Viewing Thread:
"UNBELIEVABLE 2003"

Unreal 2003, well what can i say, it is just the best god damn game that i have ever played.
I thought ureal the first one was good but this one, wow, i reccomend this to every one with a good graphics card.
but if you dont have a good card then go and buy one just so you can play the best god damn game in the world.

oh, and sont get me started about how good it is online because it is 3 times better, get it and try it.

although you do really need broadband to play online, other wise it is only twice as good.

Do u agree????

Reaper[oV] wrote:
> I'd like to take a moment to remind people that when the original UT
> first came out, no one could run that at high detail from launch
> either.

What are you talking about? My brother manages a normal framerate with high detail using a Cyrix 233 mhz. UT was released in 1999 and any serious gamer had way more than that then.
The reason it's continued to sell is down to the sheer quality of the game. Whay is Half-Life and it's add-ons still selling? Not because people now find they can run it, but because it's a damn decent game.

> It helped a great deal with the game's lifespan - people
> continued to buy it, as it would carry on being top of the range for a
> long time to come, and has been used in benchmarks until very
> recently. The UT2k3 team have said, several times, that hardware does
> not yet exist publically that can run this game with everything maxed
> out - however, my box is just over a year old now, and runs very
> smoothly at 1024, no slowdown. I know I'll want to keep playing it in
> future, as I upgrade, and I know it'll have a long lifespan as more
> people will buy it when their hardware catches up.
>
> Many games are designed with a 3 month shelf life in mind, after which
> time it's forgotten about, so the developers want as many people as
> possible to buy it in that period of time - hence, making it work on
> as many systems as possible. UT2k3 is meant to last, so what's the
> point of releasing it with no scope for it to improve with the
> hardware. After a year or so then, it'll look outdated as technology
> has moved on further. Like I said, the original UT was designed with a
> similar idea, and still looks nice now - it's unlikely to have aged
> half as well if it had been surpassed long ago. Half life is the
> exception to this, it lives off its mods and excellent one player -
> plenty of other newer DM titles available, and if they look prettier,
> an uneducated buyer will chuck their cash at those instead..


Decent post altogether. Nice one!!

i have had unreal 2003 for about a month now, its great and no its not an illegal coppy...

And for people who haven't downloaded the demo yet (Do so)

Either wait untill PC Gamer release their demo on the 25th i think

Or

Handed down by Muska a Link (I hope works) To a download that is great as it only takes 9 hours for a 56k Modem...

ftp://ftp.wireplay.co.uk/pub/ut2003/UT2003-Demo.exe

:D

I'd like to take a moment to remind people that when the original UT first came out, no one could run that at high detail from launch either. It helped a great deal with the game's lifespan - people continued to buy it, as it would carry on being top of the range for a long time to come, and has been used in benchmarks until very recently. The UT2k3 team have said, several times, that hardware does not yet exist publically that can run this game with everything maxed out - however, my box is just over a year old now, and runs very smoothly at 1024, no slowdown. I know I'll want to keep playing it in future, as I upgrade, and I know it'll have a long lifespan as more people will buy it when their hardware catches up.

Many games are designed with a 3 month shelf life in mind, after which time it's forgotten about, so the developers want as many people as possible to buy it in that period of time - hence, making it work on as many systems as possible. UT2k3 is meant to last, so what's the point of releasing it with no scope for it to improve with the hardware. After a year or so then, it'll look outdated as technology has moved on further. Like I said, the original UT was designed with a similar idea, and still looks nice now - it's unlikely to have aged half as well if it had been surpassed long ago. Half life is the exception to this, it lives off its mods and excellent one player - plenty of other newer DM titles available, and if they look prettier, an uneducated buyer will chuck their cash at those instead..

And ffs people, play it at a low res, the gameplay still rules :D

Having said that, NOLF2 does impress me..

Yeh, they put all their effort into fancy particle effects and such nonsensical trickery that could be done with half the processing power yet look only slightly less polished. Madness!!

If only more developers made their games like Sierra, I've been playing NOLF2 for the past few days, and have to run it on medium detail settings. Yet despite this the game still looks as amazing as it does on higher graphic settings, with little or no slowdown.

When runing a game like MOH I have to turn almost all the graphics options down to run it smoothly enough, yet this means the game looks a mess. I'm not one for putting grphics over game-play, but when a game as good looking a UT2003 comes out, it would be nice to see it look as amazing on lower settings as it does on higher ones.

Sierra have managred to this with NOLF 2, as Croteam have managed to do with serious sam, so I don't see why developers like EA and Epic can't do it with their games.

Cheap PC hardware is destroying the PC games industry.

A few years ago, the team making the latest Unreal game would have taken into consideration that so few people had 1Ghz processors and GeForce 4s that they would have to work more on the game, revise the code and bring the specs down without reducing the quality. Nowadays, programmers can't be bothered, and if it only runs smoothly with an Athlon XP2000, then that's what the minimum specs will become.

I refuse to even look in the general direction of UT2003 on principal. Yes it's pretty, but by gum it shouldn't require the amount of power that it does.

Robin wrote:
> old one was real good i mean, ive still got it on my machine and i
> still play it but i play 2003 more. sweeter graphix, smoother,

Smoother my @rse!! Games that require a 1 Ghz processor to run acceptably are not really 'smoother' than games that require a 233 Mhz.

> same
> wepons

Albeit morphed out of proportion into arcade-style monstrosities.

but hey nothings perfect well they have changed them a bit, and
> frankley its just better.

Poop!!

old one was real good i mean, ive still got it on my machine and i still play it but i play 2003 more. sweeter graphix, smoother, same wepons but hey nothings perfect well they have changed them a bit, and frankley its just better.

no im not paying more money for a GFX card just to play this.........
the demo was okay...... but looking at its popularity its not up to par with UT.... ppl still plyaing the old one.