XIM Community

Why UT3 is Not Good  (Read 1895 times)

Offline Ub3rn00ber

  • MVP
  • *
  • Posts: 1583
  • I will punish you.
    • View Profile
Why UT3 is Not Good
« on: 08:31 AM - 07/27/08 »
First of all, it's taken away from valuable family time.  While I'm glued to my screen, hunting for my next victim, my children are in the other room getting into things they shouldn't while my girlfriend is making dinner.  I think it's HER fault, really.  She should make dinner faster so that she had more time to pay attention to them. 

Now for the game specifically.  It plays at what...30 frames per second?  25?  Even lower sometimes?  I think this game was delayed for so long for the 360 version because of just this.  I thought they were working on xbox 360 optimization for so long.  Apparently not.  Not only does the game not look that great to begin with, it only runs at 30fps.  I know there was another game out there that I can't stand because of the 30fps cap..I just can't remember what it was.........................oh yeah.....Halo 3.  It's also the reason I was never a big Gears of War fan.  Gears of War was the first game I played on the 360 ever and I was disappointed horribly with the 30fps sluggishness.  This coming from a PC gamer that tries to get every last frame per second that he can.  Now I'm stuck to 30fps?  Please...
My feeling is that if you can't make the game play at 60fps on the 360, then don't make it for the 360.  UT3 is capped at 30fps on the PS3 as well.  It's capped at something like 82 or 85 on the PC.  Without the uncap methods, of course ;)
I'll still play UT3.  Don't get me wrong.  I enjoy tweaking and using the XIM with it.  And will enjoy even more so with the XIM 2.  I just think that if I really want a good UT3 hardcore gaming experience, I'll play the PC version. 

While this game is fun and slightly addictive, I get headaches playing at 30fps all the time.  Sometimes I have a hard time aiming at people because the game is so jumpy, especially when there are several n00bs on the screen at once.  I just can't focus on one at a time and am constantly forced to kill them all at the same time.  What a drag.  What with the mega kills, ultra kills, rampages and dominating all the time.  I wish that guy would just shut up and let me do my thing...knawmean?

I was playing with skag yesterday for awhile.  Either I can't figure out Warfare or my team can't.  I thought you take the orbs to the nodes and it makes them vulnerable so you can attack them.  Then you can capture the node for your team and move on and attack the next node and then the prime node, and then your team wins.  Is that it?  Cuz my team when I played against Skag was horrible.  I joined late in the game and still had a good number of kills.  Unfortunately, number of kills has zero to do with Warfare.  Some of the maps are also pretty darn huge for Warfare.  The one where both teams are on a beach front with a huge rock wall between you.  I would spend like 5 minutes getting to the other side just to get melted by a walker.  I ended up going to play some COD 4 after I got bored with that.  Oh look!!!  60fps!! Smooth as silk.  I had forgotten how lovely COD 4 is on the 360.  Looks better than UT3 and runs at TWICE THE SPEED!!   Imagine that...

Offline SKAG187

  • MVP
  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • PHD in Teledildonics (a pioneer in the field)
    • View Profile
Re: Why UT3 is Not Good
« Reply #1 on: 10:00 AM - 07/27/08 »
Hey! I thought that was you, yeah the deal with the orbs is if you are carrying the orb you can capture a node instantly, or if your team has possession of the node you can use the orb to "lock" the node making it impossible to be damaged as long as a live player is holding/carrying the orb and close by it. once you have captures the nodes leading to the enemy core then and only then can  the enemy core be damaged/destroyed.

there are a couple of shortcuts to the enemy base in sandstorm tho, first at the back f the cliff there is a raised passage with a redeemer, second there are the large steps about halfway down the center, these can be climbed with the jump boots, or a scavenger, maybe even with a viper. third you still need to make it to the center, take the incline elevator, to the roof, and drop down through the drain to the redeemer spawn.

I'm sorry that you seem so frustrated with this game. right now it is my all time favorite 360 title, I am hoping to get some time to play this evening, maybe we can team up, i might be able to help a little, I'm really not very good so far but seem to be picking it up pretty well
PHD in Teledildonics

Offline Stormshift

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • eNtranced-
    • View Profile
    • Shifting Storms
Re: Why UT3 is Not Good
« Reply #2 on: 11:18 AM - 07/27/08 »
I have to agree that after playing COD4 compared to UT3/Halo3, the fps really blows.
I've been a PC gamer since I was born and I'm all about FPS as well, so I really don't understand why they would release games that run <30 FPS when todays uber monitors/TV's are all pushing 100+ Hz.

I think it might just be the engine itself, all the games based off of it run at crappy rates.
UT3, Kane, Army of Two, Gears of War, and the other 30 games I seem to have forgotten.

Offline Aceright

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 160
    • View Profile
Re: Why UT3 is Not Good
« Reply #3 on: 11:44 AM - 07/27/08 »
If you want 60fps you are best off NOT getting into console gaming. Game shots are a prime means of promoting a game via magazines, gaming sites, and so forth. At 30fps you can at least 2x as many GPU clocks per pixel. Heck, a *lot* of Xbox 360 and PS3 games aren't even 720p, but instead cut the resolution down (sometimes below 1000x600, a 33%+ reduction in pixels) for this very reason. AF and AA are often cut in the retail game as well for performance reasons (but enabled at unrealistic levels for screen shots as well as "post processed" videos).

Sales have shown over time that consumers will take a 30fps game with more eye candy over a 60fps game. 60fps, while becoming a more important bullet point, isn't as big of a draw yet. Seeing as the better FPS on the consoles, for example, slow things down to accomodate the gamepad the investment in 60fps (which takes a lot of design and refinement work) is steep.

Offline Ub3rn00ber

  • MVP
  • *
  • Posts: 1583
  • I will punish you.
    • View Profile
Re: Why UT3 is Not Good
« Reply #4 on: 12:49 PM - 07/27/08 »
I understand the idea of eye candy vs framerate.  But you have games that look pretty decent like COD 4. It does run at a low resolution, but it looks OK for console and runs 60fps.  UT3 runs half the speed, so it should look twice as good then right?  But I don't think it does.  And since it's the same engine that Gears of War ran on, you'd think they would have had time in the last couple years to make it better.  But no.  I understand dropping the framerate to compensate for the console's lack of performance, but did they need to cut it the fps to 30?  Couldn't handle 60 ok.  Why not 50?  45 maybe?  I dunno...something better than 30.

Offline DrCube

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 195
  • PC > Console
    • View Profile
    • Tass Times in Game Land
Re: Why UT3 is Not Good
« Reply #5 on: 01:09 PM - 07/27/08 »
UT3 is awful. I was first exposed to UT via UT2004 for the PC and that was great but the tweaks and changes they've made to UT3 just do not work. They've taken away more than they've added to it, from speed to the way some of the classic weapons handle (like the Shock Cannon which is the greatest gun ever invented in any FPS) the gameplay is just not as good as UT2004. CoD4 and Halo 3 cannot even come close to the intensity of a 32 player UT2004 capture the flag match or Onslaught game.

Aside from the plethora of game modes, more inventive and creative vehicles, and maps of all shapes and sizes, UT has always been blessed with tons of user created maps, models, and mods. You're not going to get that on a 360 (maybe on the PS3). You have no idea what you are missing if you can't get to any of the mods.

Offline Aceright

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 160
    • View Profile
Re: Why UT3 is Not Good
« Reply #6 on: 01:34 PM - 07/27/08 »
I understand dropping the framerate to compensate for the console's lack of performance, but did they need to cut it the fps to 30?  Couldn't handle 60 ok.  Why not 50?  45 maybe?  I dunno...something better than 30.

Consoles are hooked up to TVs, so your choices are all going to be essentially multiples of 60Hz. You can have 30fps (2 frames; or fields in interlaced) or 15fps (4 frames) and so forth. 45fps would essentially be 2 duplicate frames followed by 1 unique frame followed by 2 duplicate frames followed by 1 unique frame followed by... and so on. This is a higher fps but looks choppy. Of course you can turn of V-sync, but then you get tearing which really bugs some people.

Most developers have determined that a rock solid 30fps is better than a fluctuating 40-50fps. I think I would agree for consoles. On a nice PC CRT where you are in control of the details, well, that is another matter.

Offline Ub3rn00ber

  • MVP
  • *
  • Posts: 1583
  • I will punish you.
    • View Profile
Re: Why UT3 is Not Good
« Reply #7 on: 02:11 PM - 07/27/08 »
Oh yeah that makes sense.  Thanks for the explanation.  I forgot that people use TVs for their 360s since I don't.  What if my 360 is hooked up via vga cable to a CRT monitor?  I guess they assume there aren't enough people in that situation to have an option to adjust fps?   

Offline tweak

  • MVP
  • *
  • Posts: 2346
    • View Profile
Re: Why UT3 is Not Good
« Reply #8 on: 04:39 PM - 07/27/08 »
While I'm glued to my screen, hunting for my next victim, my children are in the other room getting into things they shouldn't while my girlfriend is making dinner.  I think it's HER fault, really.  She should make dinner faster so that she had more time to pay attention to them. 

LOL

That made my day, I don't even care about the rest of what's in this thread.

Thanks for that.

Offline hak

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
Re: Why UT3 is Not Good
« Reply #9 on: 10:39 PM - 07/27/08 »
I think u need to take some time off really....lol

now if I recall, Unreal Engine was never popular for PC, its too power hungry and demands a lot of resources. Same goes to ID Tech 4 and Monolith's FEAR engine. The UE 3.0 has grown into a franchise because it became a lot easier for noob developers to churn out games (which is just eye candy)on a half yearly basis (no. 1 milker is EA). The only 2 engines which I see fit the 360 well, is the Infinity Ward's current engine and the Capcom MT framework.
I also seriously doubt Gears 2 will be anything higher than 30FPS. It will probably be more optimised in single player campaign where u get less 'dips' (dropping below 30fps) than it was in Gears 1 with more objects on screen.

I really like Source on PC, you don't need stupid-expensive PCs to enjoy great games like Half Life 2, if they manage to improve Source performance on 360, no doubt the Left 4 Dead multiplayer will be a blast! You can also look forward to Call Of Duty 5 if you are in for the 60 fps console experience...




Offline ibuycheap

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Why UT3 is Not Good
« Reply #10 on: 10:51 PM - 07/27/08 »
I have the pc version of ut3 and ignoring the graphics I find ut 1999 version to be the best. As far as graphics engines are concerned IW's is optimized for consoles because it was built for them rather than for the pc and ported.

Offline Ub3rn00ber

  • MVP
  • *
  • Posts: 1583
  • I will punish you.
    • View Profile
Re: Why UT3 is Not Good
« Reply #11 on: 08:56 AM - 07/28/08 »
I have the pc version of ut3 and ignoring the graphics I find ut 1999 version to be the best. As far as graphics engines are concerned IW's is optimized for consoles because it was built for them rather than for the pc and ported.

Do you live in Colorado?  I know a guy who uses "ibuycheap" in Colorado Springs. 

In other news:  Man I haven't played UT 99 in a straight MINUTE.  I used to play the Tactical Ops mod for that game for hours on end.  That game is the reason for my divorce!!  Thanks, UT 99!!

When ut2k4 came out, I remember that it ran booty on my computer.  Is that even imaginable anymore?  Ut2k4 not running good on a computer?  Having no immediate memory of how ut99 played since I sort of jumped into the tac ops mod right away, I'm going to go with ut2k4 as being the best UT so far.  I do like UT3, but I think just because it's good looking.  I'm talking about the PC version of course.  PS3 and 360 versions look like dookie. 

Also: 

How many fps does BF: Bad Company run at?  My son was playing the demo last night and it looks pretty good and seems to run at a decent framerate.  Didn't look like 60fps and didn't look like 30.  Or maybe UT3 is supposed to run at 30 but dips in framerate to 15 at times and just looks like even more dookie?  BF: Bad Company actually didn't look too bad.