PDA

View Full Version : no unreal engine 3 on nintendo revolution :,,,(


MARVO
29th Mar 2006, 10:00 PM
I know most of you here on the bu forums must be pc gamers and couldnt care less what the unreal status is on the consoles. I for one am anticipating the Nintendo revolution very much and was praying that unreal engine 3 would be on it, but my dreams were shattered when i read this article on joystiq:

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/03/28/heard-gdc-no-unreal-engine-3-on-revolution/

ok well my dreams werent shattered, but many people would agree that it would be fun to play ut2007 with the motion sensitive controller. but the revolutions hardware just isnt on par with the new technology in the engine so it wouldnt look as good. so, as mentioned in the article, unreal engine 2 would be better suited to the new console. i would still liked to have seen ut2007 on the rev. and i know you can buy motion sensitive mice for your pc.

what do you guys think? would you play an unreal game on the revolution? or any fps for that matter

Torvec
29th Mar 2006, 11:14 PM
UT2007 for PC is the way it's meant to be played

don't get me wrong, i for one am also looking forward to the revolution since they are actually trying to enhance the experience while playing games, however i also want to mess with Unreal Editor and map/mod for the game so that's why it's a better buy for the PC than any other console....well that and you can play with other peoples custom content

in other words, this news doesn't discourage me in the least since i know nintendo will make some very good games without the need of UE3

DeathBooger
29th Mar 2006, 11:15 PM
As long as they have Mario and Zelda, they'll be fine.

gregori
30th Mar 2006, 10:43 AM
UT2007 for PC is the way it's meant to be played



If you could plug a keyboard and mouse into the PS3 and play UT2007 with them, most people would buy a PS3 and play ut2007 on that because it would be far cheaper than buying a new PC, and it would be the frame rate would be far more consistent. Infact most players would be on a more even playing field, if you ignore for the moment location and conection speed!

Neophoenix
30th Mar 2006, 10:52 AM
If you could plug a keyboard and mouse into the PS3 and play UT2007 with them, most people would buy a PS3 and play ut2007 on that because it would be far cheaper than buying a new PC, and it would be the frame rate would be far more consistent. Infact most players would be on a more even playing field, if you ignore for the moment location and conection speed!
I agree on that. As it stands right now I'll need a total over haul in order to play UT2007 with good FPS and high graphic detail.

DeathBooger
30th Mar 2006, 10:56 AM
Don't forget the HDTV you need to play the PS3.

Neophoenix
30th Mar 2006, 11:03 AM
Most people have HDTV now a days though, so thatís not hard to meet. Plus even if you don't, going out and buying that and the console would still be cheaper than a new pc.

Majik
30th Mar 2006, 11:12 AM
Most people have HDTV now a days though, so thatís not hard to meet.

*cough* Europe.


...and when have they said that it's a requirement to have a HDTV in order to play it?

JaFO
30th Mar 2006, 11:39 AM
It's not "required" ... but it falls into the same category as a 'good graphicscard' in the pc-world.

ie : the playingfield isn't all that level for the 'next'-gen consoles.
Big HDTV screens and surround-sound are going to make a difference even if connection-speeds are equal.

As far as the topic is concerned.
IMHO the problem isn't that the Revolution is lacking in power.
It's the Unreal-engine that's dependent on processing power to deliver its effects that is the true problem, but it's something Epic won't admit ...

And a fps on the Revolution ? Sure ... provided the controller is better than the classic m&k-combo.
Many have tried, but so far none have succeeded.

Torvec
30th Mar 2006, 12:23 PM
If you could plug a keyboard and mouse into the PS3 and play UT2007 with them, most people would buy a PS3 and play ut2007 on that because it would be far cheaper than buying a new PC, and it would be the frame rate would be far more consistent. Infact most players would be on a more even playing field, if you ignore for the moment location and conection speed!

you didn't read the rest of my post did you? it doesn't matter to me if i could plug a keyboard and mouse into the PS3 when i have the hardware that can handle this game, granted i don't think i'll be able to play it at max quality but i don't really care. Plus if i wanted to play the game on PS3 i'd have to buy one first and that would cost, oh i don't know, at least $400 to $500, whereas all i have to do is pay $50 to play it on PC. and the other MAJOR reason i will play it on PC i already stated but i'll quote it so that you actually read it...

however i also want to mess with Unreal Editor and map/mod for the game so that's why it's a better buy for the PC than any other console....well that and you can play with other peoples custom content

Krazy K
30th Mar 2006, 01:02 PM
PS3 will have keyboard/mouse support

You will also be able to play with other peoples custom content via Network

DeathBooger
30th Mar 2006, 01:05 PM
PS3 will have keyboard/mouse support

You will also be able to play with other peoples custom content via Network

You mean you'll be able to download map packs from the developer.

JaFO
30th Mar 2006, 03:07 PM
While it is fun to mod games. I think that the ever increasing amount of work and detail required means there's going to be even more crap and even less quality custom content. And that's not a good thing.

Considering that there's a lot of custom content that is a waste of the bits it's written on I wouldn't mind a bit more quality-control. Especially as far as custom-maps are concerned ...

And even if we'd be stuck with Epic-approved bonuspacks. It's not that bad compared to what other companies sell as 'add-on'.

DeathBooger
30th Mar 2006, 03:22 PM
Don't let the eye candy scare you. It won't be that much of a difference. At least 75% of the "new look" is lighting and the engine does that for you. You could make maps with the same geometry as UT2004 maps and they would like a million times better.

Bot_40
30th Mar 2006, 04:35 PM
Yeah, actual polygon count only increased by 4-5 times which isn't a lot really. Especially when you consider that now you won't have to worry about stupid nasty things like if your mesh will light correctly or whether you need to tessalate a load of polys to get it to look semi decent

gregori
31st Mar 2006, 07:24 AM
it doesn't matter to me if i could plug a keyboard and mouse into the PS3 when i have the hardware that can handle this game,



Most people don't have hardware that can run the game descently.
PS3 would be far cheaper with far better performance.
Plus if you have a HDTV, you probably have a much bigger screen than most PC monitors and can play from the comfort of your living room.
It also gives the player an even playing field in hardware terms.
No switching to the lowest graphical settings on the most powerful systems.


Given that Epic put in support for playing with keyboard and mouse most people would people would play it on PS3. An Almost undeniable FACT!

The reason Epic are not going to put in Keyboard and Mouse support for UT2007 on the PS3 is because it would compete too strongly with the PC version.

Infact given keyboard and mouse support for the PS3 version, Epic could easily put UnrealED in the box so user could make there own maps.


The only limit would be they couldn't really make new meshes/animations but they could be distributed in content packs over the net, or maybe some enterprising company will think of creating modelling and imaging software for modding PS3 games, since it can hypothetically support Linux.

MonsOlympus
31st Mar 2006, 09:43 AM
Most people don't have hardware that can run the game descently.
PS3 would be far cheaper with far better performance.
Plus if you have a HDTV, you probably have a much bigger screen than most PC monitors and can play from the comfort of your living room.

Id like to know what the target market is, I mean I got a tv but its hardly hidef. Hmmmz, sounds to me like they might be limiting themselves as I dont know many 12-16 years olds who own hidef tv's and can afford a ps3/360...

Perhaps they'll use there parents tv, but they might get a bit annoyed at that since they just bought a $2000au pc for there child/children. Dont forget a decent tv/console combo will set you back about the same.

I dunno I think the game looks great and being 24 I know I can work for whatever hardware the game might need, whether it be pc or console. I seriously think the game industry is going to be in for a surprise when people dont start flocking to the stores anymore because they simply cant afford it. Could this possibly be why xbox games have gone up in price?? or is it because of the increasing piracy, well I fail to see people who cant afford the hardware pirating a game they cant run. Perhaps they would pirate a game they cant afford, makes you wonder though.....

Anyways, Id have to go with mark rein and possibly say It wont run UE3.... Thats without knowing the hardware specs but if it is better than the gamecube I can see it making use of features in newer engines. I dunno what the huge problem with the rev is and why "developers" are making comments like this.

HardcorexxX
31st Mar 2006, 12:53 PM
Consoles will always suck more than PC's b/c they are just consoles....the day they start shipping with keyboard and mouse instead of a controller is the day gaming dies for the pc in mass

MonsOlympus
31st Mar 2006, 01:04 PM
Dunno what the big deal is about the keyboard, I so would prefer an analog control already. When will gamers start to realize its the mouse not the keyboard which makes the difference, imo analog joystick on a one handed gamepad and mouse would make the ultimate combo for playing games. I mean cmon keyboards might have more buttons but the d-pads got it on ease of use (death to wasd, hurrah for <^>)...

Keyboards are just getting alittle dated is all, they dont even have analog buttons.

HardcorexxX
31st Mar 2006, 01:10 PM
Analog inputs sucks, digital = instant acceleration, not some wierd upwards sclaing inaccurate motion thingy. If you want analog movement use a joystick instead of your keyboard, it alone takes care of the button issue since u can map them all to weapon binds. Controlers are clumbsy inaccurate and limiting.

MonsOlympus
31st Mar 2006, 01:19 PM
but instant acceleration isnt what you want, then you dont need a walk key...
For vehicles though you might be right joystick probably would be a tad better, I dunno they tend to use pedals alot in real life so perhaps we'll be using those to run/walk duck/jump in the future....

HardcorexxX
31st Mar 2006, 04:46 PM
Well see the thing is this is a game, and in a game especialy unreal, I want to be moving at maximum accelration as often as possible.

The real issue about analog is it is essentialy mouse accelration, as I move the stick farther and farther to the left, Im limited to the "speed" the analog controler says Im moving at, which not only sucks but its constantly changing as i move the stick more and more in a direction, making aiming something to be desired.

With a mouse you have the best of both worlds, I have a digital input IE mouse screen will accelrate at a constant unchanging rate, and and analog mulitpler IE how fast I move my hand.

When doing jumps and dodge jumps, think aobut how limiting it is...if I wanted to jump one direction and wall kick the other, I would have to move the stick all the way to one side, then all the way to the other, not only does this take longer that a simple key press, it also is affected by once again analog input, so my jump is not only more difficult and less acurate, I also dont jump as far as is the nature of the device.

When in unreal and someone shoots an alt flak at me, I want to move INSTANTLY as fast as I possibly can, analog does not allow you to do this.

How often in UT do you walk....umm basicaly never someitmes coming around a corner sometimes hangin over a ledge but in all REAL PRACTICAL uses there is no reason to not be moving as fast as you can all the time.

Of course there are uses for analog input, but as far as what you want to be using most of the time...digital IE Stop/Go
not STOOOOoooooopp/GooooOOOOO ....if that makes sense to anyone but me.

JaFO
31st Mar 2006, 05:05 PM
You may move 'instantly', but you are limited to 8 directions of movement.
An analoge controller gives you access to 360 degrees.


Especially when you consider that now you won't have to worry about stupid nasty things like if your mesh will light correctly or whether you need to tessalate a load of polys to get it to look semi decent

You're forgetting one minor detail : "The law of constant misery(tm)".
Perhaps it's true that the meshes will 'light' better/more correct.

I doubt that's the end of your problems. You can't afford to use the same 16-bit colour texture all over the level like you do now. You're going to have to make 32-bit high-resolution versions in several variants. You're going to have to spent time detailing your level in places you wouldn't think of in the old engine.