Unreal Tournament 2

[red oct 2]

heres a link http://gamespot.com/gamespo....00.html"]=http://gamespot.com/gamespo....ml]http

check out the pics they are PS2 quality on a PC  

[Damage Inc 0]

PS2 quality on a PC? You DID know that the PC can show much better graphics than the PS2?

[Sith 0]

Indeed, PS2 quality on a PC wouldnt be all that spectacular

But the game's player models and weapons sure look nice, too bad the level design doesnt look like much yet tho....

[red oct 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PS2 quality on a PC? You DID know that the PC can't show much better graphics than the PS2?<span id='postcolor'>

i can honestly say that i've seen a game with PS2 quality frame rate and graphics, how about you give me some examples

[Shabadu 0]

PS2 sucks.

[Damage Inc 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Red Oct @ Jan. 18 2002,16:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PS2 quality on a PC? You DID know that the PC can't show much better graphics than the PS2?<span id='postcolor'>

i can honestly say that i've seen a game with PS2 quality frame rate and graphics, how about you give me some examples<span id='postcolor'>

Just about any newer PC game has better than PS2 quality graphics.

[Sith 0]

True...the PS2 is almost 2 years old now, it simply hasnt got the power of modern PCs (GF3 etc). The biggest drawback of the PS2 (and its games) is resolution. I dont think the PS2 supports HDTV, so there's no way its games will ever look anywhere near as crisp as a PC game, since a TV runs on a much lower res than a PC.

[Damage Inc 0]

TV res is about 640x480. New PC games can be run at 1600x1200 (except most require a good machine to be able to)

[red oct 2]

check out this gun

[imghttp://gamespot.com/gamespot/images/2002/pc/featurepreviews/ut2/ut2_screen024.jpg[/img]

kinda makes me wish i had one in real life

[Damage Inc 0]

[Wobble 1]

even the very latest consoldes.. i.e. X-box..etc are already behind current PC graphics and speed thechnology.. because all consoles use parts and technology that has already been proven in the PC.. so no console looks as good as a PC.

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sith @ Jan. 18 2002,16:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">True...the PS2 is almost 2 years old now, it simply hasnt got the power of modern PCs (GF3 etc). The biggest drawback of the PS2 (and its games) is resolution.<span id='postcolor'>

It's also limited to 30 frames per second (or 25 in PAL countries) by the screen refresh rate. Hardcore PC gamers would be screaming if their game ran that slow at 1600x1200, let alone at 640x480.

[Wobble 1]

the human eye cant tell the difference past around 28fps.. so as long as its 30fps plus it could be 800 fps and it wont look any different.

[Satchel 0]

If the first total conversions of UT2 ala infiltration are showing up, i´ll be definitely checking it out.

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Jan. 18 2002,17:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the human eye cant tell the difference past around 28fps..  so as long as its 30fps plus it could be 800 fps and it wont look any different.<span id='postcolor'>

So you don't believe that you can tell the difference between playing a game at 30fps and playing the same game at 300fps?

[Wobble 1]

not visually.

thats why TV is set at 30 fps... and not higher, because after 30fps the human eye cant see the individual frames..

test if for yourself.. run 3dmark2001 and watch the FPS it will go from 70 to 30 to 70 and you wont see any difference in the picture.. as long as it stays above 30 it will look smooth.. how much higher doesent really matter.

[Blink Dog 0]

Agreed Wobble, it applies for sound as well. 16 bit sound is all you will ever need. Anything higher is pointless the human ear cannot disern anything more complicated. With sound the best thing to do is get whoop ass speakers with good base.

Back to the topic, the PS 2 prob gets less error messages than a PC. even if the graphix on a pc were better, that illegal operation message half way through for some reason just ruins the gaming experience.

[762WorldOrder 0]

"the human eye cant tell the difference past around 28fps.. so as long as its 30fps plus it could be 800 fps and it wont look any different. "

Where did you hear that, Gamepro.com? Go put Quake 3 on at 30 fps and then 120 fps and tell me you don't see a difference.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Agreed Wobble, it applies for sound as well. 16 bit sound is all you will ever need. Anything higher is pointless the human ear cannot disern anything more complicated. With sound the best thing to do is get whoop ass speakers with good base.<span id='postcolor'>

That's not right! It has long been believed that the human ear cannot "hear" above a certain frequency range. Well, somehow it can and thats the reason why most loudspeaker manufacturers make "super tweeters". Testing shows that the use of those tweeters actually betters the smoothness and resolution in the upper frequency range. The new recording formats like sacd and dvd-audio can reproduce more of the upper frequencies then the old 16 bit cd medium. The same has to be said about the vinyl wich is now having a bit of a revival.

Of course, some people simply have better hearing, but never the less there is a certain difference from older tweeter constructions. Hearing is also very difficult to measure.

I do agree that the bass frequency is important. Not because "more bass" is better (it isn't necessarily), but to reproduce the recording in a best possible way you need bass that extends beyond 25 khz (that will empty your wallet though).

This really went off topic didn't it!

[Thehamster 0]

You really can't tell the difference of over 30 fps to 30 fps. Last night I was playing Counter-Strike and was wondering perhaps if I reduced my frame rate down to about 30 fps from usually 71 fps I might get a better ping well I did this it looked exactly the same as before no noticeable difference in detail and no it did not lower my ping . So at the moment I'm try a different modem my hopes are high

[Diablo_NL 1]

(looks like the intension of this thread is changing still ill go on) i think before you talk about unreal tournemant 2 you should talk about unreal 2 as that will appear first and there not even working on UT2 yet

[Wreck-It 0]

I think someone here needs a new PC and a G-F TI 500...

Lol.

[PLRSniper 3]

UT 2 Looks great !!!   (I'll buy when release if I can't buy it I'll download)  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I prefer Doom III engine (Quake 4) but UT2 will kick Q3 ass...<span id='postcolor'>

[Rogue2020 0]

The only thing I can honestly say I like about unreal tournament is the lighting effects...they are pretty nice....

[red oct 2]

only downside to U2 is that i dougt my machine will handle it well.