Do you intend to buy UT2K3 as is?

Discussion in 'Community' started by BaghdadBob, May 9, 2003.

  1. BaghdadBob macrumors 6502a

    BaghdadBob

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2003
    Location:
    Gorgeous, WA
    #1
    A lot of people are unsatisfied with the performance. The question is: are you going to buy it as is?

    Personally, from what I'm hearing I wouldn't buy it even if I had the hardware to run it. At any given hardware level the consensus seems to be that it should be running considerably better than it is. So buying it is basically supporting a crappy port and saying "just throw us your breadcrumbs, we're desperate!" IMO, but that's just me. I don't have friends I want to play this at.

    Then again, I'm still looking forward to running Diablo II at 800x600 and 32 bit without lag on b.net. When that happens I won't care about anything except Blizzard products until Doom 3 comes out anyway. That's just my personal disclosure.
     
  2. yzeater macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2002
    #2
    Nope, my PB500 gets 2FPS at the lowest settings
     
  3. MrMacMan macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #3
    Uh... not really, they need to optomize, this runs... well not well on my 800 iMac...

    It runs Ok, but in firing and battles... not well...

    Disadvantage..
     
  4. Steradian macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Jose
    #4
    I am pretty happy with it, it runs fine on my PB (1ghz) kinda wish I could get a bit higher FPS...but Ya know...
     
  5. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #5
    I proably will in a few months. Meantime I'll just play the demo. Besides it'll be $20 if a few months after release just like UT.
     
  6. beatle888 macrumors 68000

    beatle888

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    #6
    no, my system wont support it.

    im truly considering a gaming console. wouldnt UT run nicely on a ps2? even if the 970 came out tomorrow im not going to be buying one for at least a year. but i would still love to play this game. cant i get a ps2 for like, $150? seems like a good solution. i can never get the timing right of purchasing the latest hardware at the same time a major game title comes out.
     
  7. BaghdadBob thread starter macrumors 6502a

    BaghdadBob

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2003
    Location:
    Gorgeous, WA
    #7
    First off, UT barely ran what I would call "nicely" on the PS2. But then, I expect when you have totally standardized hardware that your game should run smoothly 99% of the time. Having much experience with my PS2 (like my iMac) I know it should have run better than that. What's with the Unreal engine? Do they have some pact with MS that makes it only run good on Windows??

    I don't know if/when UT2k3 is coming out on the PS2, but I know Starcraft: Ghost will be coming this year...:D...oh yeah... first off, Starcraft rules, and secondly -- that chick is hotter than Lara Croft. Way hotter. Way way way hotter.

    If you've got the money, go get one, there are plenty of good reasons to own one if you ask me (unlike an XBox. You only have the one soul to sell, besides).

    But also, if you've been going without for a while, the PS3 could start shipping as soon as within a year from what I hear...I would expect there to be more than vapor on it by now but I havn't been watching the gossip columns. And the PS2 is backwards-compatible with the PS1, so you might be able to expect the same from the PS3.

    IBM is now contracted for PS3 development from what I hear.

    Also, I think it's at $200 right now.

    Just my $.02
     
  8. scem0 macrumors 604

    scem0

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    back in NYC!
    #8
    Nah, 1st person shooters aren't really my thing. I'm an RTS kinda guy. :)
     
  9. BaghdadBob thread starter macrumors 6502a

    BaghdadBob

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2003
    Location:
    Gorgeous, WA
    #9
    I wish I was more of an RTS guy, but sadly my talent really lies in shooters. Which is even more sad because I usually don't have the hardware... I do love my RTS games though. How about some Total Annihilation: Core Contingencies? That's a classic. I could go play that right now (if it were out for the mac, that is....)
     
  10. mrjamin macrumors 65816

    mrjamin

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    Strongbadia
    #10
    i have UT2K3 on my pc, and to be frank - its pretty lame and really easy even when the bots are on godlike. It runs beautifully on my pc - shame the gameplay's crap. UT was much better - i play that a lot more than i do 2k3. My and my best friend play UT wirelessly on train journeys - jolly good fun. comp to comp wifi networking was a damn good idea!
     
  11. mrjamin macrumors 65816

    mrjamin

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    Strongbadia
    #11
    ...oh yeah, the pc demos were really slow - even on my GeForce 4Ti. The final release was MUCH better, and the update patches have made massive improvements.
     
  12. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #12
    That is good to hear.

    Oh, and on the PS2 I don't expect UT2K3 to get to it any time soon. Also expect a PS3 this December just before Christmas. It's not a sure thing but a much better then slim possibility.
     
  13. MrMacMan macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #13
    I sure hope its true for the final version of the mac one...

    The demo runs quite sloppy on my machine...
     
  14. Stelliform macrumors 68000

    Stelliform

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    #14
    I am going to buy it because it plays better than UT in OSX. And I am not going to reboot to play a game....

    (By the way it plays well on my 1ghz TiBook)
     
  15. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #15
    How is that? UT runs great for me in OSX. I had to track down all the packages that were included with each UT OS beta upgrade and include them all in my UT folder but once I did that it works great.
     
  16. BaghdadBob thread starter macrumors 6502a

    BaghdadBob

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2003
    Location:
    Gorgeous, WA
    #16
    Given that the demo may be a poor representation of its true performance...

    If the real thing doesn't perform any better, who here would still buy it?
     
  17. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #17
    Re: Given that the demo may be a poor representation of its true performance...

    I will eventually when they drop the price like they did on UT.
     
  18. Stelliform macrumors 68000

    Stelliform

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    #18
    Gameplay on UT is lightning fast, but the sounds are a bit messed up. No music, (I miss that on redneck neighbors. ;)) and on Jailbreak the annoucements play at 10x normal speed, so you can't understand them.

    They are porting Jailbreak to ut2k3, and they are impressed by how much more flexibility it gives the programmer. I bet in another 6 months there are going to be some awesome mods for ut2k3. So I will practice until then. ;)
     
  19. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #19
    That's why I never noticed the issue. I always turn the music off or very low in any game I play. This is because it detracts from being able to locate where gunfire or the enemy is coming from. Also in racing games you need to be able to hear the motor and tires etc..
     
  20. hvfsl macrumors 68000

    hvfsl

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    #20
    The PS2 is not fast enough to run UT2003 and the PS3 is not coming until christmas 2005. UT2003 is on the Xbox, but it is called unreal championship.

    Also people think UT2003 requires high specs should look at Doom 3. Running it at 1024x768 on a P4 3Ghz and the Geforce 5900Ultra only gets an average frame rate of 60. So none of the presents Macs can run Doom 3 at any decent speed. We will have to wait for the PPC970 to play Doom 3 properly.
     
  21. BaghdadBob thread starter macrumors 6502a

    BaghdadBob

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2003
    Location:
    Gorgeous, WA
    #21
    OK, both Bandit and I have heard that the PS3 is coming out in the next year. If it doesn't ship this Christmas I wouldn't be shocked, but I think the scuttlebut is pointing to at least next Christmas.

    And yeah, D3 could be expected to have higher requirements than 2k3, I mean, Jesus, have you seen the graphics on that? Truly awesome.

    But where did you get the framerate info? I have found info on D3 very hard to find. I actually find it hard to believe that it will run at 60 FPS on any current P4, but I also doubt that it will be unplayable on current Macs. Carmack is on it. And he's not a dickhead like some developers.
     
  22. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #22
    Doom3 was originally shown running on the PowerMacs like 3 years ago in early developement. Yes, Carmack uses Macs for developing too. Also ID's engines have always ran better on a Mac then Unreals. They also take full advantage of dual processors and are coded specifically for the PPC processor. I do fully expect to see a playable Doom on Macs.

    The PS3 has been hinted at this next December since last summer. The date of 2005 was initially forcast by Sony when the first PS2 was released well before the XBox was released and it is thought that Sony has taken great strides to move the date up so as to out class the XBox on a release date again. Everything I have read says the cell chip is in production and Sony's plants are already producing the new housing for the PS3 and are preparing to have a deep stock of them in preparation for this Christmas. It could be that they don't have all the pieces of the puzzle together and the date could get moved back but 2005 is no where near the launch date any longer.
     
  23. hvfsl macrumors 68000

    hvfsl

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    #23
    Go to www.tomshardware.com go to the Geforce 5900Ultra review.

    It will not be totally unplayable, it is just Macs will have to put the graphics down to minimum.
     
  24. BaghdadBob thread starter macrumors 6502a

    BaghdadBob

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2003
    Location:
    Gorgeous, WA
    #24
    I'm not sure how these benchmarks show that current macs will have to turn anything down considering a) what graphics cards are in current macs and b) there are no benchmarks for mac systems in there!

    I'll let Mac "Da Man!" Bandit evaluate them and let everyone know what he thinks, because I don't have time to make myself more learned on the intricacies of predicting how current mac systems will perform, and Mac "Da Man!" Bandit already knows what we all should.

    :p
     
  25. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #25

    Okay now your just causing trouble for me. I wish I was the all knowing graphics genius but I am not. If I were I wouldn't be talking to you folks here but would be hitting up a few major companies for jobs. Instead I am just a computer geek with a lot of time on his hands at the moment.

    Okay for what I see here. I see an early prerelease version of the game being tested. One that will obviously improve before release and therefore see faster and faster frame rates on the system that was tested. Here's the kicker though. The difference between medium and high qulity between the two games is very little. I think this is for one reason the quality of the current graphics cards. When you move from medium to high quality my bet is you are adding very few additional textures to the pipeline. What instead is happening is an increase in the memory size of these textures and because of the large amounts of memory and huge bandwith these cards have with on board memory you see a very small difference. The point is that with these modern cards the cpu is not being tried all the data is being held in on board memory readily accessible when needed. Even at 4x FSAA you don't see a huge loss though it is significant. A year ago 4x FSAA brought all modern cards to there knees with even UT and QuakIIIArena. These new cards are a huge generation leap and I believe that take a lot of the processing off of the CPU. Also if you think about what a the CPU is doing on a Mac during a game it is primarily calculating trajectories and physics. These sort of calculations haven't came that far since games like QuakeIII and therefore shouldn't take all that much more CPU while on the other hand since the release of games like QuakeIII Macs processing power has quadrupled.

    Okay the final thing is you have to compare what Carmack did with QuakeIII to what is being done with DoomIII. A dual/GHz/DDR PowerMac with an equal graphics cards can push 300FPS right there with some of the best PCs. This shouldn't be so the PCs have much faster bus's faster ram and faster CPUs. What is going on is in the design differences between a Mac and a PC. On a PC every bit of data that is being moved around is being funneled throught the processor before it reaches the GPU. On a Mac the GPU operates on it's own and gathers the information it needs directly from system memory and hard drive. The CPU is only utilized for physics, networking and the occasional level transition. Also with QuakeIII Carmack made it not only SMP aware but also went as far as compiling the code for Altivec. This is why the Mac can nearly compete with PCs that in all realilty should be able to nearly double the frame rates achievable in QuakeIII by a Mac.

    I think we will see good things with DoomIII but anything said by anyone at this point is simply oppionion based on past facts. As I have said DoomIII has been shown running on MacOSX in the past and it is therefore a simple assume that something is coming for us and that it will most likely run on current hardware. The reason I make the assumption about current hardware is something I read right out of an interview with John Carmack. He said when developing a new game engine you have to look ahead to what hardware will be around in the next year or two when the project is nearing completion. Well when he started developing this and it was first shown on the Mac was nearly 2 years ago. No one could have realistically guessed based on the past Apple history of recent time that the hardware would have even come this far. I think things are looking good for most Mac gamers though I must say that for those without PowerMacs don't get your hopes up.
     

Share This Page