PDA

View Full Version : Unreal Tornament 2003


arn
Aug 5, 2002, 07:29 AM
MacCentral (http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0208/05.ut2k3.php) reports on a published chat (http://www.ina-community.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=191776) with Mark Rein of Epic Games.

Of note, Rein stated that there were no specific plans for a Mac version of Unreal Tournament 2003, and also citing the OS X/9 divide:

No I don't get fed up about that. Unreal and UT did really well on Mac but now with the fractured Mac situation once again (OS9 vs. OS X) it's hard to see it as being worth the effort. But Macsoft seems interested and I'm confident it's something we'll get done down the road.

Recent rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/08/20020802113210.shtml) suggest that future Macs may not be able to boot into OS 9. Such a move would presumably accelerate OS X adoption and software migration.

Ensign Paris
Aug 5, 2002, 07:32 AM
It would be cool if UR2 came out for OSX, I think its a good idea by apple (if not a little mean :)) to make new macs only boot up in OSX. It will make sure that OSX gets accepted.

Ensign

unclepain
Aug 5, 2002, 08:04 AM
This is why I own both a Mac and a peecee. If you want games-lots of games- then you'll just be disappointed on a Mac platform exclusively. Although I prefer doing all of my creative work on my G4, I wouldn't want to be without my Athlon for gaming and Internet access. and yes, there is a difference between the 2 for internet access.

MacArtist
Aug 5, 2002, 08:52 AM
I really hope that the Unreal 2 engine gets brought over to OS X. Not only is it used for Unreal 2 and UT 2003, it's also being used on Raven Shield, the third game in the Rainbow Six series.

I play UT on OS X and aside from having to adjust the mouse sensitivity a bit I think it runs much better than on OS 9.

A lot of my past co-workers have told me that the PC is better for gaming, and I don't doubt that. About 95% of the games are writen for the PC first and then brought to the Mac. These games are made to take advantage of Windows only technology like Direct X as opposed to industry standard technology like OpenGL.

I'm that much of a gamer so for me to buy a PC, even the cheapest system I could build myself, would uneconomical. So I'll just have to keep my fingers crossed and be patient.

Pants
Aug 5, 2002, 09:25 AM
is this is a huge surprise? After all, UT2k3 has been delayed more times than a british rail train! and coming from a firm who 'lost' the final point release for unreal whilst porting it to the mac, who is surprised about their lacklustre attitude to platforms other than windows? as a firm they can often seem less than community spirited - Compare and contrast their attitude with iD's, and theres only one winner, and its not infogrammes/epic.

elgruga
Aug 5, 2002, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by unclepain
and yes, there is a difference between the 2 for internet access.

What have you found the difference is, unclepain?

I notice it being faster when trying it a local store, and IE for Mac seems not as good as IE for Windows.

As for dumping OS 9 - foolish premature move. Will just offend a lot of Apple customers.

idi_t
Aug 5, 2002, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by elgruga



As for dumping OS 9 - foolish premature move. Will just offend a lot of Apple customers.


Premature? After 2 years of OS-X? Its pretty astonishing Apple has not pulled the plug on 9 sooner. I personally don't use OS-X much yet, as all of my audio apps (Metasynth, Digital Performer, Reaktor etc) are 9-only... I'm quite happy running them on my current computer, and by the time they are all ported over to OS-X native versions, I'll be ready for new hardware, so it really doesn't affect me.

Obviously, with developers like Epic still thinking in terms of porting things to OS9, it's a move Apple needs to make. The developers have to get the message that OS-X _is_ the Mac OS now.

Longey Nowze
Aug 5, 2002, 11:32 AM
I'm ok with dumping classic support if they think it's going to help them make better computers then go ahead apple! if they think it's going to push more dev companies to making more native apps then go ahead apple... those who want to use OS 9 then I guess they should stay with there old machines there wont be any new software that would need the new machines... and anyway when is this going to happen? a year from now?? even if it happened 6 months from now I guess that most software will be OS X native... oh well... what do I know...

THANK YOU
MaT

ddtlm
Aug 5, 2002, 11:53 AM
Screw unreleased games, I'd be happy if Warcraft III on OSX stopped playing crappy.

unclepain:

I've never noticed that "internet access" difference, perhaps it is cause I use Mozilla for webbing both places. Oh wait, yes I have... "internet access" includes ssh and web servers, and those are on my Mac but not on Windows. :) Yeah, there's a difference, silly me.

(Edit: Yes I know it is possible to run web servers on Windows. Not sure why anyone would want to though.)

Pants
Aug 5, 2002, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by idi_t



Obviously, with developers like Epic still thinking in terms of porting things to OS9, it's a move Apple needs to make. The developers have to get the message that OS-X _is_ the Mac OS now.


ah well, heres the rub. This is merely excuse making from Epic, NOT an issue with os9/X. Epic has traditionally farmed out porting of its titles, rather than do it in house (westlake being the Unreal/UT porter). Epic, or rather Infogrammes, has yet to decide on who is going to give it most cash for the port, so I suspect that the osX or os9 issue is merely a smokescreen/excuse. after all if iD can commit themselves why not epic? the answer to that is Epic simply does not see/value the mac community in quite the same way as it sees its p.c. users base....Epic are really getting rather good at excuse making. :mad:

zephc
Aug 5, 2002, 12:00 PM
most (maybe not all, but ALMOST all) gamers that would be interested in playing UT2003 and Unreal2 have already made the move to OS X, so what is Epic's problem?? There *is* no 'divide' for Mac gamers... we're ready with OS X, so start porting!

merman637
Aug 5, 2002, 12:21 PM
isnt ut origionally written for another system then ported for windows......and then once they feel up to it they finally port to mac......we always get screwed with stuff like this....aol for one(lord knows if i could chat to all my aol friends another way i would) but were still on version 5.0 whilr pcs are on 7 or8 whatever....back to my subjec t(enough ranting) i was sure that i read that somewhere...that most games are built on a primary gaming "OS" than ported to run on others os's....is this true or am i nucking futs??

MacMaster
Aug 5, 2002, 12:48 PM
Well I sure hope Macsoft decides to port UT2k3 to the mac. Then my friends and I can play at school next year! (Next year at my high school they are giving us all new ibooks for free!...maybe not completely free, we have to pay $50 for insurance:p They will be on a wireless network too!) Even if UT2k3 is not compatible with the ibooks I will still want it for my desktop...So I could still play my friends...

MikeH
Aug 5, 2002, 01:05 PM
The simple fact of the matter is that when UT2 is released the system requirements are likely to be huge (P800 and 64mb graphics is likely, even if the box says lower) that only the latest Macs, which would have OS X on them anyway, are going to be able to play them - at least in a way that does the game justice.

I say ditch the OS 9 version, it'll be a waste of effort, and go with OS X.

3777
Aug 5, 2002, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by unclepain
This is why I own both a Mac and a peecee. If you want games-lots of games- then you'll just be disappointed on a Mac platform exclusively. Although I prefer doing all of my creative work on my G4, I wouldn't want to be without my Athlon for gaming and Internet access. and yes, there is a difference between the 2 for internet access.

That's why I just got an Alienware Aurora XP2100+ ..... the iMac DV is great for Photoshop and Dreamweaver, but when it comes to real gaming you have to own a PC. I love the Alienware system anyway, I had Uneal Tournament for the iMac....hought it was great at the time...... ....but I never realized what I was missing until I moved to a real gaming system. There is no comparison.

ddtlm
Aug 5, 2002, 02:48 PM
3777:

Eh, who said the old-school iMacs where good for games anyway? Oh yeah, Apple did. Well, I hope you didn't believe them.

Anyway, I bet my 4.5 year old Gateway refitted with AthlonXP, GF4TI and 512mb o RAM, running on a horbily overloaded PSU, a crappy old IDE disk, and trying really hard not to explode can beat your... oh nevermind. Heh heh.

3777
Aug 5, 2002, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
3777:

Eh, who said the old-school iMacs where good for games anyway? Oh yeah, Apple did. Well, I hope you didn't believe them.

Anyway, I bet my 4.5 year old Gateway refitted with AthlonXP, GF4TI and 512mb o RAM, running on a horbily overloaded PSU, a crappy old IDE disk, and trying really hard not to explode can beat your... oh nevermind. Heh heh.


Couldn't touch my Alienware Aurora though!!!

P.S. Actually the iMac wasn't that bad......even running fv UT under the OSX preview patch....... but the Alienware system is just unbelievable......:D

xelterran
Aug 5, 2002, 03:38 PM
lol your trying to compare an imac dv to a athlon XP2100 or whatever its called - try some games on the latest g4's and to be honest theres really not much difference.

unclepain
Aug 5, 2002, 04:03 PM
if you can find any games on both platforms...

MikeH
Aug 5, 2002, 04:19 PM
I'd have to agree with a couple of the other people here and say (relutantly) that an Athlon PC with a GeForce 4 Ti graphics card beats the Mac hands down when it come to games.

I've got a Mac and a PC and the Mac is superior in so many ways - if all things were equal I'd choose a Mac any day of the week...

..but they're not, so I've got a PC for 3dsMax and games and until ALL the worthwhile games come out for the Mac at the same time as the PC (not just the most popular games) it's a situtation that for me is unlikely to change. A shame really as I'd love to do away with the PC and just have Mac.

Graphics cards need to be cheaper and more available for the Mac too, not just stuck with Apple's built to order scheme.

chewbaccapits
Aug 5, 2002, 06:19 PM
which is better, directx or open GL?

Beej
Aug 5, 2002, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by zephc
most (maybe not all, but ALMOST all) gamers that would be interested in playing UT2003 and Unreal2 have already made the move to OS X, so what is Epic's problem?? There *is* no 'divide' for Mac gamers... we're ready with OS X, so start porting! That's an interesting theory, got any data to back that up? Or is it just a guess?

3777
Aug 5, 2002, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by xelterran
lol your trying to compare an imac dv to a athlon XP2100 or whatever its called - try some games on the latest g4's and to be honest theres really not much difference.


Maybe not a big difference between an Athalon XP 2100+ with 512mb DDR SDram and an Nvidia ti4600.....and the latest G4 powermac loaded to the teeth in terms of hardware performance........ but at least I didn't have to pay $3000 for a 21" monitor........ and all of my games work flawlessly now.....rather then having to deal with all the screwy crashes from UT preview patches because of the switch from OS9 to OSX..... or having to worry about whether gaming developers will port games like UT2003 or Doom 3 to the OSX platform......

ddtlm
Aug 5, 2002, 07:33 PM
xelterran:

I beg to differ. My 800-DP GF2MX gets royally crushed by my friend's Athon 1400 GF2MX in WC3.... the Mac is really too slow for compeditive team play on Bnet. So I play on my PC instead.

I'll get a GF4TI for the Mac in a couple weeks or something and see if that can salvage the Mac WC3 situation along with 10.2.

MacMaster
Aug 5, 2002, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
xelterran:

I beg to differ. My 800-DP GF2MX gets royally crushed by my friend's Athon 1400 GF2MX in WC3.... the Mac is really too slow for compeditive team play on Bnet. So I play on my PC instead.

I'll get a GF4TI for the Mac in a couple weeks or something and see if that can salvage the Mac WC3 situation along with 10.2.
That should fix your mac vs. PeeCee problem...The your mac will crush the PeeCee!

MacMaster
Aug 5, 2002, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by chewbaccapits
which is better, directx or open GL?
Right now I think directx is faster and has a little more features, but with Jaguar I think they will be pretty much the same...:cool:

PS: sorry about the double post!

job
Aug 5, 2002, 08:54 PM
OpenGL is far better because it supports numerous platforms, which allows a game to be ported much easier than it would be otherwise.

Gelfin
Aug 5, 2002, 09:15 PM
Substitute that comment like so:

Unreal and UT did really well on Windows but now with the fractured Windows situation once again (WinMe vs. XP Home) it's hard to see it as being worth the effort.

See how stupid it sounds?

There is ALWAYS a schism in your user base between people who stay on the ball and people who lag behind. Game developers struggle with this all the time. There are people out there who whine that their Windows 95 machines aren't supported by games they want. You make your compromises and you deal with it.

Pants got it dead-on. As a developer myself, I know management rationalization when I hear it. This is just a very thin excuse for not developing for the Mac. Before OS X people could say the OS was primitive and obtuse. Now they can say there's a schism in the userbase. After OS 9 goes away, it'll be something else.

Gelfin
Aug 5, 2002, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by chewbaccapits
which is better, directx or open GL?

Seriously, define "better." There are problems for which either might be a preferable solution. And no, "goes faster" is not a sufficiently detailed definition of "better" in this case.

An intern seeking enlightenment asked the 3D guru whether OpenGL was more imbued with l33+ than Direct3D. The guru said, "Mu!"

Faeylyn
Aug 6, 2002, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by 3777

but at least I didn't have to pay $3000 for a 21" monitor........

Why does anyone have to pay $3000 for a 21" monitor? Just because Apple offers a $3000 ($3500) monitor means you have to buy it? The 21" monitor you purchased for your peecee won't work on a Mac?

Your other arguments are fine. Don't cloud them with bogus ones.

Faeylyn
Aug 6, 2002, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by chewbaccapits
which is better, directx or open GL?

OpenGL is better. Why? Because it's, er, "open". I, for one, have completely had it with the proprietary wars. I own both a Mac and a peecee (for work). The peecee is a 2.2GHz bada$$ machine with a Geforce 4Ti. It can knock the socks off my Mac (a little old, waiting to see what's coming) for gaming. But I WILL NOT purchase ANY games for the peecee. I have made a small concession in that if I purchase a combo game, I'll register it for the mac and play it on the peecee.

If I didn't have to have one for work, I wouldn't have a peecee. And if Apple ever folds, I'll be using Linux.

elmimmo
Aug 6, 2002, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by idi_t
[B]Premature? After 2 years of OS-X?

After only 1 year. Mac OS X 10.0 was a joke and its users beta-testers.

10. 1 was the first plain decent OS X.

whitegold
Aug 6, 2002, 03:50 AM
They both have advantages and disadvantages.

Open GL often runs faster. UT (original) runs like a dog under directx for me, but sweet on OpenGL.

Open GL is also (as mentioned) Open. PC, Mac, Linux, all the same. That improves porting, etc.

That being said, direct x is an evolving standard, at least on the PC (which seriously is the primary market for game developers). Consequently graphics based on Direct 3D tend to look better at the high end thanks to hardware support from graphics cards as well as new features.

whitegold
Aug 6, 2002, 03:53 AM
Elmimo - sorry, but it still counts. Regardless of whether OSX was flawed at release, it was still released.

OSX has been around for 2 years now. I agree with the other guys here. Pull the plug on 9. Apple has to be seen to be moving forward with their OS and the longer they're seen to be straddling the two platforms the harder it will be to take OSX as the default option.

bronxred
Aug 6, 2002, 11:53 AM
well...simple in MY whacked out mind. ;-)

since print production still has serious workflow issues with OS X, and WILL for some time (while they transition...as the tools become available: Quark, scripts, etc...) Apple should make all consumer Macs OS X bootable only, starting immediately (with Classic included, of course) but keep the pro machines open.

otherwise, advertising, newspapers, other types of creative shops which use Macs...will have to skip their next upgrade cycle. this way Apple could at least force adoption at the consumer level NOW (as they should) and work their way up to the pros in a slightly more friendly way than cutting them off at the knees.

what think?
J

topicolo
Aug 7, 2002, 12:09 PM
OpenGL is seriously lagging behind directX 8.1 (and soon to be 9) in at least one feature area: support for programmable pixel shaders.

Programmable pixel shaders were first introduced with the GF3 and allow programmers to have much more control over their 3d rendered models. This allows models to make fabric to flow with a breeze, as well as make fur fur and hair to move realistically. This advancement is as big as the upgrade to a GPU from the old voodoos/rage level of graphics cards. Without the pixel shaders, geforce 3/4s, as well as the radeon 9700 would just be really fast versions of a geforce 2.

To get an idea of what i'm talking about, get yourself to a pc with a Geforce 3 or better, download 3DMark2001 and watch the "Nature" benchmark. You'll be astounded...

whitegold
Aug 7, 2002, 12:43 PM
Yah, a good example of the small things that make such a big difference. Granted they are minor details, but it's those minor details that make something so immersive.

Can anyone tell me if bumpmapping is supported in openGL?

My own graphics card is rather ordinary, so I can't tell.

elmimmo
Aug 10, 2002, 05:07 AM
OSX has been around for 2 years nowWasn't Mac OS 10.0 released by April. Unless I am mistaken, then, it does not even make it one year and a half.

People keeps saying how MS's monopoly forces us to do what they want and how they even control the way most HW is designed. Still, I bet you could install Windows 3.11 in a modern PC if you wanted to. What for? Beats me, but the choice is still there. (maybe you can not do that with modern PCs? then I'll bite my tongue...)

I think it is very coward for Apple blaming the consumers for not adopting OS X (which I have) instead of itself. Let people decide what they want. Just make one of the choices a blatant obvious and easy decision and you will not need to force anyone.

bousozoku
Aug 10, 2002, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by bronxred
well...simple in MY whacked out mind. ;-)

since print production still has serious workflow issues with OS X, and WILL for some time (while they transition...as the tools become available: Quark, scripts, etc...) Apple should make all consumer Macs OS X bootable only, starting immediately (with Classic included, of course) but keep the pro machines open.

otherwise, advertising, newspapers, other types of creative shops which use Macs...will have to skip their next upgrade cycle. this way Apple could at least force adoption at the consumer level NOW (as they should) and work their way up to the pros in a slightly more friendly way than cutting them off at the knees.

what think?
J

Apple is not likely to customise machine lines that way because it's expensive. They want to stop supporting Mac OS 9 and to keep it on one line does not make sense. Keeping the classic environment does make sense.

I know we're waiting on plug-ins all over the place. Photoshop, QuarkXPress, and Illustrator all need plug-ins Carbon-ized. There are still a lot of professional printers not supported by Mac OS X, although you might get by using some other driver. Your output is expensive, it must be correct every time.

Hopefully, with Photoshop 7, the industry will move faster to support graphics professionals.

Game developers should just leave Mac OS 9 entirely. Considering how unreliable timing is in Mac OS 9.x is and how stable Mac OS X is, game developers shouldn't want to work on anything else.

whitegold
Aug 11, 2002, 09:50 AM
That's an oversimplification. Game developers want to work on the most stable and reliable platform, but they also want to sell the damn thing.

The Playstation (One) is a good example. The hardware is comparatively crap, but there's an unreasonable amount of them out there, and software still sells well.

So game developers working towards the Mac have to look at where the money is.

It's no real wonder that games developers tend to ignore mac. Lets just say only 8% of the games computers are macs (and it's probably much less than that) that's a pretty small proportion, in terms of market. THEN I'm not really sure what the takeup of OSX compared to 9 is, but lets just say it's 50-50. That means you have only 4% of the market you can target with a release, or 4% with another option, or just keep your 92% and ignore them.

Without meaning to be offensive, I'd be ignoring the mac. Oh, and as for a divide between XP and Me mentioned earlier, that's not even comparable. XP is a substantial difference, but in terms of compatibility is excellent, particularly in performance.

Though I know the example was to illustrate something, it wasn't a very good example. Apple made the choice to make a VAST leap in operation between 9 and OSX. This sort of divide, substantially more than seen in windows platforms, WILL of neccesity cause this kind of problem. There are advantages and disadvantages to it either way.

Apple's job is to shrink that disadvantage as quickly as possible, and move as many people as they can to OSX.

There's no real point here, if you're waiting for it : )

P.S. Elmimo you're probably right about the times... I just took somone else's info and assumed it true : )

bousozoku
Aug 11, 2002, 10:09 PM
I would much rather play first person shooters on my Macintosh than any other kind of game. However, simulation programmes have been the #1 genre for a decade or more. Still, I can't afford to buy all the FPSs out there because everything is so expensive. I wouldn't mind trying RPGs like Icewind Dale or Baldur's Gate II but they're also expensive, especially when compared to their PC versions.

I just saw Max Payne at CompUSA the other day. It was $50, Return to Castle Wolfenstein was $50 as well as Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate II. I left without anything. Anyone have a suggestion? :D

3777
Aug 12, 2002, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by bousozoku
I would much rather play first person shooters on my Macintosh than any other kind of game. However, simulation programmes have been the #1 genre for a decade or more. Still, I can't afford to buy all the FPSs out there because everything is so expensive. I wouldn't mind trying RPGs like Icewind Dale or Baldur's Gate II but they're also expensive, especially when compared to their PC versions.

I just saw Max Payne at CompUSA the other day. It was $50, Return to Castle Wolfenstein was $50 as well as Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate II. I left without anything. Anyone have a suggestion? :D

Yes... save up and get Return to Castle Wolfenstein.... it is incredible!!!:D

sparkleytone
Aug 12, 2002, 12:20 AM
the programmable pixel shaders issue is indeed being addressed with opengl 2.0, which is being introduced in a nice way. 2.0 features will be added to 1.x and when 2.0 is ready it will be a smooth transition.

whitegold
Aug 12, 2002, 11:50 AM
I just saw Max Payne at CompUSA the other day. It was $50, Return to Castle Wolfenstein was $50 as well as Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate II. I left without anything. Anyone have a suggestion? :D [/B]

Don't underestimate the older games. The situation isn't quite the same on Mac as PC where discounting of older titles is less extreme and (old on PC) games are newer, but for example the PC version of Deus Ex could probably be found for $20 without much hassle. Undoubtedly the best PC game I've played. (possible exception of grand theft auto III).

The other day I bought Giants (a brilliant game, that didn't run well on my computer at the time) for only $10 australian. That would be about $5 there. That's a bargain! My lunch cost more than that!

A lot of the not very new games are stunningly cheap, and you can probably find at least a few you haven't given the time they deserve.