Does Unreal Still Look Unreal? Not Anymore!

[DjEaZy]

... i still turn on my win95se rig from time to time... the games like Unreal, Duke Nukem, Descent, Highoctane, DungeonKeeper, the first AoE, Forsaken, Slave Zero, HeXen, Heretic, Terminal Velocity, Hellbender, Urban Assult, NFS from 1 to High Stakes, Diablo, Star/WarCraft, Quake 1&2 +addons... and the rig haz an 3dfx VooDoo the first one...
... and the first unreal tournament is still played... i was surprised, that there iz a DX10 mod for the original UT...

 

[giovanni86]

I still play UT1999, just like the millions of ppl that still play CS 1.6. Its plain old fun but it runs smooth, and loads as quick as Starcraft these days. Its still a fun game to play, i catch myself playing it every few months for quite awhile. Favorite map is "Curse"

 

[CoryInJapan]

Man,I remember when My dad had unreal on his PC back in the late 90's.Was the coolest thing Ive ever seen.The graphics were jaw droping back then.

I reaaaally reaaaallly miss the day of PC being the first choice for game development...Which is why we should stop pirating so much.I know I did.I know its not the only reason why.It does contribute though.

 

[Strider-Hiryu_79]

This game is nothing compared to Commander Keen

 

[gto127]

I also had Unreal when it first came out & the Graphics were much better than anything out at the time. The gameplay was simple yet fun. I wish epic would make a sequel like the original but with today's graphics. I felt like Unreal II deviated too much from the original.

 

[Godfail]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]LOL, yeah 1997 was Nintendo 64 and Playstation 1 territoryEven 13 years ago consoles were light years behindGood to see nothing really changes[/citation]

The fact that nobody figured out the guy was joking about 360 FTW is pretty mind boggling.

However, the N64 was not "light years" behind PC gaming in 1997. In fact, Goldeneye had introduced staples of the FPS genre to this day as far as gameplay is concerned...and as far as graphics, "light years" would imply generations, which simply was not and is not true.

 

[tinmann]

Back in the day this game, a TNT2 Ultra and a 21 inch CRT monitor..... Nirvana

 

[kelemvor4]

[citation][nom]proxicide[/nom]you do realize this was back in 1997, lol xbox fan boys[/citation]
360 fanboys have no choice but to compare their games to pc games from 1997.

 

[rickzor]

I must admit that i still play from time to time this game online on cooperation mod . And it is fun to play for the unreal oldschools.

And i do play with a pc right for its requirements! a pentium 3 at 1.3ghz with a voodoo 5 on it. Smooth!
I love this game.

 

[Godfail]

[citation][nom]kelemvor4[/nom]360 fanboys have no choice but to compare their games to pc games from 1997.[/citation]

And that's just as ridiculous...at least the original quote was a joke, the stupidity is really flowing now.

 

[hemelskonijn]

gpharman:

Overcompensating much?, poor you.
Not that i want to feed your ego but that is a nice build, however it is almost sad that by the time you buy your first (or second) round of upgrades i can still play the newest games on my 399 euro home theater called PS3 (or to a lesser extend on my wii). Games are to be played and no one needs more then lets say 60fps (saying you do need it is just the same as saying your a bad gamer its just an excuse).

In the end a current PC is in theory always faster then a current gen console and yes when publishers and developers port games from the PC to the console the original PC version often has a few more features graphics wise however if they do choose to optimize a game for any given platform any console wins from any PC.

In conclusion you waste (or spend if you prefer) way more money to play the same games only to be able to boast about being able to spend more money in order to play those same games on a slightly higher resolution with a few more frames per second while still being ignorant to the fact that if any of those games where optimized your PC would out roar anything not a 100% compatible for years to come.

 

[Godfail]

[citation][nom]hemelskonijn[/nom]gpharman:Overcompensating much?, poor you.Not that i want to feed your ego but that is a nice build, however it is almost sad that by the time you buy your first (or second) round of upgrades i can still play the newest games on my 399 euro home theater called PS3 (or to a lesser extend on my wii). Games are to be played and no one needs more then lets say 60fps (saying you do need it is just the same as saying your a bad gamer its just an excuse).In the end a current PC is in theory always faster then a current gen console and yes when publishers and developers port games from the PC to the console the original PC version often has a few more features graphics wise however if they do choose to optimize a game for any given platform any console wins from any PC.In conclusion you waste (or spend if you prefer) way more money to play the same games only to be able to boast about being able to spend more money in order to play those same games on a slightly higher resolution with a few more frames per second while still being ignorant to the fact that if any of those games where optimized your PC would out roar anything not a 100% compatible for years to come.[/citation]

Believe me, I'm not completely opposed to what you're saying. However, there are some cases where having higher resolution and more importantly, draw distance, are important. Fallout 3 is one example.

As far as frame rates go, there's a myth that people can't see anything higher than 60 FPS...and it's just that.

But regardless, if a game is designed with a console in mind and plays to its limitations, it will be a great game and there will be little need for a PC version. But the reverse is also true, RTS games just don't work on consoles, games like Dragon Age expose a weakness in console control (until Wii/Natal/Move finally get applied to advanced games).

 

[blppt]

Last new game that actually made me saw 'wow' graphically was the original Unreal. Even Crysis on max settings didnt really do that for me.

Nyleve (sp?) falls (2nd level), first time you looked over that cliff with a 3dfx card, absolutely stunning.

 

[hemelskonijn]

[citation][nom]Godfail[/nom]Believe me, I'm not completely opposed to what you're saying. However, there are some cases where having higher resolution and more importantly, draw distance, are important. Fallout 3 is one example.As far as frame rates go, there's a myth that people can't see anything higher than 60 FPS...and it's just that. But regardless, if a game is designed with a console in mind and plays to its limitations, it will be a great game and there will be little need for a PC version. But the reverse is also true, RTS games just don't work on consoles, games like Dragon Age expose a weakness in console control (until Wii/Natal/Move finally get applied to advanced games).[/citation]

I really don't get what is wrong with dragon age on the PS3 but i got to hand it to you i never saw it running on a PC. For as far as fallout, dragon age and other ports draw distance ... i don't really mind the distance as much as i mind pop-ups but then again that's only showing the poor results of a quick and nasty PC to console port.

Which brings me to the maximum number of frames we humans can actually see you are partly right since 60fps is not a hard number normally some one can see up to about 65Hz though for some people this number is way higher or lower (in my case up to 110Hz so i cant be near light bulbs). The thing with fps is that its almost never a fixed number (even if you counter indicates it is) and slight frame drops are visible thus giving the illusion that you notice any difference between 60 FPS and 120 FPS while it is far more likely that with more frames you just don't register the ones that are dropping.

I know this in a way means that more frames are better even though its only because this way we have a bigger chance of not seeing them drop but it would be even better if we all stopped chasing fps and developers started to write undroppable code (yes i know nearly impossible) or at least we all stopped buying in to Mhz like myths.

Maybe this is a good topic for an in dept article on TH including expert opinions (medical and scientific that is).

 

[Godfail]

[citation][nom]hemelskonijn[/nom]I really don't get what is wrong with dragon age on the PS3 but i got to hand it to you i never saw it running on a PC. For as far as fallout, dragon age and other ports draw distance ... i don't really mind the distance as much as i mind pop-ups but then again that's only showing the poor results of a quick and nasty PC to console port.Which brings me to the maximum number of frames we humans can actually see you are partly right since 60fps is not a hard number normally some one can see up to about 65Hz though for some people this number is way higher or lower (in my case up to 110Hz so i cant be near light bulbs). The thing with fps is that its almost never a fixed number (even if you counter indicates it is) and slight frame drops are visible thus giving the illusion that you notice any difference between 60 FPS and 120 FPS while it is far more likely that with more frames you just don't register the ones that are dropping.I know this in a way means that more frames are better even though its only because this way we have a bigger chance of not seeing them drop but it would be even better if we all stopped chasing fps and developers started to write undroppable code (yes i know nearly impossible) or at least we all stopped buying in to Mhz like myths.Maybe this is a good topic for an in dept article on TH including expert opinions (medical and scientific that is).[/citation]

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I didn't want to argue about frame rates or anything. Just saying that there's a lot to be said for graphics on a PC and sometimes they actually do contribute to gameplay. Certainly not enough for PC elitism, as you can equally argue that sitting on a couch and chatting with friends on the 360 or PS3 is a much more entertaining experience. Just a lot to be said for both platforms, and either one getting out of hand and saying the other "sucks" is just short sighted and naive.

I can't live without all of my platforms, and there's no way I can handle RTS on the consoles...but I'd much rather play an FPS or any of the more popular genres of games with friends on the consoles, which have proven to be better at connecting the general public. As much as PC fanatics bitch about Apple, that's exactly how consoles work and is exactly why the community exists on consoles.

 

[spentshells]

[citation][nom]Kelavarus[/nom]Haha. I don't play my old games anymore because I still have the memory that they have incredible graphics. Going back and playing them never seems to do them justice.[/citation]

Oh I know I quit playing games around the time DOOM3 was the incredible game. I beat crysis and thought hey I should play doom..what a mistake
seems so terrible even at max settings it was just cheesy

 

[demonhorde665]

[citation][nom]johnyeah[/nom]While graphics seems to be ever improving, but it's seems like the development with game UI and gameplay have been stagnating. It's just a really biased opinion of mine, but that's what I think the developers should be working on.[/citation]

i agree a 100% , aside fromthe rare few games the vast majority of games to day (even some AAA titles) lack the depth that games of "yore" had.

 

[nukemaster]

Last time I saw it 800x600 was super high res for games. I wonder if it supports 1920x1200?

No wide screen support from this game. But here is 1600 x 1200

http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/4255/unreala.jpg
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/9503/unreal2.jpg
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/8120/unreal3.jpg

JPG compression does take a bit away, but you get the idea

 

[De La NoChe]

Oh the good old days.... actually the good days are still here for me. I just got a three screen set up using ATI's eyefinity. I play Modern Warfare 2 the most and i love it! Check out my knife throwing montage here:

www.youtube.com/delanoche21

video is with EYEFINITY (watch in 1080p)

 

[CptTripps]

[citation][nom]snqwerty[/nom]For me unreal was one of the first Glide based games I played, and I still remember the first time I went outside the ship and looked down into a canyon, the view of the birds underneath and the music that joined it still rings in my head.I'll probably will not play this scene again, but in those days, it was real Unreal.[/citation]

I hear you on this.

I had a beast of a machine when Unreal came out (PII@233, 64MB, Riva 128 with Voodoo 2 12MB addon, Awe64) and that game amazed me on that same scene you mention.

When the lights went out in that first hallway and I heard the growl, I almost pee'd myself

 

[tburns1]

[citation][nom]nukemaster[/nom]Am i the only one that still plays old games from time to time.[/citation]

Yeah ...some old games are timeless. I just finished thief 1 and 2, and I'm gearing up for System Shock 2. Old graphics, but so what?

 

[nukemaster]

Yeah ...some old games are timeless. I just finished thief 1 and 2, and I'm gearing up for System Shock 2. Old graphics, but so what?

Good idea, Time to install Thief. Lord baffard(that how its spelled, who knows) will never know what hit his mansion when I kill EVERYTHING.

 

[michaelahess]

I remember the first time I fired that game up, one of my best gaming memories!

 

[RADIO_ACTIVE]

[citation][nom]johnyeah[/nom]While graphics seems to be ever improving, but it's seems like the development with game UI and gameplay have been stagnating. It's just a really biased opinion of mine, but that's what I think the developers should be working on.[/citation]
Fully agree

 

[aaron686]

And in 10 years we will look back and read "Crysis: Yes, this is an actual PC game screenshot." and we'll all have a good laugh.