I understand the economics of it. My point is that all that hardware is still not going to provide (visually, which imo is very important in the dawn of HD gaming as we know it) a superior gaming experience.
"Dawn of HD gaming?" Do you work in PR or something? PCs have been doing far in excess of 720 lines of resolution since like 1998.
Did you even look at those specs I posted? Are you trying to say that a computer with eight times as much RAM as the PS3 won't be able to compete?
720.. a beautiful resolution right there. no aliasing or anything!
i love pc's, i wish i had a reason to build a new gaming pc as i'm currently on an agp 6800 ultra (prolly where my bitterness stems from)
but i don't see the reason to drop all that dough for subpar optimization and like 3 games a year lately that're worth anything?
explain further, please. really not trying to flame it up.
can someone explain the logic behind the "superior 800$ pc"?
cause for 800 i can pick up a pretty shitty system right now.. why even bother upgrading to what.. an 8600.. maybe less? PS3 will step all over that in terms of graphics and you get it for 200 less at the most.
You could go cheaper if you wanted, of course. Game isn't out yet, so we don't know what will compare with the PS3's output (which is at 720p, or 1280x720x32bpp in PC terms, which is a rather low resolution).
For accuracy, one of the key selling points of the PS3 is 1080p output. That's 1920×1080.
I haven't read anything about UT3 constraining itself to 720p resolution.
Instead of complaining about how the PS3 people with controllers will be raped, why couldn't they just make it so that games have an option of allowing kb/m or disallowing them. That way people will know what they're getting into. If I don't feel like plugging in my mouse/keyboard and want to play with a controller, I'd be pretty dumb to go into a kb/m enabled game. I'd go to the disabled one for a level playing field. Wouldn't this sort of control fix the entire problem? There's no tweaking of controls involved to get them level, just an option when making the game.
Console vs PC is a moot point anyways, at least without stupid auto-target. Because you're NEVER going to get as good at targeting with a controller as someone using a mouse can get
At the poster before me: Because you'll never find a pc gamer that'll want to play with a controller
can someone explain the logic behind the "superior 800$ pc"?
cause for 800 i can pick up a pretty shitty system right now.. why even bother upgrading to what.. an 8600.. maybe less? PS3 will step all over that in terms of graphics and you get it for 200 less at the most.
You could go cheaper if you wanted, of course. Game isn't out yet, so we don't know what will compare with the PS3's output (which is at 720p, or 1280x720x32bpp in PC terms, which is a rather low resolution).
For accuracy, one of the key selling points of the PS3 is 1080p output. That's 1920×1080.
I haven't read anything about UT3 constraining itself to 720p resolution.
Somebody must be new here.
The PS3 (and the 360, for that matter) are theoretically capable of outputting 1920x1080. In reality, there are no 360 games that do this and like one PS3 game that does. Everything else is 720p. If you turn on the 1080p option, in either system, it will render a frame in 1280x720 and then upscale it to 1920x1080.
Believe me, if UT3 could do 1080p on either platform we'd have heard about it by now.
How many PS3 games natively output at 1080p without any frame stuttering?
And an 8800GTS will be able to run 1920x1080 fine as well. If it can't... well, the PS3 probably won't be able to either. Unless Epic is insanely crazy good at utilizing the tech, UT3 will either be upscaled to 1080, or will not run with full effects/anti-aliasing/a frame rate above 4.
Again, my Mobility Radeon 200M ca output at 1280x720, while playing games, without frame rate skips. PC graphics will beat the PS3 graphics with an 8800, or possibly even an 8600.
720.. a beautiful resolution right there. no aliasing or anything!
i love pc's, i wish i had a reason to build a new gaming pc as i'm currently on an agp 6800 ultra (prolly where my bitterness stems from)
but i don't see the reason to drop all that dough for subpar optimization and like 3 games a year lately that're worth anything?
explain further, please. really not trying to flame it up.
Man, I can see a "game library isn't as good" argument, but not if it's the PS3 you're comparing it to.
Console vs PC is a moot point anyways, at least without stupid auto-target. Because you're NEVER going to get as good at targeting with a controller as someone using a mouse can get
At the poster before me: Because you'll never find a pc gamer that'll want to play with a controller
So what? That's why I included the option. PC gamers won't have to, and it won't hurt it if none do. With my idea it gives the console gamers the option of joining the KB/M games with their KB/M or the option of disallowing it, and thus secluding themselves just like it will be anyways.
720.. a beautiful resolution right there. no aliasing or anything!
i love pc's, i wish i had a reason to build a new gaming pc as i'm currently on an agp 6800 ultra (prolly where my bitterness stems from)
but i don't see the reason to drop all that dough for subpar optimization and like 3 games a year lately that're worth anything?
explain further, please. really not trying to flame it up.
Man, I can see a "game library isn't as good" argument, but not if it's the PS3 you're comparing it to.
Dammit Daedalus, you know that this is only going to result in:
Warhawk
Lair
Heavenly Sword
Resistance
Motorstorm
That other game the PS3 has
Instead of complaining about how the PS3 people with controllers will be raped, why couldn't they just make it so that games have an option of allowing kb/m or disallowing them.
I recall Epic saying they will have a controller-only server option. Until I can back that up with a source, though, take it as rumor. My memory is fallible.
It makes sense, though.
Like I said, I'm glad UT3 is bringing in the mouse. Virtually every other console FPS has bowed to the controller. By offering the mouse, they have opened their game to the fast-twitch crowd. Those used to the pace of controller matches can still hit servers and play at that speed.
can someone explain the logic behind the "superior 800$ pc"?
cause for 800 i can pick up a pretty shitty system right now.. why even bother upgrading to what.. an 8600.. maybe less? PS3 will step all over that in terms of graphics and you get it for 200 less at the most.
You could go cheaper if you wanted, of course. Game isn't out yet, so we don't know what will compare with the PS3's output (which is at 720p, or 1280x720x32bpp in PC terms, which is a rather low resolution).
For accuracy, one of the key selling points of the PS3 is 1080p output. That's 1920×1080.
I haven't read anything about UT3 constraining itself to 720p resolution.
Somebody must be new here.
The PS3 (and the 360, for that matter) are theoretically capable of outputting 1920x1080. In reality, there are no 360 games that do this and like one PS3 game that does. Everything else is 720p. If you turn on the 1080p option, in either system, it will render a frame in 1280x720 and then upscale it to 1920x1080.
Believe me, if UT3 could do 1080p on either platform we'd have heard about it by now.
My point still stands. The PS3 is capable of 1080p, and UT3 was not announced at 720p.
Just because the launch titles were constrained doesn't mean the later ones will.
If you have additional information, I'd appreciate you citing your sources.
slacktron on
0
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
For accuracy, one of the key selling points of the PS3 is 1080p output. That's 1920×1080.
I haven't read anything about UT3 constraining itself to 720p resolution.
This article suggests that it is, indeed, "only" in 720P.
What do you want me to say, Mark? Your game looks amazing on the PlayStation 3, as expected. Running at 720p, the game looks sharp and crisp -- the details in the environment pop, and the backgrounds and architecture are distractingly jaw dropping...
... But when I ask about why the game wouldn't run at the "true HD" resolution of 1080p, Rein seems justifiably annoyed at even having to talk about it, and it's hard not to see where he's coming from. When a game looks this good, who cares? He points out that Gears of War didn't run at true 1080p and is still, to this day, thought of as one of the best looking games of this generation.
On-topic, I'll reaffirm the idea that cross-platform play would probably be A Bad Idea™ (sans Shadowrun-style balancing). For kicks, I went a few rounds in Team Fortress 2 with a 360 controller (which turns the entire game into a facsimile of the Xbox version, complete with slightly different hud and menus), and it was pretty nasty. You can get away with slower classes like the Heavy, but for the scout (whose speed and gameplay is closer to UT) it was anything but fun playing against everyone else with KBAM.
And while it's great that the PS3 will allow a keyboard/mouse, it don't see many doing that at all. It completely defeats the purpose of having a console, methinks. Sitting on on your comfy couch with a stupid keyboard and mouse in front of your TV? Even I think it's kind of silly. But, hey, options are good, but they shouldn't be required to compete with PC users.
can someone explain the logic behind the "superior 800$ pc"?
cause for 800 i can pick up a pretty shitty system right now.. why even bother upgrading to what.. an 8600.. maybe less? PS3 will step all over that in terms of graphics and you get it for 200 less at the most.
You could go cheaper if you wanted, of course. Game isn't out yet, so we don't know what will compare with the PS3's output (which is at 720p, or 1280x720x32bpp in PC terms, which is a rather low resolution).
For accuracy, one of the key selling points of the PS3 is 1080p output. That's 1920×1080.
I haven't read anything about UT3 constraining itself to 720p resolution.
Somebody must be new here.
The PS3 (and the 360, for that matter) are theoretically capable of outputting 1920x1080. In reality, there are no 360 games that do this and like one PS3 game that does. Everything else is 720p. If you turn on the 1080p option, in either system, it will render a frame in 1280x720 and then upscale it to 1920x1080.
Believe me, if UT3 could do 1080p on either platform we'd have heard about it by now.
My point still stands. The PS3 is capable of 1080p, and UT3 was not announced at 720p.
Just because the launch titles were constrained doesn't mean the later ones will.
If you have additional information, I'd appreciate you citing your sources.
Almost any graphics card is "capable" of 1920x1080 as well.
This doesn't mean that every game should be run in 1920x1080, or that every game can, or that anything beyond that it is technically capable of it.
UT is a game that demands a crazy-good framerate. If Epic can make the game on an inferior system overall output at 1920x1080 and not stutter under even 30fps with other effects then you can bet your ass that the PC version will also be capable of doing that, and Epic is secretly Jesus.
720.. a beautiful resolution right there. no aliasing or anything!
i love pc's, i wish i had a reason to build a new gaming pc as i'm currently on an agp 6800 ultra (prolly where my bitterness stems from)
but i don't see the reason to drop all that dough for subpar optimization and like 3 games a year lately that're worth anything?
explain further, please. really not trying to flame it up.
Man, I can see a "game library isn't as good" argument, but not if it's the PS3 you're comparing it to.
In keeping with the theme of this thread:
HEADSHOT!
subedii on
0
ViscountalphaThe pen is mightier than the swordhttp://youtu.be/G_sBOsh-vyIRegistered Userregular
can someone explain the logic behind the "superior 800$ pc"?
cause for 800 i can pick up a pretty shitty system right now.. why even bother upgrading to what.. an 8600.. maybe less? PS3 will step all over that in terms of graphics and you get it for 200 less at the most.
Now, you can do it for less if you scrimp and save on parts. I built a 1000$ machine (but that includes a free motherboard and scsi controller I already had) and its my "inexpensive" gaming machine.
more like a 900$ computer because I had a 33.6 10krpm scsi laying around and an adaptec 29160 controller available as well. So about 100$ for a less expensive hard disk. I won the 680i se sli motherboard. So really, entry level gaming starts around 1,200 for reasonable framerates in modern DX9/DX10 gaming.
can someone explain the logic behind the "superior 800$ pc"?
cause for 800 i can pick up a pretty shitty system right now.. why even bother upgrading to what.. an 8600.. maybe less? PS3 will step all over that in terms of graphics and you get it for 200 less at the most.
Now, you can do it for less if you scrimp and save on parts. I built a 1000$ machine (but that includes a free motherboard and scsi controller I already had) and its my "inexpensive" gaming machine.
more like a 900$ computer because I had a 33.6 10krpm scsi laying around and a adaptec 29160 controller available as well. So about 100$ for a less expensive hard disk. I won the 680i se sli motherboard. So really, entry level gaming starts around 1,200 for reasonable framerates in modern and DX10 gaming.
Mobo's make sod all difference in gaming really, so you might as well pick up a cheap one for <$50 (the G965 from Foxconn is $49.99 after rebate, otherwise a G945 can be had for $55 and change.) . The stock cooler that comes with retail Core 2 Duo's is perfectly servicable so no point in wasting money on a aftermarket cooler. 8800GTS 320MB can be had for under $280, and as little as $260 with rebates.
Vista doesn't suck, you suck. The framerates are now pretty much dead on with XP, and it is a better OS and hey, we're trying to sell Dx10 as a good thing (also DX10 has come a long way - thankfully - see firingsquad.com).
As an entry level high performance budget PC I'd look at
LG 18X DVD±R DVD Burner $26.99
APEVIA X-QPACK-NW-BK/420 Black Aluminum $69.99 ($59.99)
Seagate 250GB 7200 RPM SATA $69.99
XFX GeForce 8800GTS 320MB $299.99 ($269.99)
GeIL 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 800 $87.99 ($52.99)
Foxconn G9657MA-8KS2H G965 Express Micro ATX $109.99 ($49.99)
Intel Core 2 Duo E4400 ($129.99)
Windows Vista 32-Bit Home Premium - OEM $111.99
$907 total or ($772 after rebates) and that's pretty much a top of the line PC.
* Windows XP SP2 or Windows Vista
* 2.0+ GHZ Single Core Processor
* 512 Mbytes of System RAM
* NVIDIA 6200+ or ATI Radeon 9600+ Video Card
* 8 GB of Free Hard Drive Space
Recommended System Requirements
* 2.4+ GHZ Dual Core Processor
* 1 GBytes of System RAM
* NVIDIA 7800GTX+ or ATI x1300+ Video Card
* 8 GB of Free Hard Drive Space
Developers take note: This is how you build a game engine. Clean and efficient. Next-gen graphics with yesterday's hardware. I was able to run UT2004 on a three year old laptop. Looks like I'll be able to run UT3 on a one year old desktop. All of a sudden I'm stoked for this game.
There's something really weird with the way midway quotes it's specs. It always seems to put the 7800 and X1300 on the same rung. Never understood that.
Holy shit I can't belive it would actually run on my old 9600Pro machine. That's pretty amazing, and why I love both the UT3 engine and the Source engine.
can someone explain the logic behind the "superior 800$ pc"?
cause for 800 i can pick up a pretty shitty system right now.. why even bother upgrading to what.. an 8600.. maybe less? PS3 will step all over that in terms of graphics and you get it for 200 less at the most.
You could go cheaper if you wanted, of course. Game isn't out yet, so we don't know what will compare with the PS3's output (which is at 720p, or 1280x720x32bpp in PC terms, which is a rather low resolution).
For accuracy, one of the key selling points of the PS3 is 1080p output. That's 1920×1080.
I haven't read anything about UT3 constraining itself to 720p resolution.
Somebody must be new here.
The PS3 (and the 360, for that matter) are theoretically capable of outputting 1920x1080. In reality, there are no 360 games that do this and like one PS3 game that does. Everything else is 720p. If you turn on the 1080p option, in either system, it will render a frame in 1280x720 and then upscale it to 1920x1080.
Believe me, if UT3 could do 1080p on either platform we'd have heard about it by now.
My point still stands. The PS3 is capable of 1080p, and UT3 was not announced at 720p.
Just because the launch titles were constrained doesn't mean the later ones will.
If you have additional information, I'd appreciate you citing your sources.
When one game on the system is 1080p, the default assumption should be that a given game does not support it unless otherwise stated. This isn't too hard to understand. If the trend ever changes (and I certainly hope it does) then so will the default assumption.
The PS3 is capable of using the PSP for auxillary functions. UT3's devs never explicitly stated that they're not using the PSP for a rear-view mirror or some similar gimmick. Should we assume it does? No, that would be stupid.
edit: Yay low system requirements. My souped-up crap desktop should run it, and maybe my aincient stupid gaming laptop, too.
Developers take note: This is how you build a game engine. Clean and efficient. Next-gen graphics with yesterday's hardware. I was able to run UT2004 on a three year old laptop. Looks like I'll be able to run UT3 on a one year old desktop. All of a sudden I'm stoked for this game.
I've played Unreal, Unreal Tournament and UT2k3 all on largely minimum spec PC's (heck, for UT I played it without a graphics card IIRC), and each time the graphics have been decent enough, but more importantly, the gameplay has still been smooth to play.
Epic's engines are pretty much the pinnacle of scalability. I guess they realise that they need to be in order to capture most of the market. Also gives me hope for the Gears port coming in November.
Developers take note: This is how you build a game engine. Clean and efficient. Next-gen graphics with yesterday's hardware. I was able to run UT2004 on a three year old laptop. Looks like I'll be able to run UT3 on a one year old desktop. All of a sudden I'm stoked for this game.
I've played Unreal, Unreal Tournament and UT2k3 all on largely minimum spec PC's (heck, for UT I played it without a graphics card IIRC), and each time the graphics have been decent enough, but more importantly, the gameplay has still been smooth to play.
Epic's engines are pretty much the pinnacle of scalability. I guess they realise that they need to be in order to capture most of the market. Also gives me hope for the Gears port coming in November.
Valve and iD have also been pretty good about scalablilty, but yeah, it's nice to know that I'll be able to actually play this damn thing. It'll probably be the last modern game that my PC will play, but still, I couldn't think of a much better one.
One game? What are you talking about? I have three that are 1920x1080! :P Two are progressive, and one is interlaced, but 1080i is still 1920x1080. Anyways, does it really matter? 720p still looks great on an HDTV. I doubt, unless you're looking, you'll notice too much of a difference. If you're just sitting down on your couch playing, I doubt it'll matter to you. Unreal Tournament 3 is going to look great at 720p or 1920x1080 on my 50" HDTV. That is, if I were playing it on my 50" HDTV. I'm getting it on PC, which means headphones and a 20.1" screen. If it weren't for overscan, I'd hook my computer right up to my TV.
Dashui on
Xbox Live, PSN & Origin: Vacorsis 3DS: 2638-0037-166
Developers take note: This is how you build a game engine. Clean and efficient. Next-gen graphics with yesterday's hardware. I was able to run UT2004 on a three year old laptop. Looks like I'll be able to run UT3 on a one year old desktop. All of a sudden I'm stoked for this game.
I've played Unreal, Unreal Tournament and UT2k3 all on largely minimum spec PC's (heck, for UT I played it without a graphics card IIRC), and each time the graphics have been decent enough, but more importantly, the gameplay has still been smooth to play.
Epic's engines are pretty much the pinnacle of scalability. I guess they realise that they need to be in order to capture most of the market. Also gives me hope for the Gears port coming in November.
Valve and iD have also been pretty good about scalablilty, but yeah, it's nice to know that I'll be able to actually play this damn thing. It'll probably be the last modern game that my PC will play, but still, I couldn't think of a much better one.
Are the recommended specs what you need to have the graphics cranked up to maximum? Or are they just the specs for "pretty dang good, but not the best"
The second. Mostly because you could theoretically ALWAYS run a t a higher resolution if your GPU supported it :P
Well, and if your monitor supported it, of course. The highest you can buy is something like 2560×1600, unless you manage to track down one of those IBM T221 3840×2400 monsters that they don't even make anymore.
there is a reason for no cross-platform play. I feel sorry for anyone who played DC Quake3 against PC players.
Why? The DC supported mouse and keyboard.
To be fair, it was a ball mouse.
you could use any PS/2 mouse. the official sega mouse was a ball mouse, but you could buy adaptors that would let you plug in a standard mouse and it would still work. Quake III DC even had broadband support and you could download additional maps and stuff to your VMU.
God damn the dreamcast was such an awesome system. We're talking nearly a decade ahead of it's time.
AND it had VGA support, too. In fact, at the time, I'd say the DC port was about on equal footing with PC quake III.
there is a reason for no cross-platform play. I feel sorry for anyone who played DC Quake3 against PC players.
Why? The DC supported mouse and keyboard.
To be fair, it was a ball mouse.
you could use any PS/2 mouse. the official sega mouse was a ball mouse, but you could buy adaptors that would let you plug in a standard mouse and it would still work. Quake III DC even had broadband support and you could download additional maps and stuff to your VMU.
God damn the dreamcast was such an awesome system. We're talking nearly a decade ahead of it's time.
AND it had VGA support, too. In fact, at the time, I'd say the DC port was about on equal footing with PC quake III.
And the bear that wakes from hibernation before sustenance is readily available may die of starvation!
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited October 2007
I thought Quake 3 physics were tied to framerate though, which is why a lot of Q3 players make the game look like utter ass so they can get 200 fps and can thus do things that you cant really do otherwise.
I imagine this is something the DC wouldnt be able to match, but thats real high end competitive shit.
there is a reason for no cross-platform play. I feel sorry for anyone who played DC Quake3 against PC players.
Why? The DC supported mouse and keyboard.
To be fair, it was a ball mouse.
you could use any PS/2 mouse. the official sega mouse was a ball mouse, but you could buy adaptors that would let you plug in a standard mouse and it would still work. Quake III DC even had broadband support and you could download additional maps and stuff to your VMU.
I can't frigging find those PS/2 mouse adapters anywhere, even ebay, and believe me it's not for lack of looking. I think EMS made them or something, but their online "order form" is really a web-based e-mail to a dead inbox, and no resellers have any anymore. Any tips on where I could find one?
I thought Quake 3 physics were tied to framerate though, which is why a lot of Q3 players make the game look like utter ass so they can get 200 fps and can thus do things that you cant really do otherwise.
I imagine this is something the DC wouldnt be able to match, but thats real high end competitive shit.
protip: press the tilde key on the dreamcast keyboard during quake 3. all setting commands from the PC were ported over to the DC. You can make the DC version look like ass to up the frame rate, too.
there is a reason for no cross-platform play. I feel sorry for anyone who played DC Quake3 against PC players.
Why? The DC supported mouse and keyboard.
To be fair, it was a ball mouse.
you could use any PS/2 mouse. the official sega mouse was a ball mouse, but you could buy adaptors that would let you plug in a standard mouse and it would still work. Quake III DC even had broadband support and you could download additional maps and stuff to your VMU.
I can't frigging find those PS/2 mouse adapters anywhere, even ebay, and believe me it's not for lack of looking. I think EMS made them or something, but their online "order form" is really a web-based e-mail to a dead inbox, and no resellers have any anymore. Any tips on where I could find one?
That's the one I got, and it's awesome. PSX, saturn, and mouse/keyboard support.
EDIT: Hm, mine isn't from innovation, nor does it have those lights. I guess mine was some knock off of that. I remember picking my adapter up for CHEAP. Like, less than $10. I got it at some weird store on a trip to Louisiana. One of the best investments ever. That link mentions only keyboard support, so you might want to shoot him an email asking if that particular version also supports mouse.
there is a reason for no cross-platform play. I feel sorry for anyone who played DC Quake3 against PC players.
Why? The DC supported mouse and keyboard.
To be fair, it was a ball mouse.
you could use any PS/2 mouse. the official sega mouse was a ball mouse, but you could buy adaptors that would let you plug in a standard mouse and it would still work. Quake III DC even had broadband support and you could download additional maps and stuff to your VMU.
I can't frigging find those PS/2 mouse adapters anywhere, even ebay, and believe me it's not for lack of looking. I think EMS made them or something, but their online "order form" is really a web-based e-mail to a dead inbox, and no resellers have any anymore. Any tips on where I could find one?
That's the one I got, and it's awesome. PSX, saturn, and mouse/keyboard support.
EDIT: Hm, mine isn't from innovation, nor does it have those lights. I guess mine was some knock off of that. I remember picking my adapter up for CHEAP. Like, less than $10. I got it at some weird store on a trip to Louisiana. One of the best investments ever. That link mentions only keyboard support, so you might want to shoot him an email asking if that particular version also supports mouse.
Don't think the first one supports mouse, only keyboard. There were a few like that. Second one is interesting (although, god damn, the US dollar is in the shitter right now, fucking Austrailia is almost 1:1).
sidenote: whoever at IBM thought it would be a good idea to make the mouse and keyboard PS/2 connectors exactly the same but mutually incompatable was retarded.
Zxerol has the textbook example of how to back up a claim. No assumptions or farfetched metaphors. He puts down the link and quotes the relevant passage. Pure awesome. Posts like these make the PA forums a great news source. It's like you've got a hundred friends blast-reading everything available, culling out the BS, and feeding you the important facts.
This article suggests that it is, indeed, "only" in 720P.
What do you want me to say, Mark? Your game looks amazing on the PlayStation 3, as expected. Running at 720p, the game looks sharp and crisp -- the details in the environment pop, and the backgrounds and architecture are distractingly jaw dropping...
... But when I ask about why the game wouldn't run at the "true HD" resolution of 1080p, Rein seems justifiably annoyed at even having to talk about it, and it's hard not to see where he's coming from. When a game looks this good, who cares? He points out that Gears of War didn't run at true 1080p and is still, to this day, thought of as one of the best looking games of this generation.
To get a bit more back on topic and honor this example, I'm citing my previous claim:
I checked with Steve Polge and he said that YES we are supporting keyboard and mouse in Unreal Tournament 3 on PS3. He is confident we are doing it in a way that will be balanced without feeling "gimped" for either side. We'll also allow people to choose whether or not they want to allow mixed controller vs. keyboard/mouse games or not.
(Re:What about some sort of manual calibration in the options menu which allows you to set the game up for either a controller or keyboard and mouse?)
I don't know. The other problem is, you have to look at what options are worth delaying the game for. We want to ship the game as soon before Christmas as possible. So an option like that isn't very high on our list of priorities. I'd be interested to see if people really wanted it or not.
So he stated it will be included, but then suggested it will be "only if we have time". I guess we'll have to see. At least it sounds like he still wants to ship before Christmas. Here's hoping.
Hm.... I don't know. When has pushing a game out before the developer is really ready for it to be released worked?
I mean, I know that it's a biiiiiiiiiiiig business mistake to not release the game before christmas, but... well I guess I'm getting too pessimistic, since he did say demand wasn't high. Still though....I wonder how happy they all are about that.
Hm.... I don't know. When has pushing a game out before the developer is really ready for it to be released worked?
I mean, I know that it's a biiiiiiiiiiiig business mistake to not release the game before christmas, but... well I guess I'm getting too pessimistic, since he did say demand wasn't high. Still though....I wonder how happy they all are about that.
Honestly? I think it's good business to release after the holiday period, when everybody else is always releasing. Less competition for peoples money and time.
I've always felt it's a bit daft that everyone rushes for the September - December period so much that spring / summer is usually vacant of any good titles to play.
Hm.... I don't know. When has pushing a game out before the developer is really ready for it to be released worked?
I mean, I know that it's a biiiiiiiiiiiig business mistake to not release the game before christmas, but... well I guess I'm getting too pessimistic, since he did say demand wasn't high. Still though....I wonder how happy they all are about that.
Honestly? I think it's good business to release after the holiday period, when everybody else is always releasing. Less competition for peoples money and time.
I've always felt it's a bit daft that everyone rushes for the September - December period so much that spring / summer is usually vacant of any good titles to play.
Plus it gets it out of the shadow of Halo. So this might not be a bad move, even if it causes a temporary financial hit.
Edit: Though it does weaken the PS3's holiday lineup further. Ups and downs, I suppose.
Posts
"Dawn of HD gaming?" Do you work in PR or something? PCs have been doing far in excess of 720 lines of resolution since like 1998.
Did you even look at those specs I posted? Are you trying to say that a computer with eight times as much RAM as the PS3 won't be able to compete?
i love pc's, i wish i had a reason to build a new gaming pc as i'm currently on an agp 6800 ultra (prolly where my bitterness stems from)
but i don't see the reason to drop all that dough for subpar optimization and like 3 games a year lately that're worth anything?
explain further, please. really not trying to flame it up.
For accuracy, one of the key selling points of the PS3 is 1080p output. That's 1920×1080.
I haven't read anything about UT3 constraining itself to 720p resolution.
At the poster before me: Because you'll never find a pc gamer that'll want to play with a controller
Somebody must be new here.
The PS3 (and the 360, for that matter) are theoretically capable of outputting 1920x1080. In reality, there are no 360 games that do this and like one PS3 game that does. Everything else is 720p. If you turn on the 1080p option, in either system, it will render a frame in 1280x720 and then upscale it to 1920x1080.
Believe me, if UT3 could do 1080p on either platform we'd have heard about it by now.
And an 8800GTS will be able to run 1920x1080 fine as well. If it can't... well, the PS3 probably won't be able to either. Unless Epic is insanely crazy good at utilizing the tech, UT3 will either be upscaled to 1080, or will not run with full effects/anti-aliasing/a frame rate above 4.
Again, my Mobility Radeon 200M ca output at 1280x720, while playing games, without frame rate skips. PC graphics will beat the PS3 graphics with an 8800, or possibly even an 8600.
Man, I can see a "game library isn't as good" argument, but not if it's the PS3 you're comparing it to.
So what? That's why I included the option. PC gamers won't have to, and it won't hurt it if none do. With my idea it gives the console gamers the option of joining the KB/M games with their KB/M or the option of disallowing it, and thus secluding themselves just like it will be anyways.
Dammit Daedalus, you know that this is only going to result in:
I recall Epic saying they will have a controller-only server option. Until I can back that up with a source, though, take it as rumor. My memory is fallible.
It makes sense, though.
Like I said, I'm glad UT3 is bringing in the mouse. Virtually every other console FPS has bowed to the controller. By offering the mouse, they have opened their game to the fast-twitch crowd. Those used to the pace of controller matches can still hit servers and play at that speed.
My point still stands. The PS3 is capable of 1080p, and UT3 was not announced at 720p.
Just because the launch titles were constrained doesn't mean the later ones will.
If you have additional information, I'd appreciate you citing your sources.
This article suggests that it is, indeed, "only" in 720P.
On-topic, I'll reaffirm the idea that cross-platform play would probably be A Bad Idea™ (sans Shadowrun-style balancing). For kicks, I went a few rounds in Team Fortress 2 with a 360 controller (which turns the entire game into a facsimile of the Xbox version, complete with slightly different hud and menus), and it was pretty nasty. You can get away with slower classes like the Heavy, but for the scout (whose speed and gameplay is closer to UT) it was anything but fun playing against everyone else with KBAM.
And while it's great that the PS3 will allow a keyboard/mouse, it don't see many doing that at all. It completely defeats the purpose of having a console, methinks. Sitting on on your comfy couch with a stupid keyboard and mouse in front of your TV? Even I think it's kind of silly. But, hey, options are good, but they shouldn't be required to compete with PC users.
Almost any graphics card is "capable" of 1920x1080 as well.
This doesn't mean that every game should be run in 1920x1080, or that every game can, or that anything beyond that it is technically capable of it.
UT is a game that demands a crazy-good framerate. If Epic can make the game on an inferior system overall output at 1920x1080 and not stutter under even 30fps with other effects then you can bet your ass that the PC version will also be capable of doing that, and Epic is secretly Jesus.
In keeping with the theme of this thread:
HEADSHOT!
Now, you can do it for less if you scrimp and save on parts. I built a 1000$ machine (but that includes a free motherboard and scsi controller I already had) and its my "inexpensive" gaming machine.
Case 56$ shipped (antec super lanboy B-stock) http://www.antec.com/us/pro_b_stock.php
C2D E4300 130$ ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115013 )
CPU cooler 50$ Scythe ninja
Power supply Antec Neo HE 500 watt, 100$ Locally
Optical drive 50$
Ballistix tracer ddr2-800 memory 140$ (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148076 )
8800gts 320 Evga superclocked. 335$ locally
and 100$ for XP home since vista sucks.
more like a 900$ computer because I had a 33.6 10krpm scsi laying around and an adaptec 29160 controller available as well. So about 100$ for a less expensive hard disk. I won the 680i se sli motherboard. So really, entry level gaming starts around 1,200 for reasonable framerates in modern DX9/DX10 gaming.
Mobo's make sod all difference in gaming really, so you might as well pick up a cheap one for <$50 (the G965 from Foxconn is $49.99 after rebate, otherwise a G945 can be had for $55 and change.) . The stock cooler that comes with retail Core 2 Duo's is perfectly servicable so no point in wasting money on a aftermarket cooler. 8800GTS 320MB can be had for under $280, and as little as $260 with rebates.
Vista doesn't suck, you suck.
As an entry level high performance budget PC I'd look at
LG 18X DVD±R DVD Burner $26.99
APEVIA X-QPACK-NW-BK/420 Black Aluminum $69.99 ($59.99)
Seagate 250GB 7200 RPM SATA $69.99
XFX GeForce 8800GTS 320MB $299.99 ($269.99)
GeIL 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 800 $87.99 ($52.99)
Foxconn G9657MA-8KS2H G965 Express Micro ATX $109.99 ($49.99)
Intel Core 2 Duo E4400 ($129.99)
Windows Vista 32-Bit Home Premium - OEM $111.99
$907 total or ($772 after rebates) and that's pretty much a top of the line PC.
Along with the PS3 delay the system specs for the PC version hit today:
http://beyondunreal.com/daedalus/singlepost.php?id=11034
Developers take note: This is how you build a game engine. Clean and efficient. Next-gen graphics with yesterday's hardware. I was able to run UT2004 on a three year old laptop. Looks like I'll be able to run UT3 on a one year old desktop. All of a sudden I'm stoked for this game.
The PS3 is capable of using the PSP for auxillary functions. UT3's devs never explicitly stated that they're not using the PSP for a rear-view mirror or some similar gimmick. Should we assume it does? No, that would be stupid.
edit: Yay low system requirements. My souped-up crap desktop should run it, and maybe my aincient stupid gaming laptop, too.
I've played Unreal, Unreal Tournament and UT2k3 all on largely minimum spec PC's (heck, for UT I played it without a graphics card IIRC), and each time the graphics have been decent enough, but more importantly, the gameplay has still been smooth to play.
Epic's engines are pretty much the pinnacle of scalability. I guess they realise that they need to be in order to capture most of the market. Also gives me hope for the Gears port coming in November.
Valve and iD have also been pretty good about scalablilty, but yeah, it's nice to know that I'll be able to actually play this damn thing. It'll probably be the last modern game that my PC will play, but still, I couldn't think of a much better one.
Are the recommended specs what you need to have the graphics cranked up to maximum? Or are they just the specs for "pretty dang good, but not the best"
Well, and if your monitor supported it, of course. The highest you can buy is something like 2560×1600, unless you manage to track down one of those IBM T221 3840×2400 monsters that they don't even make anymore.
Why? The DC supported mouse and keyboard.
To be fair, it was a ball mouse.
you could use any PS/2 mouse. the official sega mouse was a ball mouse, but you could buy adaptors that would let you plug in a standard mouse and it would still work. Quake III DC even had broadband support and you could download additional maps and stuff to your VMU.
God damn the dreamcast was such an awesome system. We're talking nearly a decade ahead of it's time.
AND it had VGA support, too. In fact, at the time, I'd say the DC port was about on equal footing with PC quake III.
And the bear that wakes from hibernation before sustenance is readily available may die of starvation!
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
I imagine this is something the DC wouldnt be able to match, but thats real high end competitive shit.
I can't frigging find those PS/2 mouse adapters anywhere, even ebay, and believe me it's not for lack of looking. I think EMS made them or something, but their online "order form" is really a web-based e-mail to a dead inbox, and no resellers have any anymore. Any tips on where I could find one?
protip: press the tilde key on the dreamcast keyboard during quake 3. all setting commands from the PC were ported over to the DC. You can make the DC version look like ass to up the frame rate, too.
Right here, baby.
That's the one I got, and it's awesome. PSX, saturn, and mouse/keyboard support.
EDIT: Hm, mine isn't from innovation, nor does it have those lights. I guess mine was some knock off of that. I remember picking my adapter up for CHEAP. Like, less than $10. I got it at some weird store on a trip to Louisiana. One of the best investments ever. That link mentions only keyboard support, so you might want to shoot him an email asking if that particular version also supports mouse.
edit dos: Oh, or here you go, and it's cheaper too
sidenote: whoever at IBM thought it would be a good idea to make the mouse and keyboard PS/2 connectors exactly the same but mutually incompatable was retarded.
To get a bit more back on topic and honor this example, I'm citing my previous claim:
Mark Rein announced that on Epic's official Forums that this option was in the works:
However, he did recant this a bit in a Joystiq interview:
So he stated it will be included, but then suggested it will be "only if we have time". I guess we'll have to see. At least it sounds like he still wants to ship before Christmas. Here's hoping.
I mean, I know that it's a biiiiiiiiiiiig business mistake to not release the game before christmas, but... well I guess I'm getting too pessimistic, since he did say demand wasn't high. Still though....I wonder how happy they all are about that.
Honestly? I think it's good business to release after the holiday period, when everybody else is always releasing. Less competition for peoples money and time.
I've always felt it's a bit daft that everyone rushes for the September - December period so much that spring / summer is usually vacant of any good titles to play.
Plus it gets it out of the shadow of Halo. So this might not be a bad move, even if it causes a temporary financial hit.
Edit: Though it does weaken the PS3's holiday lineup further. Ups and downs, I suppose.