PS3 version uses Texture Detail 1; World Detail 2

[WanderlustX2]

It is even worse that all threats which talk about that (UE4 for consoles), are removed systematicaly.

Well my thread with the subject of "Tim Sweeney's Comments" was removed. Glad they censor here. Considering all the money I paid for all their games since the original Unreal and that's what I get.. I'm done with the franchise. FUT is my new slogan.

[Tailsnake]

UT3 on the ps3 is the same as the pc version on full spec, cranked all the way up with possibly a few details turned down. This was said by epic somewhere in an interview i think, although i can't be bothered to look for it at the mo.

The person who said the textures are bad on the ps3 version has to take into account the textures on the ps3 are loaded from the disk, so sometimes when starting a match, it can take a few seconds for them to 'pop in'.

This may explain the water that he saw, as the detail can take a while before it is added.

I also own the pc version and the ps3 version looks identical to my set up when on high, so i really don't know what he is talking about.

Low details? Yeah right......

QFT, the only thing I can argue with there is that the water in downtown really isn't there...

[imrik]

You tried the test on Downtown the OP was talking about? Also...

This ^ does not make any sense at all. WHY would the game look the same as the pc on high settings in every part of the game except on the Downtown map?

It does not compute...

[imrik]

UT3 on the ps3 is the same as the pc version on full spec, cranked all the way up with possibly a few details turned down. This was said by epic somewhere in an interview i think, although i can't be bothered to look for it at the mo.

The person who said the textures are bad on the ps3 version has to take into account the textures on the ps3 are loaded from the disk, so sometimes when starting a match, it can take a few seconds for them to 'pop in'.

This may explain the water that he saw, as the detail can take a while before it is added.

I also own the pc version and the ps3 version looks identical to my set up when on high, so i really don't know what he is talking about.

Low details? Yeah right......

[St0]

Is it this water your talking about? if it is, it looks like you have a duff PS3 disk

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/c...1/DSC00369.jpg

[SHOGUN_1]

I am a console gamer. It means a lot to me to get a update for this game.
It looks great on my set but the little things matter.

UT3 is the best FPS in the WORLD. Please give us PS owners a proper update
too...

[haslo]

BS, i also have it on PC and PS3 and they look the same when the PC is cranked all the way up. Only diffrence is the PS3 runs at 720p @ 30fps

You tried the test on Downtown the OP was talking about? Also...

Err... ever thought that the PS3 could have a totally separate, non-comparable config vs the PC that highlights its strengths and doesn't make its bottlenecks kill performance?

Tex 1 World 2 should look much crappier than what I've seen from screenshots. World 2 probably doesn't even have enhanced per-pixel lighting, while the PS3 does that.

What's probably off is lower texture details, but effects and co. are still on because at heart the RSX although sucky is still comparable to a Geforce 7800/7900. And that's not even considering the optimization.

QFT, because this awesome post (relative to the average level in this thread) meanwhile was buried under **** and spam

[St0]

BS, i also have it on PC and PS3 and they look the same when the PC is cranked all the way up. Only diffrence is the PS3 runs at 720p @ 30fps

[MonsOlympus]

If you were to take UE3 as a good indication of the PS3, which most of its users wouldn't.

UT3 would be the best UE3 game on the console, but definitely not up their in terms of the consoles exclusives. It does pretty well, but most games using the engine don't fair so well.

No wai, it cant be all on the software

That said though, you do have a point but platform exclusivity has nothing to do with how well a game performs on a given platform. I'll agree Epic's UE3 games are certainly up there in terms of looks vs performance, Im just surprised that the PS3 is set so low especially in regards to textures.

Im guessing that texture optimizations would be the heart of making games on lower end systems because you have to be careful with memory. It makes sense to me that these low-mid end systems wouldnt be able to match a 1gb GPU along with a system having 2gb or more of ram ontop of that.

Sometimes though low-mid end systems can have alot in terms of processing power so some companies choose to utilize it more rather than putting the load on the graphics.

Im not sure what context you are using best there for but I assumed graphics since this is what the thread is about. Graphics being tied to art direction in some sense does make it difficult to judge one vs the other, its like saying the original psycho vs transformers vs sincity, which one is best? Well I wouldnt say any one specifically and it has little to do with the medium they chose to distribute in. Infact I would go so far to say different mediums inspire people to take things a step further, I would much rather see a film like sincity as it has character just like what film grain can do for a movie like psycho.

Watching masters of scifi there was an interesting episode about a genetically engineer humanoid worker who gain rights to be called a person. At the end it says that humans are defined by their imperfections, I would go so far to say the same about the world around us.

I do know though that exclusive titles on platforms lead to them becoming more successful than others, especially when you factor in costs, it doesnt have much to do with whats best. Really artists should be able to use any medium available to them to get their feelings/point whatever across to people, I know if I had something I wanted people to see then I would put it where the most amount of people could see it and appreciate it. Not because it generates more revenue, I wonder if developers ever factor than in when they are reading gamasutra articles about why games should be considered an art form.

[Uzi Downes]

I wish I could... but the state in which the game was released despite the endless "when it's done" reassurance continues to baffle me. I'm not nearly surprised by the fact that "a game" was released before it was "done" (happens all the time for the reasons you mentioned), just that "a game" was released before it was "done" by a company that repeatedly promised to release "when it's done".

Then again, I saw the same thing happen to Neverwinter Nights... Its developers also liberally applied the phrase "when it's done", but it took two years of patching to get it to even "barely done".

Maybe I'm just picky. I have tons of my own projects sitting in beta forever because I cannot honestly bring myself to proclaim them "done".

I actually agree with you (apart from the first part I haven't included ), it's a worrying trend. But then again it does catch up with companies. You have outfits like id who took the engine licensing route and used their franchises as tech demos, they are now having to release free games in an effort to regain some type of user base again before their next commercial release.

Hopefully Epic make good with a few patches.

[Uzi Downes]

Wow no **** hey, need to read this whole thread see what the general concensus is. If this is true though ummz my PC kicks the **** outta the PS3 and its not even that new

If you were to take UE3 as a good indication of the PS3, which most of its users wouldn't.

UT3 would be the best UE3 game on the console, but definitely not up their in terms of the consoles exclusives. It does pretty well, but most games using the engine don't fair so well.

[Xyx]

That was in reply to someone trying to make out that bugs in the PS3 version were features, then going on to ask why would Epic leave them in if they weren't. Certainly not the in way you've read or used it.

Even out of context, a statement should generally hold up.

He asked for a reason and got told to go ask Epic and other developers about finances and deadlines. If you can offer another realistic reason, by all means put it fourth.

I wish I could... but the state in which the game was released despite the endless "when it's done" reassurance continues to baffle me. I'm not nearly surprised by the fact that "a game" was released before it was "done" (happens all the time for the reasons you mentioned), just that "a game" was released before it was "done" by a company that repeatedly promised to release "when it's done".

Then again, I saw the same thing happen to Neverwinter Nights... Its developers also liberally applied the phrase "when it's done", but it took two years of patching to get it to even "barely done".

Maybe I'm just picky. I have tons of my own projects sitting in beta forever because I cannot honestly bring myself to proclaim them "done".

[MonsOlympus]

Wow no **** hey, need to read this whole thread see what the general concensus is. If this is true though ummz my PC kicks the **** outta the PS3 and its not even that new

[Uzi Downes]

That was in reply to someone trying to make out that bugs in the PS3 version were features, then going on to ask why would Epic leave them in if they weren't. Certainly not the in way you've read or used it.

If you think I'm okay with the state of some of the things that the game shipped with you'd be mistaken, I won't go moaning about it but I'm certainly not impressed with some very obvious oversights.

He asked for a reason and got told to go ask Epic and other developers about finances and deadlines. If you can offer another realistic reason, by all means put it fourth.

[Xyx]

As for the "why release a game etc...", ask Epic and many other developers, and then ask them about deadlines and finance.

Do the words "when it's done" ring any particular bells for you? Spoken not once but repeated over and over. Note that the words were "when it's done" and not "when it's almost done", "when we think we can patch the bugs that remain" or "when our publisher tells us to ship".

In the booklet shipping with the Collector's Edition, Epic claims that since Gears made them tons of money they now have the luxury position of shipping games when they're done. I'm not aware of Epic's handling of other games since Gears, but in my book, for UT3, that statement is a demonstrable lie. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find someone that followed the beta/demo process and agrees the game was indeed "done" when it shipped.