Unreal Engine 3 with maximum quality

The Unreal Engine 3 is quite a popular piece of software. But what is the maximum quality you can get out of it? PCGH checked it out in Bioshock and UT3. The shots were made with an GTX 260 and a 8800 GT (G92). Resolution: 1,680 x 1.050 (16:1 AF) with diverse settings.

[militant07]

they should test it with gears of war

[Laexerias]

it would be pretty cool to see that. :D

[GUNSOFTHEPATRIOTS]

but it sure can happen on the superior hardware ps3 :D

[fashionfreakj86]

Even the gears of war 2 High Def Shots look better and its not even running a high end graphics card....only a xenos

[CrippleH]

Because those were bullshots.

[klashawnd]

Evere heard of bullshots? lol

[InMyOpinion]

Gears of war 2 is not running on the same version of the Unreal 3 engine. It's running on an upgraded version.

[lilgringo]

Yeah i think they call it UE 3.5, but those images of GeOW were bullshots with increased AA

[DJ]

UE3 is so outdated...

[Montrealien]

Is it just me or people are becoming a tad picky?

This looks outdated, and I can still have fun with it...

[Zyrusticae]

Outdated? It's less than a year old, and it's already 'outdated'?

Either way, these screenshots are definitely not good for showcasing the graphics. For one, they tend to focus on single characters in poor lighting, and two, they take few screenshots that actually show a good portion of the environment. Frankly, the folks could use a photography class or two if they're gonna be putting up articles like these...

[mfwahwah]

Game play is one thing. If we're talking about best graphics, then game play means nothing in that context.

[Montrealien]

@2.3

My point was, that I think people are getting a tad to picky.

kthxbye

[Gitaroo]

bioshock on my PC looks better than all these crap. If you want to show off atleast play it in a higher res.

[fopums]

OMGBLOOMZORZ

wow, I think GEARS/UT3 looks way better as is, that much bloom just makes it look like a bunch of buff TRON guys running around.

[TheIneffableBob]

I've always hated how Unreal Engine 3 games look.

Personally, Valve-developed Source engine games look better.

[killalot100]

i sometimes get annoyed how big the characters are. does every game that use the unreal engine 2 have to have people that big. the only game that had a good color was bioshock.

[Guitarded]

Time for you to go to the optometrist!

[pshizle]

gears of war 2 screenshots are not bullshots

[CrippleH]

Your just an idiot.

Come back when you PC game for once.

[Figboy]

stop kidding yourself.

Gears of War "in game screens":
http://scr3.golem.de/screen...

http://www.gamestar.hu/apix...

Gears of War ACTUAL in game visuals:
http://xbox360media.ign.com...

http://xbox360media.ign.com...

come on. not even close, man.

and i downloaded the HD version of the Gears of War 2 gameplay trailer, and watched it on my 40" HD Samsung. it looked good, really good, but it does not compare to those screenshots in the other story.

now, i'm tired of the Unreal Engine 3, personally, but Gears of War 2 is indeed looking good, but the competition is fierce.

hell, i can look over my computer monitor right now, and see the guys playing the new 50 Cent game, and it is looking mighty like Gears (barring, you know, actual fun gameplay. frickin' 50 Cent...god i hate that guy).

that's the problem with licensing your engine out to everybody, it just makes what makes YOUR game so special a little harder to find.

yes, back in 2006, UE3 was the engine to beat. problem is, it's been BEATEN. like a dead horse, thanks to many a dev out there that wants to take the easy way out and get something up and looking good real fast.

with each developer that creates a game using UE3, the less and less amazing Gears of War 2 looks.

at least practically EVERY PS3 exclusive is built on it's own proprietary engine, and the quality and benefit of having an engine tailor made to your game shows. each game has a unique look and feel, and it's amazing.

Heavenly Sword
http://www.threespeech.com/...
http://files.xboxic.com/ps3...

Ratchet and Clank Future:
http://farm2.static.flickr....
http://www.timeout.com/newy...

Gran Turismo Prologue:
http://o.aolcdn.com/gd-medi...
http://www.sporttalk.com.au...

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune:
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3...
http://www.greatwallofgamin...

Metal Gear Solid 4:
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3...
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3...

now, compare that to UE3 developed games like:

Bourne Conspiracy:
http://g-ecx.images-amazon....
http://www.xboxer.tv/bourne...

50 Cent: BOTS:
http://xbox360media.ign.com...
http://news.filefront.com/w...

Dark Sector:
http://www.ps2vicio.com/ima...
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn...

looking mighty familiar, huh?

the two games that i think REALLY do a great job of differentiating themselves from the rest of the UE3 family are:

Mirror's Edge:
http://www.ps3welt.com/wp-c...
http://xbox360media.ign.com...

and Bioshock:
http://loot-ninja.com/wp-co...
http://www.joergspielt.de/w...

and that's due to expert art design.

unfortunately for Epic, their licensees don't care much about differentiation, and they're just copying Gears of War. which diminishes Gears look, no matter HOW quality and amazing it is. it's a double edged sword.

you set a trend, whether through gameplay or visuals, and people copy. simple as that.

i just think that Epic is in a bit of bind, because they can only do so much with UE3 to max it out, but because of it's position as a licensed engine, any changes they make to that engine will have to be given to their partners also. it's just good business. if they hold back, then we got issues like Silicon Knights had with Too Human.

Gears 2 looks good, but it won't match those screenshots, and there are plenty of other games coming out for the rest of this year that are coasting on UE3, making it a bit harder for Gears 2 to impress the masses that weren't roped in with the first one.

Gears in 2006 = NO NEXT GEN COMPETITION WHATSOEVER. it was the game that single-handedly justified the Xbox 360's, and next gen gaming in generals existence.

Gears 2 in 2008 = A LOT of competition. it really has to push itself to grab those non-Gears fans. just like Resistance 2 is going to have to push itself to grab those non-Resistance fans. can they do it, only time will tell, but one of them is offering a LOT more than just upgraded textures and lighting to it's gameplay.

as for this topic, the screens are good, but nothing really that special. it's just the engine at maximum quality, not the engine maxed out completely. i think it's unfortunate that the PC will be the only machine capable of REALLY maxing out UE3, and i can't imagine what the game and rig that could do that would be, or cost, respectively.

[EastCoastSB]

Those screens are for GoW2, not the first game.

[Figboy]

well, the second Gears one is from Gears 2, the first is a screen i saw ages ago for part one.

but here's another original Gears of War "screen"

http://www.veganmomma.com/b...

[EastCoastSB]

I got that one confused with the screens that came out a few month ago for GoW2.

[Droid]

lol. first of all, they're using that piece of sh1t UT3 to show-off the engine instead of Gears. LMAO. dumb n00bs.

[iiraymoii]

Why cant there be more people like you roaming the forums and blogs! That had to be one of the most level headed post I have seen all year!

[fashionfreakj86]

Why do PC fans hate console gamers??? PC fans should admit that consoles were made 4 years ahead of its time. Whats so hard to admit that some Console games look better than its PC counter parts. Look at Gran turismo 5, it looks better than any PC racing game but PC fanboys will argue and Fight the fact. Look at Killzone 2, Why are PC gamers so mad that its possible for a console to hold a candle to crysis??? C'mon now....stop being PC fanboys and be a real gamer. I have all 3 systems and a high end pc with a 1080p Hd tv....i know whats up.

[Zyrusticae]

That's just blatantly untrue.

Consoles are made with *current-gen* technology. At MOST they're six months ahead, using technology that they're going to release on the PC later on down the road.

The reason they have performance that's in any way decent is because they don't have to split resources between the game and any operating system programs, not to mention that developers can program specifically for the console (as opposed to many, many different PC setups).

But when it comes to actual technology, consoles only enjoy a moderate lead for a few months to a year or so, at which point PC technology catches up. Give it another year, and the PC is already ahead.

What really pushes my buttons is all this hype for stuff like the Cell processor. It's pointless, at least for gaming. When you look a the PC, there are *no* games that require anything more than two cores. Even Supreme Commander is engineered only to use two cores, and after a certain point the CPU simply no longer determines the framerate; it's all up to the GPU at that point. Unless someone can explain to me what, exactly, the processor can actually *do* for gaming other than enable some pretty physics (which is also being done on the 360 - see Digital Molecular Matter in the Force Unleashed), I'm hard-pressed to care.

[iiraymoii]

Have you seen GTA5, MGS4, and Uncharted?? It just goes to show that the "CELL" isn't all hype and actually has quite a bite.

Also comparing a PC to a PS3 is like comparing apples to oranges. Go find yourself a wiki page or go ACTUALLY play those games mentioned and you will it isnt all HYPE.

[Zyrusticae]

Yes, I have seen screenshots of said games, but they are most certainly not superior to anything that could be rendered on a decent PC - compare the smoothness of Snake's suit to Nomad's (the protagonist of Crysis). And GTA 4 (I'm assuming you're referring to it and not an as-yet undeveloped fifth iteration) is a poor example, as the graphics for it are actually exactly the same on the 360 version (and will be superior on the PC version, go figure).

Worse still, while specs on the Cell processor are easily available all over the internet, information on how *specifically* it's been used in PS3 exclusives remain rather limited. In fact, I can't find any at all. I imagine it must be used *somehow*, as the graphics it outputs are rather impressive given that it's using the equivalent of an Nvidia 7800, but I get the impression they're used to make up for the GPU's relatively lacking power rather than to supplement it.

[jmcorp]

you dont seem to understand that the consoles are already far behind PC's in every way, except: 'pick-up and play'

the tech available in the PC hardware, allows for better graphics and frame-rate, anti-aliasing and much more...

for you to think KZ2 rivals Crysis in graphics, leaves me to think your slightly retarded...Crysis mauls KZ2, Heavy rain and any other PS3 fanboy games...

[xav0971]

2560 X 1600 resolution. 4 megapixal display. 2X 1080P

[Perkel]

yep in crysis at this resolution you can play about 1-7 fps avg on best rigs :)

[NRG]

4870's and 280GTX's are capable of pulling over 40fps in Crysis at 2560x1600. Add SLI or Crossfire, and you can get over 60.

[Zyrusticae]

Fact check: Not quite. A 4870 can get an average of 40FPS at 1920x1200, but it drops off after that. A GTX 280, on the other hand, can get an average of 40 with 16x AF (and no AA).

[thehitman]

But they tend to just overbloom everything to make it look pretty.

[ZombieNinjaPanda]

But one thing that will impress me is if they can get those details and shiney..ness..and models and stuff.

Then add in oh say...100 soldiers or something like that.

Or at least 50. Sure single character models with the background look good, but I want to see a lot of things on screen.