Unreal Engine 3 vs. The Lost Coast...
- Thread starter beedubaya
- Start date
- Status
Thresh
Desktop Engineer
- Messages
- 656
- Location
- East Coast, US
What do you mean "scalable"? Really, the only difference I see in Unreal 3 engine and HL2 is slightly higher resolution textures and little better modeling. But I think it's sort of unfair to compare the two, because really HL2 is based on years old graphics, most of it's development was in the physics, which alone is awesome, something Unreal won't have (not as complex anyway). Personally though, I'm wanting them to start focusing on the walls and how some of them are perfectly "straight". Here's a pic of what I'm talking about. Notice the edge's of the wall are PERFECT, the least they could do, especially in a new engine like Unreal 3 is make it a little rigid to give off some more realism. That always bothered me about games, but thankfully Oblivion (Bethesda) is taking a step in the right direction. Simply "painting" things on like the bricks I think is crap, and it would add so much to the realism if they would make them protrude from the walls a bit.
Well, by the time UT2007 is released, the 7800GTX will be as the 6800 Ultra is now....so its not as far away as we think. Today's cards will definately be able to handle this game...question is is how well and what features are going to need to be disabled on older cards.
Thresh
Desktop Engineer
- Messages
- 656
- Location
- East Coast, US
Yeah, personally I'm the sort of person that before anything will jack up the video options to the best quality and the resolution to 1600x1200, so I reckon I'll be getting a new video card before too long.
Mr. Switch
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 1,841
UE3's lighing model is hundreds times more compled and advanced as HL2's, and thats with HDR. HL2's shadows aren't exactly dynamic, in the sense that shadows will never change shape, sharpness, or intensity, depending on where the lightsource is. UE3 can do that.
acutally, scratch that.
First of all, one can't compare UE3 and the source engine directly. that would be like comparing the Unreal Engine and the Quake 3 engine directly. the clear winner is obvious. UE3 is the clear winner in year-old Source vs. not-yet-released UE3. UE3 is a very complex, powerful, and advanced engine. and its obviously more so than the Source enigne will ever be.
as for scalibliltiy, the lost coast by far. a GeForce 4 can run lost coast, but not UE3, not by a longshot.
acutally, scratch that.
First of all, one can't compare UE3 and the source engine directly. that would be like comparing the Unreal Engine and the Quake 3 engine directly. the clear winner is obvious. UE3 is the clear winner in year-old Source vs. not-yet-released UE3. UE3 is a very complex, powerful, and advanced engine. and its obviously more so than the Source enigne will ever be.
as for scalibliltiy, the lost coast by far. a GeForce 4 can run lost coast, but not UE3, not by a longshot.
Oh yeah...beedubaya said:
One thing that I do like about the guys down at Unreal is that they do make games engines where you do have a wide compability on peoples computers systems.
Okay, you might need to cut back a bit on the features, but at least you can play the game.
Where as a lot of other games devs are seem to force people to purchase a new video card.
With the fact that we are going to be seeing PHYS-X Cards coming out for video cards soon, I do feel that a lot of gamers are going to be stuck upgrading again really some time in over 2006.
I have seen on many forums that people say you will need a bare minimum of 2 7800GTXs in SLI to run UT2007 at anything over mediocre settings. What actually about this engine is going to make it so demanding? After all, the original Unreal Engine 3 tech demo was done on a single 6800 Ultra using early NV40 drivers which were known not to be up to par.
- Status
