Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 81
  1. #1
    MSgt. Shooter Person
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    362

    Default So does the full game look better than the demo?

    hello

    First of all, I'm not here to rant about anything or blame anyone, I'm just curious. Anyway, so are the graphics really improved over the demo? Could we get some comparison screens please? Oh speaking of screens and curious, I always wondered what the sandstorm in the sandstorm level looked like, help me out anyone?

    Thank You! CAN'T WAIT FOR THIS GAME!!!!!!

  2. #2
    Boomshot
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,520

    Default

    It's exactly the same.
    DuelRemove v2 (fixed) // UT3 Wishlist

    "I am certain there is too much certainty in the world" - Michael Crichton

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysTikal View Post
    It's exactly the same.
    Unfortunately. It's pretty disappointing graphically compared to what you'd expect from Unreal Engine 3.

  4. #4
    MSgt. Shooter Person
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysTikal View Post
    It's exactly the same.
    Nah, it's not. There's a noticeable difference in the mapping quality. (that's bumpmaps, normal maps, and diffuse maps for you laymen)

  5. #5
    MSgt. Shooter Person
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GG-Xtreme View Post
    Unfortunately. It's pretty disappointing graphically compared to what you'd expect from Unreal Engine 3.
    pretty disappointing? Are you kidding me dude? Wow do you guys really have anything better to do than sit down and jump on the bandwagon? UT3 and GOW are 2 of the most beautifully constructed games to date. I seriously can't believe some of your random comments. Did you even play the game or run though the maps? Seriously, it's people like you that give all the hard work epic did a bad name. Yeah, constructive criticism is one thing, but to be disappointed? I'm blown away.

    Find me a better looking game than UT3 or GOW atm.

    @ epic. Amazing job guys. Each map flows pretty flawlessly. The one single thing that I'm most impressed by is how you managed to make every map feel very different than the previous. Once you play the map, you can remember it very easily since they are so vastly different. From tentacles twisting and interwoven into the map, to snow, lush green environments, goo ridden maps, metallic futuristic levels, to maps that feel like they are alive... very good job guys.

  6. #6
    Iron Guard
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    778

    Default

    Well, it actually looks a tiny bit better.

    There are some screen shots that compare the textures between the demo and the actual game and it does look a little better on ut3 full, I think that it MIGHT be possible it could possibly look a lot better, like there is an option in the ini that says use highpoly characters or something that is set to false, however it seems even if you set it to true it may not do anything, possibly a feature that is not working yet?

    I hope that there is either a patch that will fix it or someone will be able to figure out how to make it look like the preview screen shots they released over a year ago, enabling anti aliasing will sure help with that, I'm not sure if it's possible to get it to look like this.

    http://image.com.com/gamespot/images..._screen002.jpg

    I consider that the benchmark that ut should live up to
    "Good elephant clock second of two kinds of widespread revolve a way"

    WUDILALA

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rythem View Post
    pretty disappointing? Are you kidding me dude? Wow do you guys really have anything better to do than sit down and jump on the bandwagon? UT3 and GOW are 2 of the most beautifully constructed games to date. I seriously can't believe some of your random comments. Did you even play the game or run though the maps? Seriously, it's people like you that give all the hard work epic did a bad name. Yeah, constructive criticism is one thing, but to be disappointed? I'm blown away.

    Find me a better looking game than UT3 or GOW atm.
    Ever heard of this game called Crysis? And I'm not talking about the engine, it's absolutely incredible. I just see a lack of artistic detail in a lot the maps and some laziness in modeling and texture quality in some places. Almost like if the maps were designed for UT99 or UT2004. GoW looks amazing, you can see the artistic detail and the effort everywhere.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by btcomm View Post
    I hope that there is either a patch that will fix it or someone will be able to figure out how to make it look like the preview screen shots they released over a year ago, enabling anti aliasing will sure help with that, I'm not sure if it's possible to get it to look like this.

    http://image.com.com/gamespot/images..._screen002.jpg
    You'll need a mega video card for that

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bret Hart View Post
    You'll need a mega video card for that
    No, you just need Unreal Ed. You can make photo-realistic renders with a 3d modeling program with much crappier hardware than games require.

  10. #10
    MSgt. Shooter Person
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    362

    Default

    mmm...I see...Well, that's too bad, good thing the game still looks VERY good! Saw some new videos posted around and I really can't complain, especially since it runs so smooth (right?). Oh and please let's not bring Crysis into this. Another game, another story.

    By the way, in some very recent interview, I believe it was Mark Rein (not sure though) who said that extra DX10 features will be added later in a patch. Plus, we now know they will fix/change UI in a later patch as well, so things can only get better My only concern is that reviews for this game might be lower than expected and it will bring people that actually care about reviews down, so smaller community I really REALLY want this game to be BIG!

    Anyway, so no sandstorm screens?

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wunderbar_007 View Post
    Oh and please let's not bring Crysis into this. Another game, another story.
    Just answering someone's question. UT owns all.

  12. #12
    MSgt. Shooter Person
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    362

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GG-Xtreme View Post
    Just answering someone's question. UT owns all.
    It's all good man I just don't want this thread closed just yet. Oh and, I agree

  13. #13
    Iron Guard
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    528

    Default

    I was playing the Demo with graphics low just cause I didn't really care. I'll turn em' up for the full version though. To me graphics don't matter as much as the game play. Yes I know graphics affect game play I am sure you understand what I mean however.

  14. #14
    Iron Guard
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GG-Xtreme View Post
    No, you just need Unreal Ed. You can make photo-realistic renders with a 3d modeling program with much crappier hardware than games require.
    Are you saying with unreal ed you can make a still frame like that somehow? What 3d program would you use to render it?

    Not a lot of games as far as I've seen make fake screen shots that cannot be achieved in game.

    Like I've said before, I understand they may add action and tweak the screen shot to look the best possible but if that level of smoothness and detail is not possible in game even if you have to get 1 fps to get it then I consider that false advertising, those screen shots were supposed to be from in game from over a year ago, now we get the game I'm still disapointed.

    Perhaps you can get to that quality it's just unplayable, I believe Mark reign said before the release that not any computer could play this game max, at the time of that statement the 8800 ultra and quad core intel cpus were around so perhaps it can look like that but not with any hardware in use now?

    I hope so, I hope that when the hardware comes out there will be another level of maximizing this game, seeing as as it stands the hardware does exist to maximize the game settings they way they have it now.
    "Good elephant clock second of two kinds of widespread revolve a way"

    WUDILALA

  15. #15
    MSgt. Shooter Person
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    119

    Default

    I was kinda dissapointed with Crysis, concerning the visual aspect. it looks awful on older hardware. Not that UT3 looks great on older hardware, but the heavy use of foliage in crysis makes it look ridiculous and it even hurts gameplay.

    My first impression looking at the UT3 full version was that the characters at least were much more detailed. maybe its just me, but it would be interesting to see the comparison.

  16. #16
    Iron Guard
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    778

    Default

    Perhaps you can get to that quality it's just unplayable, I believe Mark reign said before the release that not any computer could play this game max, at the time of that statement the 8800 ultra and quad core intel cpus were around so perhaps it can look like that but not with any hardware in use now?
    That's what I keep thinking, I really hope there's something around the corner, like the highpolycharacter ini edit mentioned on page 1. I'm still waiting to get a quad core and G92 graphics card... so I'm in no hurry for it. I wouldn't say no to a max graphics, high res, low compression vid of UT3 though... So far I've seen one with a ridiculous amount of compression on it completely voiding the point of taking a max quality vid.
    My Rig
    CPU: Intel Q6600 GPU: EVGA Geforce 8800 GT Mobo: Asus P5KR RAM: Corsair 2GB DDR2 800 Harddrives: 2 x Seagate 500GB 7200.11Sound Card: Creative X-Fi Xtreme Gamer Displays: Samsung 19" 913B LCD, Samsung 22" 226BW-C LCD
    <Tisk> i bet the whole australia's internet is connected to the other world
    with some guy transferring 1.44MB diskettes on a rowing boat between usa and australia
    now think of NZ

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by btcomm View Post
    Are you saying with unreal ed you can make a still frame like that somehow? What 3d program would you use to render it?

    Not a lot of games as far as I've seen make fake screen shots that cannot be achieved in game.

    Like I've said before, I understand they may add action and tweak the screen shot to look the best possible but if that level of smoothness and detail is not possible in game even if you have to get 1 fps to get it then I consider that false advertising, those screen shots were supposed to be from in game from over a year ago, now we get the game I'm still disapointed.

    Perhaps you can get to that quality it's just unplayable, I believe Mark reign said before the release that not any computer could play this game max, at the time of that statement the 8800 ultra and quad core intel cpus were around so perhaps it can look like that but not with any hardware in use now?

    I hope so, I hope that when the hardware comes out there will be another level of maximizing this game, seeing as as it stands the hardware does exist to maximize the game settings they way they have it now.
    They aren't exactly fake, they are just setup and posed with Unreal Ed. You can also export the entire map with all of its meshes and brushes to an obj file, then retexture it and render it high-quality in any modeling program, but I doubt they did that

  18. #18
    MSgt. Shooter Person
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by btcomm View Post

    Perhaps you can get to that quality it's just unplayable, I believe Mark reign said before the release that not any computer could play this game max, at the time of that statement the 8800 ultra and quad core intel cpus were around so perhaps it can look like that but not with any hardware in use now?
    Even with the current video cards dual or not dual there is no way they can achive what those pics provided by epic "ingame". Those were done with 3D Studio Max and Maya software at very high poly counts. Epic has yet posted an ingame shot for us, that should tell you something.

    this is the only screen that looks ingame, but still its old and probably before they decided to port it to consols and i still dont see a HUD

    http://www.games-fusion.net/screens/..._00000Shot.jpg but if it looks this good with everything its got then

    Just a thought. Crytek did this with there new engine that crysis runs on. They designed it so later on down the line When new hardware and technology come out crysis and any other game using the crytek engine
    are capable of looking even better.
    Last edited by exil3; 11-15-2007 at 12:12 AM.

  19. #19
    MSgt. Shooter Person
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    165

    Default

    I just thought about something I been reading alot.
    I think the videos that some of us seen on gametrailers.com for example, were done with a 64-Bit OS. Its supposed to have better textures?

    Dont know any other explaination. I tried out myself alot.
    Digital Vibrance, LODBias, cant get the game look that sharp....
    C2D E6750@1,2v, Gigabyte P35-DS4, 2x1024 MB Crucial Ballistix 4-4-4-12@1T, XFX 8800 GTS 640 @580/900
    #ut1 #ut1.duel #ut.303 #Deck16][ #ut.jolt #ut3.jolt @ irc.quakenet.org

  20. #20
    Redeemer
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,626

    Default

    I'm sure their making a patch for the full ut3 graphics so u can use the advance settings

  21. #21
    MSgt. Shooter Person
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    362

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutal View Post
    I'm sure their making a patch for the full ut3 graphics so u can use the advance settings
    Sure would be nice, bought this bloody machine for a reason

  22. #22
    MSgt. Shooter Person
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by exil3 View Post
    Those were done with 3D Studio Max and Maya software at very high poly counts.
    Source? Or you just making that up?

  23. #23
    Marrow Fiend
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Posts
    4,525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eckz View Post
    Source? Or you just making that up?
    He's right, IIRC. I don't have a link but I'm sure if you Googled it you'd find it. I know they included Maya Basic in UT2k4 and perhaps they might do that in this version.

  24. #24

    Default

    I seriously didn't even think about using a 64bit OS though... that with DirectX10.1 could be what makes all the difference when DX10.1 gets released january next year. I think a patch will basicly tell us, and who knows, a patch might get released day of official launch for the 19th. I guess we'll see.

  25. #25
    Iron Guard
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ultron View Post
    He's right, IIRC. I don't have a link but I'm sure if you Googled it you'd find it. I know they included Maya Basic in UT2k4 and perhaps they might do that in this version.
    That is disapointing.

    All I can hope is that with new hardware the game can look like maybe something similar to what was posted by epic.

    That is horrible, I can't believe they posted these fake screen shots, that is what they are fake.
    "Good elephant clock second of two kinds of widespread revolve a way"

    WUDILALA

  26. #26
    MSgt. Shooter Person
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by btcomm View Post
    That is disapointing.

    All I can hope is that with new hardware the game can look like maybe something similar to what was posted by epic.

    That is horrible, I can't believe they posted these fake screen shots, that is what they are fake.
    People keep saying DX10 will make big difference, look at Bioshock, it uses the same engine there really wasnt much of a difference between the
    DX9&DX10 versions.
    Only game ive seen thus far that truly shows it off is Crysis

  27. #27
    Seriously...
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    10,253
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: KriLL38

    Default

    Imo Lost Planet makes a great showing of DX10, though that's all it does, nice tech demo, horrible game.
    "Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."

  28. #28
    MSgt. Shooter Person
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KriLL3.8™ View Post
    Imo Lost Planet makes a great showing of DX10, though that's all it does, nice tech demo, horrible game.
    True, forgot about that one. Geat game, great game lol

  29. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,188

    Default

    Why pretty up the screenshots and have the game look not nearly as good?

  30. #30
    MSgt. Shooter Person
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    332

    Default

    I seriously can't believe you guys are freaking out over their official screenshots being "fake." Everyone does this, it's advertising.

    And to say it doesn't even come close is ridiculous, the game looks fantastic. Pull your heads back from the screen for a little while and stop picking at a tiny smidge of pixelation. I doubt you even notice half the details that DID get shown in the game since you're too busy having fun jumping around and mowing people down.

  31. #31
    Marrow Fiend
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Posts
    4,525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by btcomm View Post
    That is disapointing.

    All I can hope is that with new hardware the game can look like maybe something similar to what was posted by epic.

    That is horrible, I can't believe they posted these fake screen shots, that is what they are fake.
    Just an FYI those screenshots were put together a year ago using the Unreal Engine. And if you've seen the game as it is, with enough tweaking, it looks pretty darn close. Let's not get carried away here.

  32. #32
    Seriously...
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    10,253
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: KriLL38

    Default

    Not to mention the fact for the game to look exactly like that you'd need actual million poly characters, 8800ultra in quad SLI + fastest quad core you can find wouldn't run that faster than 1-2 frames per min.
    "Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."

  33. #33
    MSgt. Shooter Person
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    486

    Default

    Show me where in those screenshots, fake or otherwise, they're using 'million poly characters'. That's all game-rez geometry. It's just the shading samples are so high the edges seem to blend a lot better. Look closely and it's CLEARLY game-rez normal mapped geo. The DOF is obviously not in-game, and neither are the character poses or action shots - it's all carefully constucted promo material. But I don't see anything in those screens that says they are Max/Maya/LW/whatever renders.

    Come to mention it, maybe someone can post some screenshots of the full game running on GOOD HARDWARE. All I've seen so far are badly chosen angles captured without AA. And that (besides the post-processed DOF) is the only difference I see between the promo stuff and the few screenshots posted. Taking a pic of a wall from three inches away is not going to look mind blowing on any engine. Even the god like ooo-aaah! beast that is Crysis.

    And on that token, Crysis looks stunning. I run a top-end PC, and can run the game max at about 25fps, or a step down here and there for 40fps. It's sooooo pretty.... for about 30 minutes. Three hours later it looks the same as it did at the start. Twelve hours in... no change. It's an incredibly rich engine, sure. But it's one hell of a resource hog, and the game itself is fun but hardly mind blowing (invisibility, sneak, shoot, hide, invisibility, sneak, shoot, hide, throw chicken, invisibility, sneak, shoot, hide) and already I'm finding myself easily walking away. It's not gripping. It doesn't make me howl with delight. It's Farcry on visual steroids.

    At least UT3 runs a dream and has some actual DESIGN behind it. It doesn't look 'photo-real' in either the promo or the game material, but it doesn't need to. It's beautiful. Though I'm kinda over brown.
    Last edited by faultymoose; 11-15-2007 at 03:22 AM.

  34. #34

    Default

    Full version looks mutch better than the demo of Unreal3.
    The graphic is awesome and the game runs perfect on 1920x1200

    Crysis looks great but it runs crappy on 1920x1200
    and Crysis do not support Ageias PhysX card
    and its EA Sports

    I love EpicGames
    They have the "know how"

    EA suck
    Intel® Core 2 Duo E6850
    Noctua NH-U 12F
    Nvidia 8800 Ultra Gainward ForceWare 169.09
    GigaByte P35-DS3P
    4x 1GB RAM Kingston HyperX (dual channel interleaved)
    Samsung SyncMaster 245B
    BFG PhysX Accelerator
    Chieftec CH-01SL-SL-B
    Creative X-Fi Elite Pro

  35. #35
    Iron Guard
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faultymoose View Post
    Show me where in those screenshots, fake or otherwise, they're using 'million poly characters'. That's all game-rez geometry. It's just the shading samples are so high the edges seem to blend a lot better. Look closely and it's CLEARLY game-rez normal mapped geo. The DOF is obviously not in-game, and neither are the character poses or action shots - it's all carefully constucted promo material. But I don't see anything in those screens that says they are Max/Maya/LW/whatever renders.

    Come to mention it, maybe someone can post some screenshots of the full game running on GOOD HARDWARE. All I've seen so far are badly chosen angles captured without AA. And that (besides the post-processed DOF) is the only difference I see between the promo stuff and the few screenshots posted. Taking a pic of a wall from three inches away is not going to look mind blowing on any engine. Even the god like ooo-aaah! beast that is Crysis.

    And on that token, Crysis looks stunning. I run a top-end PC, and can run the game max at about 25fps, or a step down here and there for 40fps. It's sooooo pretty.... for about 30 minutes. Three hours later it looks the same as it did at the start. Twelve hours in... no change. It's an incredibly rich engine, sure. But it's one hell of a resource hog, and the game itself is fun but hardly mind blowing (invisibility, sneak, shoot, hide, invisibility, sneak, shoot, hide, throw chicken, invisibility, sneak, shoot, hide) and already I'm finding myself easily walking away. It's not gripping. It doesn't make me howl with delight. It's Farcry on visual steroids.

    At least UT3 runs a dream and has some actual DESIGN behind it. It doesn't look 'photo-real' in either the promo or the game material, but it doesn't need to. It's beautiful. Though I'm kinda over brown.

    Do you think there is a way to get the shading samples that high in game if not now but in the future?
    "Good elephant clock second of two kinds of widespread revolve a way"

    WUDILALA

  36. #36

    Default

    Talking of Cryteks new game, On their forums is a long thread complaining that the visuals don't live up to the promo shots and how certain people consider it a ripoff because of that.


    [edit]
    Can't find the thread I mentioned above but this one covers the same ground.
    http://incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=11972&p=1
    Last edited by Luseferous; 11-15-2007 at 12:06 PM.

  37. #37
    Marrow Fiend
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Posts
    4,525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eckz View Post
    Source?
    http://www.unrealtechnology.com/html...ogy/ue30.shtml

    This page goes into some detail for you.

    BTW these million poly models (or whatever they are) and the models used to be rendered in-game, they're not going to be that high quality, for real, in the game. But that's why we have tricks like Transformation and Lighting and other features to sort of trick us into seeing higher quality objects in-game.

    But this is what happens in literally _every_ 3D game out there. Higher polygon source material is used in creating what ends up in the game.

    Good lord let's get over this.
    My UT3 Tweaks thread - updated 02/21/2008!

    UT3 Patch 1.1

  38. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luseferous View Post
    Talking of Cryteks new game, On their forums is a long thread complaining that the visuals don't live up to the promo shots and how certain people consider it a ripoff because of that.


    [edit]
    Can't find the thread I mentioned above but this one covers the same ground.
    http://incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=11972&p=1
    It's just the demo, the game looks beautiful on DX9 medium-high settings (but performance SUCKS in firefights).

  39. #39
    Iron Guard
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    USA-East Coast
    Posts
    500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rythem View Post
    Yeah, constructive criticism is one thing, but to be disappointed? I'm blown away.
    +1

    I am blown away looking at pics that peeps are posting of the full version. Man am I itching to run this thing. I don't see how, if you are running high end hardward, that this game could be called 'ugly'. It is nigh unto mastery in terms of visual appeal to date.

  40. #40
    MSgt. Shooter Person
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eckz View Post
    Source? Or you just making that up?
    Why would i lie..
    There's are two folders in the full version fxmax and fxmaya their pluggins for
    3dsmax and maya.
    Even if there was hardware capable of handling thos screeens provided by epic in "realtime gameplay" the game would be ridiculous in size. well over 7.1 gigs
    Core2 Duo E8500 3.16GHz/ASUS Striker II Extreme/OCZ 2GIG DDR3 -1333/EVGA GeForce 9800GX2 SSC/ WD VELOCIRAPTOR 300GIG 10K HDD/WD 1TB HDD/SOUNDBLASTER AUDIGY 2 PLATINUM/Thermaltake ToughPower 850 Watt/ VIEWSONIC 20 5MS VX2035WM


 
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Copyright ©2009-2011 Epic Games, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Digital Point modules: Sphinx-based search vBulletin skin by CompletevB.com.