Unreal Tornament 2003

Discussion in 'MacRumors News Discussion (archive)' started by arn, Aug 5, 2002.

  1. arn macrumors god


    Staff Member

    Apr 9, 2001
    MacCentral reports on a published chat 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 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.
  2. Ensign Paris macrumors 68000

    Ensign Paris

    Nov 4, 2001
    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.

  3. unclepain macrumors member

    Jan 23, 2002
    Va Beach VA
    not surprising...

    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.
  4. MacArtist macrumors member

    Jul 24, 2002
    The Unreal 2 Engine...

    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.
  5. Pants macrumors regular

    Aug 21, 2001
    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.
  6. elgruga macrumors 6502


    Dec 31, 2001
    Re: not surprising...

    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.
  7. idi_t macrumors newbie

    Jul 23, 2002
    Re: Re: not surprising...

    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.
  8. Longey Nowze macrumors regular

    Apr 18, 2001
    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...

  9. ddtlm macrumors 65816

    Aug 20, 2001
    Screw unreleased games, I'd be happy if Warcraft III on OSX stopped playing crappy.


    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.)
  10. Pants macrumors regular

    Aug 21, 2001
    Re: Re: Re: not surprising...

    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:
  11. zephc macrumors newbie

    Jul 19, 2002
    games on Macs

    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!
  12. merman637 macrumors member

    Jan 21, 2002
    Oklahoma City, Ok
    forgive me if im wrong

    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??
  13. MacMaster macrumors 6502

    Jul 17, 2002
    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...
  14. MikeH macrumors regular

    Jan 7, 2002
    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.
  15. 3777 macrumors 6502

    Jul 25, 2002
    Re: not surprising...

    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.
  16. ddtlm macrumors 65816

    Aug 20, 2001

    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.
  17. 3777 macrumors 6502

    Jul 25, 2002

    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
  18. xelterran macrumors 6502

    Dec 28, 2001
    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.
  19. unclepain macrumors member

    Jan 23, 2002
    Va Beach VA
    if you can find any games on both platforms...
  20. MikeH macrumors regular

    Jan 7, 2002
    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.
  21. chewbaccapits macrumors 6502a


    Jul 10, 2001
    Torrance, Californizzel
  22. Beej macrumors 68020


    Jan 6, 2002
    Buffy's bedroom
    Re: games on Macs

    That's an interesting theory, got any data to back that up? Or is it just a guess?
  23. 3777 macrumors 6502

    Jul 25, 2002
    One 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......
  24. ddtlm macrumors 65816

    Aug 20, 2001

    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.
  25. MacMaster macrumors 6502

    Jul 17, 2002
    That should fix your mac vs. PeeCee problem...The your mac will crush the PeeCee!

Share This Page