That's the only real thrill I get out of these games anymore, and the editor that came with UT, well, it's okay but it's much lacking in some features (stability, portability (file format-wise, robustness). A few more primitives would be nice; groups for actors would be nice (correct me if UED2 already has this), selections would be nice (real selections, not that shift-click cruft). A manual would be really nice. And an in-editor screenshot maker!

    Or is this just wishful thinking?
    • The level editor that came with UT is the exact same one that Epic use to make the game. Any shortcomings of it, they had to deal with in the development process. So clearly, it is a very usable editor since the game was released and was also pretty popular!
      It definately isn't one of the easiest editors to use though. I suggest checking here [planetunreal.com] if you want to learn more about how to use UnrealEd efficiently.
    • The editor has improved but is still not a full blown 3D modeling package. The engine and editor both have been tweaked to easily allow the import of complex models from 3D packages such as 3ds max, maya and others without a performance hit ingame. From what I've seen and heard, this is the preferred workflow, much more work done in those kinds of packages and only the final bits assembled in the editor. Don't know about getting stuff back out of it, although with that workflow you wouldn't really need to.

  • Tough Minimum Specs (Score:5, Funny)

    by ellem ( 147712 ) <ellem52.gmail@com> on Saturday January 12, 2002 @11:29AM (#2828497) Homepage Journal
    Minimum Requirements

    Windows XXP
    5 Geoforce Cards
    4 1.4Ghz processors
    3 French Hens
    2 Turtle soundcards
    and <pinky_in_cheek>1 Billion MB of Ram</pinky_in_mouth>
    • You know, I wonder if I have a system that this game will play on:

      Athlon 1800+
      512 MB DDR Ram
      GeForce 3 Ti 200
      80 GB Raid Array

      Oh sure, I think the hardware's fine, it's the OS I'm wondering about:


      Linux localhost.net 2.4.17-xfs-preempt #2 Sat Dec 29 19:26:14 PST 2001 i686 unknown
    • Following the same production timeline as the original Unreal, Unreal 2 will debut in time for Christmas 2007, slightly before Duke Nukem Forever.

  • Bad news for us crappy players (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tony Shepps ( 333 ) on Saturday January 12, 2002 @11:30AM (#2828509)
    "In other words, we are focusing more toward the actual skill of the player rather than luck."

    This is the only thing that worries me, personally, because frankly I suck. Maybe it's age, maybe it's the lack of patience to go check out the ultra-elite message boards where I can get the key bindings to use all these weird-ass dodges and double-secret jumps. Maybe it's the tendonitis which slows down my trigger finger.

    I can be competitive, but it's taken a year to get there, and when people are dominating I'm just not good enough.

    I hope there is still a place for me, the aging crappy FPS gamer. I'm the one who messes up your team by not playing well enough. I'm the one who accidentally fires at you when you're on the ledge, knocking you off and killing you. I'm the one who runs while firing the rocket launcher, forgetting that I'm about to run past a pole where my rocket will just blow me up, blow me up damn good. I don't want to be the lame one, it just happens.

    You elite players need people like me in order to climb the ladder. Every army needs its cannon fodder. But if there are too many dodge keys to remember, no chance of being even the slightest bit effective doing anything, I'll just have to pass and you elites are only going to be left killing yourselves.

    • Say uh, Tony... What's your game name? You know so I can, uh, find you and have you kill me online accidentally. Yeah.

      ;)
    • Amen, brother. Nothing's more frustrating than playing against a LPB who has a brick on the jump key. Unless it's a HPB with a brick on the jump key and the annoying habit of just disappearing when you pull the trigger.
    • I say that we start the Coalition of Sucky UT2 Players.

      This way we could have strength in numbers...

      Hmm, actually that might be a bad thing. Could you imagine a line of use coming down towards the enemy firing rockets in front of us? We would probably kill more of ourselves than then enemy would. The enemy would see people flying all over the place and (s)he would not be doing anything.

      It would would be so much worse on a level with a pit in it. Could you imagine us trying to use the teleporter? We would try to look really good by using it, but we would probably end up teleporting ourselves into the pit.

      Of course it could be that we would only end up proliferating our suckiness, but at least we would have a support group (and why not, there is a support group for everything these days.)
    • I'm hugely waiting for a game that will fill the hole between RTS and FPS. I think it probably would need to be MMO also, since you would need a lot more units to do what I'm implying, but I can't wait for a game where you will be able to be a general in an army as well as as canon fodder, and when you die, you know that you have been useful for something for your team, if only for numbers.
      This kind of MMOSFPS (folloming, guy? Massively Multiplayer Online Strategy First-Person Shooter) would probably have to be somewhat less fast-paced than most FPS (think Tribes 2, or even a bit slower), the chain of command would be actually on the field and would have to be protected from opponents, and there would be a rating system, allowing the chain of command to know the skill level of every soldier (and the game to even teams). That way, you'd be given commands adapted to you (Yeah, I know, that could be cleaning the crap), and no one could criticize you for your lack of ability, only too happy to have one more soldier (this would require an extremely balanced rating system, I know).
      Of course, You'd also need to judge separately the tactics level (How, that sounds like a difficult game to make, now, eh?) of a guy, so that he can be given command of a group of sharpshooters even if he can't hit a cow, and so on.....
      How does that sound?

  • Mmmhhhmmm... but... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by James Foster ( 226728 ) on Saturday January 12, 2002 @11:39AM (#2828547)
    First person shooters have something holding them back from being ultra-realistic and that is the bubble that surrounds the player. The degree of seperation between the player and the world. What am I talking about? Take a look at this screenshot. [gamespot.com] Notice how the gun is JUST to the right of the player's eye whilst the clown is very seperate. The clown can never interact with that gun and can never come between the player and the end of the gun. In my opinion, as the graphics get more and more realistic this is becoming a bigger and bigger problem in getting the player immersed in the game. The gun example is just an example, what I am trying to say is that the player is very seperated from the environment in first person shooters and that is becoming a major problem. Notice also how the player can never see their own feet.

    Think this is a small issue? Well, imagine a game where the player COULD see their feet and enemies COULD come inbetween the player, the player's gun and the player's feet. Right now, first person shooters make the player feel like a gun floating in mid-air and shooting at things in the environment. DOOM didn't quite do that, it used view-bobbing and other techniques to prevent that feel. A newish game that has the same level of immersion is Medal Of Honour. Whilst I don't think you can see your feet in that or enemies can interact largely with the player, the player still gets immersed by things like view bobbing, realistic sounds and other activity keeping the player occupied.

    Forget graphics, NOW is the time for immersion!
    • in Tribes the player can see their own feet (and if you run into a wall the end of your gun is pushed back)
      • Cat bathing should be an official martial art

        Dunno, I've seen both ends of the spectrum. My own cat is very docile in the bath; I can put him in the tub and he'll stay ther. He's still got some claws but he never uses them in the tub. Another cat I've tried to bathe was completely uncontrollable. I ended up having to toss her into a shower stall and just point the shower head at her since she'd have torn me to shreds if I was anywhere nearby.

    • You notice one feather on the clown's shoulder is overlapping the gun? I'm not sure whether the clown is holding the gun, or if the viewer is holding it...
      • The player is holding the gun.

        The gun has 3 barrels at the end (I assume for a multi-shot rocket ala UT's multi-rocket launcher). Also, just to the left of the (G) is a plunger (presumably for loading the barrels)
    • Good point. I think though that the level of immersion would need to be carefully thought out. I mean, thinking about the ways in which the body could interact with the environment would need to be very careful. You could get carried away with one idea, and the dividends could end up being minimal.

      Remember in Q2 when id upped the bar by letting you have "destructable walls"? That was going to be all the rage. Unfortunately, how often do we see those today? It's hard to put them in levels because it's not like you can make an /entire wall/ destructable, and there's no good reason for a player to fire at a wall if it's not always going to blow up anyway.

      How much does it add to the gameplay? Minimal, at best. Though I bet it was a big head-scratch problem at id, and its solution was met with many cheers in the fanbase.

      Yet its impact has only been minimal.

      Same deal with "you can blow up these trees" in some outdoors games. It's kind of cool, but it doesn't add too much to gameplay.

      Same deal with the chairs in Return to Castle Wolfenstein. Cool to shoot at, but nothing really more than an annoyance. And, why can I shoot the chairs, but not be able to destroy the filing cabinets? Why does my TNT blow up only parts of the wall, etc.?

      Interaction with the environment in of itself does not solve the problem of immersion entirely, simply because "what should be interactable?" is a very tough problem.

      I think the idea of "illusory" immersion, that you were talking about, is a pretty reasonable idea (e.g. head-bobbing -- really, gun-bobbing). Head-bobbing is IN some of the newer games, but largely, many have done away with it (leaving it around only minimally) so that those that get nausea from it can still play the FPS's.. ;)
    • well the immserion can be increased... shock collars connected to the computer to zap you when you get hit, A Strobe on the top of the monitor to blind you when a grenade goes off in your face, and finally a solenoid and air controlled brick that smashes into you when hit with a blunt weapon.... Man unreal really needed BIG hammers instead of that silly rock breaker.

      you may mod me as funny, but I remember reading here on slashdot about a guy who wired a shock system into quake II!
    • Forget graphics, NOW is the time for immersion!

      That's an awesome idea. Imagine

      * running out of ammo for your shotgun, and grabbing the barrel and bashing the opposing player on the skull.

      * actually picking up weapons and slowing down your rate of fire and the like as you don armor, place turrets, etc.

      * grabbing someone' weapon

      * hiding round a corner and tripping them when they follow you

      * being knocked to the ground and crawling for a little while if you're injured...

      * Using that high powered gattling gun that's out of ammo as a high powered drill to put through your opponents midsection

      * Throwing bodies down a flight of stairs at your oncoming opponents

      * Using other players as human shields

      etc.

  • an avid UT fan (Score:2, Interesting)

    by krs-one ( 470715 )
    As an avid UT fan from the beginning, I am extremely excited about getting my hands on the new UT2. I do know that they have stripped the shock rifle out of it because it is too powerful, mainly when using the combo. However, they have replaced it with a plasma shotgun that allows for the same thing, but in moderation, and its not as powerful.

    It also looks like epic is going away from the indoors tournament look and feel of UT. There are a few custom outdoor UT maps, but not many, and most of them are not sanctioned by the big ladders.

    Like UT did to the gaming industry a few years back, I think that UT2 and U2 will do now. I also think that no games will be able to come close to it (in the same genre) for a few years.

    -Vic

  • Too real? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If you think that Unreal Tournament 2 is "too real", you really need to get your ass outside and look at the world more often.
  • Damn. Alien Male B? Go all the way and give us Jar-Jar.
  • Oh please not another UT! I have enough trouble getting my work done as is!

    Can you say LAN Party???

  • It looks nice, but does it really look that much different that Halo now? I haven't played halo outside the stores since it's the only thing on x-box that remotely is interesting to me, so I wont buy one, but it looks alot like I see in what I have seen of Halo. Even the graphical quality looks the same.

    Does UT2 do per pixel environments like doom 3 will I guess (don't know much about this technology to be honest). I saw a demo where doom 3 had lights above a fan and the shadows from that sweeping over some boxes, very cool. Doom 3 images (the crappy ones that are all that is out) look much more realistc that this. UT2 looks very good, but it's always had this kinda anim look to it.
    • I would assume that it wouldn't.

      UT and UT2 are both multi player centered. Much like Q3 is. Doom3 is however single player oriented. In a SP games you can put in more neat graphics, but in a MP game that can be very annoying.

      I think U2 would be a better comparison to D3.
  • I've always prefered UT when it comes to good First Person Shooters.

    I'm really hoping for Mac and Linux versions of this game. I don't use Windows.

    Ciryon

  • Future net :) (Score:2, Interesting)

    by fils ( 88044 )

    One thing that interest me in all this UT2 / Quake 3 / Doom 3 stuff is the way in which these systems have achieved 3d immersion on the net.

    I mean look at web3d.org (vrml) and how poorly it has done, now look at the game engines. Let's take the recently GPL released Quake 2. I saw it's out now for Mac OS X, windows obviously and linux I am sure now or soon. Plus you can run it in a window, not full screen if you wish. Now take that and develope a means to assign URL's like
    quake2://w3d.nowhere.com/index.bsp to a slip gate that can pass this to the engine. Get a good 2D canvas in it to render text and images to view pages and perhaps a consol. The ideas go on and on.

    It's a cross platform GPL'd 3d networked environment....
  • It is looking great even though I'd prefer more screenshots than edited images, but I guess it's too early.
    Maybe with the q3 release plan it's will be delivered together with the ATI 8500DV card that I ordered.
    But I would not be surpriced if it got delayed. With Q3 as a target they have room for delays and will still be able to be on the x-mas lists for santa.
  • One of the screenshots shows various angles of a vehicle of some kind. Will those be included as well, a la Tribes and Halo?

  • I'm Not Impressed... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lethyos ( 408045 ) on Saturday January 12, 2002 @02:05PM (#2829119) Journal
    You can still see polygon outlines. Textures are still flaky at best. Lighting is still very unconvincing. I'm sorry, but games are not beginning to look "a little too real". On the contrary, they've still got a long way to go before they show even promise of looking photographic. All game engines out there currently provide essentially the same level of performance in terms of visual quality. Yes, I understand some game engines have advantages over others, but it all comes down to how they are used and the design of the game. Let me explain.

    Game developers have traditionally pushed the envelope in terms of what hardware is needed to run the game. UT:2 doesn't appear to be doing that. They should not be afraid to use extremely high-res textures and let loose on the model complexity with much abandon. This may sound foolish, but also note that this is how the industry has traditionally worked. Popular and powerful software demands hardware makers to up the ante on performance. Think RAM and disk space would be as cheap as it is without Windows9x entering the fray?

    Elements of the game's design also affect realism. It seems to be that on one hand, UT:2 is struggling to look extremely real, but at the same time, incorporates elements that undo any progress they made. I'm not talking about cheesy weapons or circus clown fighters. The environments - the structures and landscapes - just do not lend themselves to being believable. This is also in terms of detail, or lack thereof. There's no excess where there needs to be! Hardware will catch up. Go ahead, waste CPU cycles... people will buy a 2000THz Athlon Mustang XPXA 2015 Turbocharged.....
    • Making a game available to a certain strata of computer users makes your game less popular. If you had to wait until you could afford a new PC in order to play a game you'd buy something with much lower requirements. I don't want to shell out a thousand bucks to play a computer game. Another thing to worry about is compatibility. UT runs on Mac, Windows, and Linux. Not a whole slew of people went out and bought a new Athlon XP just to run Linux on. A majority of Mac owners don't have brand spanking new Quicksilver systems with GeForce 3s in them. Shit most Windows users don't have a card more powerful than a TNT2. If the developers wanted to ignore the majority of their userbase they could push the envelope but then who would buy it.

  • Anybody know if they plan to release a Linux version? I probably won't be playing if they don't.

  • I remember reading PlanetUnreal [doorbot.com] a while back and they posted the specs required for Unreal II (and I assume Unreal Tournament 2). They were likely preliminary guesses, but they serve as a good indicator of the direction the developers are going.

    The idea was that you could actually run the newest generation of Unreal games on slower hardware than Unreal Tournament. Yes, slower. I think it actually spec'd a Pentium 233, but I can't recall exactly.

    Apparently the new engine does exactly what the Kyro cards do. It only draws what is necessary, thus allowing older hardware to still play the game. I don't know how this will affect Kyro cards where they have a price-performance advantage.

    I also remember reading about how Unreal was going to use ATI's TruForm (I think) technology to change expressions and the like on models. So that would be one advantages of having a brand new high end graphics card...
  • Honestly, these graphics are SO 1998! Maybe I'm spoiled by the PS2, but you'd think with all the GeForce 3 power they have at their disposal, they'd use some curved surfaces in the levels. The maps (especially the Egypt one in the screenshots) look like they were drawn by a six-year old with a demo version of 3D Studio that was limited to 100 polygons.
    • You know, if you'd actually read the article instead of just looking at the pretty pictures, you'd have discovered that they want to make this game run on older machines - like 233s and the like.

      The point of that is that they can then market to people who can't afford to upgrade to an XP1800 with a gig of ram and a GeForce 3. And really, who needs awesome graphics anyway? I don't know about you, but I play for the gameplay.

      You'll never find me sitting around in UT saying 'wow, the texture detail on that player model is really amazing- damn, he fragged me. Wow, the sky is beautifully- agh, who shot me?' I keep the detail set on low to get better framerates. If you want to spend $1200 to make a system hit 30FPS, go ahead, but me, I turn the detail down and go to work.

      --Dan
      • You "play for gameplay" yet you play UT? Wow. And besides, support for older machines is no excuse. First, UT doesn't run well on old machines anyway. Yet, Quake III, with all its curved-surface niceness runs fine on my PII-300. Second, LOD mesh technology has been around for years. Messiah, for example, could vary the polygon count of the scenes depending on what the machine could handle at a given point in the game. That way slow machines would get reduced graphics, while fast machines would get great graphics.
        • First, UT doesn't run well on old
          machines anyway. Yet, Quake III, with all its curved-surface niceness
          runs fine on my PII-300.

          Unreal is just playable on my P166, with its 66 MHz bus, 80 megs of SIMMs, and ATI Rage Pro. It seems your definition of 'old machines' is different from a lot of other people's.

          Me, I'm just waiting until I get around to overclocking my way up to 200 MHz, to see if that makes any difference. I guess we'll see.

          --Dan
  • - For creating what looks like a kick-ass single-player game. Online gaming is great but until everyone has a T1 in the living room...
    - For creating a game with weapons that don't look like they came out of Star Wars. They look like they came out ouf Aliens.
    - If the big-map capability is good, for creating a game that is not claustrophobic and feels more like Delta Force 2.

    I played Unreal and UT to death. Unlike Q3A, I felt that I got my money's worth. I'm definitely going to spring for this one as soon as it hits the shelves.

    Yay!

  • Why UT is special (Score:2, Informative)

    by wackybrit ( 321117 )
    A lot of people are.. 'So what, Doom is coming out within a year' and 'Q3 is better' etc etc. I guess some people don't realize why UT is a special game.

    It's the simple customizations you can do. While Quake 3 is a lot of fun to play, the interface is quite rigid, and there are few options to adjust how the game plays.. unless you want to download giant mod packs of course.

    With UT, you have 'mutators'. There's lots built into the game.. things like 'Insta-Gib' (a single shot = death style mode).. 'Rocket Arena' (rocker launchers only), and so on. You can customize every game you play in this way.

    Not only that, but you have more modes of play. Now just CTF and deathmatch.. but a 'Return to Castle Wolfenstein' style Assault mode where you have to complete objectives.. a 'Domination' mode where you have to hold several checkpoints.. and even a 'Last Man Standing' mode where the only goal is to die as few times as possible.

    It's the way you can constantly refine the games to your own style that makes UT fun.

    Another great feature is that you can change the game speed! You can run as low as 50%, or as high as 200%. I always play UT at 120% because then it matches the speed of Q3.. as UT is generally a slower game action-wise.

    So.. UT is great because Epic understands that simple tweaking and customization options means you can get far more out of the game!
  • Umm, the leaked tech demo - a playable version of certain levels - has been out for months. And you're getting excited about a few measly screenshots?
  • I am not the Sniper type. I am the HURT ME type...I tend to run full assault most of the time.

    The thought of no sniper rifle is so ridiculous though. The return to Castle Wolfenstien has some form of spot ability to it. Everytime you shoot you see the tracer. However if you are in a good spot, tracer or not you have some ability to not reveal your exact location.

    I have noticed if you have 2 good snipers, they will have fun copeting against each other:
    Sniper A: shoots and kills Sniper B. Then has a few pot shots at other B team players. Sniper B respawns and hits Sniper A. Then pot shots a few A players. Also each shot causes a meter on the left of your screen to reset...thus making your gun more shaky...the longer you are steady and don't move the easier to aim. Thus you cannot rapid fire snipe.

    This makes them a hassle at best yet still allowing other players to have some fun. They are trying to copy the Quake RAIL it sounds like to me which is a mistake...Unreal, and Tourney will lose alot without it.

    Last comment...Assuming UT2 allows for mods, I will be a player. Hopefully somoone will create a sniper rifle, as well as the BEST UT mod out there now is CROTCH SHOT!!!! If you have never played CROTCH SHOT MODE you are missing out...Nothing like being the CROTCH DOMINATOR!!! In essence you have a VERY small area of your crotch that is the same as a snipe to the head...only you heart CROTCH SHOT instead. Any gun can land the hit bit its really a small area so its not to dominating.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close