• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Wondering about the UE3 engine

Blunthex

Active member
Jan 9, 2011
44
20
I'm curious, is the UE3 engine even made for this kind of game to begin with?

It just seems like its a very hard game engine to manage and apparently you don't get the greatest performance out of it.

To me it feels like they have just overloaded this engine with too much detail in the maps.

I just want to hopefully hear some facts about UE3, or maybe any info as to why they chose UE3.

what happened to gameplay over graphics? to me RO is the essence of that. but they kinda threw that out the window it seems.
 
Last edited:
For me it's that they put too much detail in the shaders...

If I set lighting to low, or disable "depth of field" in the config, I get decent frames.

But I also can't see barely anything with maxed brightness both in-game, on screen, and on my video card - it's just so impossibly dark.

If they optimized their shaders or had better (faster) lighting it would probably solve a lot of issues.
 
Upvote 0
In general Unreal 3 was a big failure for the series. More people still play UT2004.

It was buggy and never quite felt right. UT2004 felt just fine.

I was a bit disappointed when I found out RO will be using this engine and knew that graphics wouldn't be up to par (and they are not, even though they put so much effort into it).

I'm willing to live with it BUT the game now takes UT3 bugs to a whole new level.

Personally it wouldn't been better for RO team to start off with Source engine. Physics are great and it just looks much better than RO2 (if you ask me). Just the movement itself in RO2 reminds me of COD/COD2, little awkward.

I'm not exactly sure sure if a full new engine implementation was in the budget (guessing not).
 
Upvote 0
In general Unreal 3 was a big failure for the series. More people still play UT2004.

It was buggy and never quite felt right. UT2004 felt just fine.

I was a bit disappointed when I found out RO will be using this engine and knew that graphics wouldn't be up to par (and they are not, even though they put so much effort into it).

I'm willing to live with it BUT the game now takes UT3 bugs to a whole new level.

Personally it wouldn't been better for RO team to start off with Source engine. Physics are great and it just looks much better than RO2 (if you ask me). Just the movement itself in RO2 reminds me of COD/COD2, little awkward.

I'm not exactly sure sure if a full new engine implementation was in the budget (guessing not).


They a received an Unreal license for RO1 winning the mod contest in 2005.

Source is beyond dated.
 
Upvote 0
Personally it wouldn't been better for RO team to start off with Source engine. Physics are great and it just looks much better than RO2 (if you ask me). Just the movement itself in RO2 reminds me of COD/COD2, little awkward.

Oh please god no. Please don't ever use the Source engine. Using the source engine is a pretty much guaranteed way of making your game look AND feel like it was made back in 2004.
 
Upvote 0
I'm curious, is the UE3 engine even made for this kind of game to begin with?

It just seems like its a very hard game engine to manage and apparently you don't get the greatest performance out of it.

To me it feels like they have just overloaded this engine with too much detail in the maps.

I just want to hopefully hear some facts about UE3, or maybe any info as to why they chose UE3.

what happened to gameplay over graphics? to me RO is the essence of that. but they kinda threw that out the window it seems.


The issues with this game are not cause of the Unreal Engine...
Truthfully i think the game runs and looks great!

They chose UE3 because they won a free commercial license when they won the Make something unreal contest with the first Red Orchestra.

They also made the game Killing Floor with the unreal engine

And yes there are many games similar too this on the unreal engine...

its not a bad engine or a bad game...There is just still a lot of work too do to get things just right....Its nearly impossible to get something working on absolutely every hardware/software combination...specially when your a small time company just getting your starts
 
Upvote 0
Source might be old but they are still putting out fantastic looking and performing games on it such as portal 2.

Yea, even DODS looks better than RO2 in my eyes.

I don't get why people hate on Source engine so much. Personally I think it's great.

Physics are awesome and probably some of the best in the industry.

They a received an Unreal license for RO1 winning the mod contest in 2005.

Source is beyond dated.

Well that explains it. Free is good.

Source is not beyond dated though, you are completely wrong. If that's the case then Unreal 3 is VERY dated.

:)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I think Ro2 has the best graphics/gameplay ratio out of any FPS I've ever played. They just needed some more organized beta tests, instead of beta players complaining about the product like it was finished instead of helping the cause. Even if it's past beta, they need a dedicated group of couple thousand players to test patches and updates.
 
Upvote 0
I've wondered about this for awhile now. What PC multiplayer game has done well on the UE3? I have a hard time thinking of them. UT3 was a dud. AA3 is another. But that game is beyond buggy, and has a bad dev team. I wouldn't call it a success either. UE3 is used in a lot of games, buuuuttttt most of them are console ports and none of them are really multiplayer focused. AvA or whatever...that F2P game is crap. It's popular only because it's free.


I think it's safe to say that UE3 is kind of a disappointment. BUT what does matter here is that RO2 has an awesome dev team that will support the game for years. I'm confident they can fix any issues they run into.
 
Upvote 0
Just the movement itself in RO2 reminds me of COD/COD2, little awkward.

Have you even played COD2/COD4? The movement on those games is absolutely flawless imo and so easy to get into. Going prone, jumping, turning ,leaning, aiming, sprinting, everything is FLUID and RESPONSIVE. Quake 3 engine is still MILES ahead of UT3. I get all tied up when I have to return fire to an enemy who's 10 meters away from me in RO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xendance
Upvote 0
The beautiful thing about Source is that I have never met a Source game I can't max out on my 6 year old rig and have run like butter, and Portal 2 was released a few months ago. How can Source be dated?

For me, Unreal feels like a clunky, monolithic relic from the old Quake/Doom days. It feels, well, unreal. I don't like it.

Plus, Source has MASSIVE mod support. Half of the content Valve has released in their free updates was made by the community. I do all of my mod work in the Source engine.

I love Source!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Somewhat Vague
Upvote 0
I just want to know where the concept of game play>graphics went with this decision to overload details on this engine.

Surely this engine is in no way meant to push the hardware curve. I can only assume RO players do not care about the game going into the "next generation" in terms of graphics.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Sources physics are that amazing huh? Yea' right..
It is true there was a time when the source engine was pushing boundaries and blowing minds. I'm sure we all remember! But the sad truth is, pre-rendered animations don't count.. When the blobs hit something they instantly turn into shotty 2D textures.. And speaking of textures you can't even read writing on the walls in Portal 2, IN 2011.

Anyways, I can't say I'm totally impressed with RO2 beyond the multiplayer. Which is incredible if you have the brain to play it! The graphics look a bit old school yea' but I dig it. I mean most games just use tricks to smooth things out, but the model detail in RO2 is really quite impressive.. Someone previously mentioned COD1/2 and I actually agree. In my mind RO2 was going to be the "true successor" of the good Call Of Duty games. Or the COD we never got, haha. And I feel like it really is.. I mean seriously do I need to post screenshots of BLOPS vs RO2? A lot of the details in COD are terribly laughable.. And RO2 still holds up to BC2.. Look for yourself. BC2 is still a step up from BLOPS because of it's great physics. It's too bad EA are a bunch of dicks and won't support the modding community. Which brings me all the way back to RO2 and where it's engine stands. In retrospect it really holds it's ground and as soon as they work out these bugs I'm sure things are going to be amazing. Please don't forget many great mods and advancements will be create throughout the life of this game, which will undoubtedly be a long life because of the fact.

Mind me while I go kill some mother ****ing Russian pigs.
 
Upvote 0
Have you even played COD2/COD4? The movement on those games is absolutely flawless imo and so easy to get into. Going prone, jumping, turning ,leaning, aiming, sprinting, everything is FLUID and RESPONSIVE. Quake 3 engine is still MILES ahead of UT3. I get all tied up when I have to return fire to an enemy who's 10 meters away from me in RO.

You made me laugh my friend. Fluid? You gotta be kidding me, the amount of clipping(quckly hitting prone-stannding-crouch) and jumping, clipping behind cover, sprint jumping and doing 360 all the time in mid air is insane, , that is why it feels "fluid". Most encounters result in jumping around each other trying to evade and hit the other guy. And well I have no problem whatsoever with the movement, after all it is trying to be realistic and not a quake strafing match(what cod2 basically is). The RO2 animations are IMo superb, especially the weapon animations.
 
Upvote 0