Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Dima

Unreal Engine Versus Quake 3 Engine

Recommended Posts

It seems that Quake 3 engine CRUSHED UT engine COMLETELY!!
Just look at the games:
1)Fakk 2 Heavy Metal (Increduble Graphics,VERY SMOOTH FRAMERATE)
2)Startrek Voyager Elite Force (Increduble Graphics,VERY SMOOTH FRAMERATE)
3)Alice In Wonderland (The best graphics I EVER saw,VERY SMOOTH FRAMERATE)
Now let's look at UT engined games:
1)Rune (So so graphics,No Curved Surfaces and VERY slow perfomance)
2)Deep Space Nine (Bland blocky graphics and INCREDUBLY slow framerate)
I can go on and on...
Quake 3 engined games that look MUCH better than Unreal engined games also run MUCH faster!!! (And I don't mean only on Geforces I also mean Voodoo 3,Voodoo 2,TNT 2,TNT and so on...)
And now when id found a new way to push the engine to it's limits (check out Robbert Duffy's last update) the outdoor enviromens are even bigger and prettier than Unreal ones!!
Unreal engine LOST comletely and the ones that does not agree on that are just STUPID!!
There can't be any more arguements which engine is superior (and I still think Q2 engine is superior than Unreal engine)!
Deadnail there is NOTHING better in the unreal engine now!!!
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!
u can agree on that or not the FACT STILL remains!!
No offence man but if u EVER thought that Unreal engine is better in even one tiny thing u were WRONG!!
I hope u realised ur mistake and won't say again that there are some things better in unreal engine cause there AREN'T!!

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Dream Destroyer

Both engines are constructed so differently, that each one has it's own benefits. Yes, there is stuff in the ORIGINAL Unreal engine that is better than the Quake 3 engine. Levels in Unreal don't take a year to compile. Unreal supports colour lighting in software mode. Unreal still has support for software mode, which is good for people who can't afford hardware acceleration. Unreal has skybox's, which allow for greater customization of your world. I could go on, but I think you see the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Dream Destroyer

This isn't taking into effect that UT runs smoothly on my Pentium 200mmx with a voodoo 1. Where as Quake 3 won't run at all, and if it did, it would be a slideshow.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Dream Destroyer

Boo ya!

Share this post


Link to post

Forget everything he said!
We agreed on ICQ that he didn't know some things about Quake 3 engine (that it has portals for example)

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Dream Destroyer

Yah, the portals I had wrong, but I didn't mention them. Everything else I mentioned is proven. I may not have known Quake 3 had portals, but I knew everything else.

Share this post


Link to post

1)U did mention Portals!
2)For these that still have Software Video Cards it is their problem!!
They should have found at least a Voodoo 2 at trash near them!
3)Software is BAD!!
Quake 3 has moved on to the next level while Unreal stayed at previous!
4)Skybokes can be already found on soon to be released Zdoom 1.23 which is built by the way on the sources of the original Doomengine!!
So implementing skyboxes in Q3A shouldn't be a problem at all!!
5)So basically all u said is WRONG except Software mode which is ANCIENT anyway!!

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Dream Destroyer

No, it isn't wrong. I don't care how easily the features could be implemented, the fact is that they aren't. Point proven, Unreal does have things in it, that are better than the things in Quake 3. Which makes your statement that Nothing in UT is better than in Quake 3 seem shallow, and just wrong.

Share this post


Link to post

You are the one who is WRONG!!
UNREAL DOESN'T HAVE FEATURES BETTER THAN QUAKE 3!!
PERIOD!

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Dream Destroyer

Quake 3 DOESN'T HAVE SKYBOXS. Unreal DOES. SKYBOXS ARE GOOD. BETTER THAN WHAT QUAKE 3 HAS. POINT PROVEN. That is the bottom line. With a claim like yours, I only need one point to win, and I got it.

Share this post


Link to post

Well think about this for example:

I have an AMDK6 200 with 32mb of ram and a 4 meg piece of shit accelerator that can do 3dfx. Sure, it takes about 5 mins to load UT, but it runs as smooth as hell on high resolution 3dfx rendering.

Meanwhile, Quake 3 doesn't even come close to running on my machine! Besides, UT engine has beautiful graphics, who gives a shit if the Q3 can do certain small things better.

It's not the engine that makes the game fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Dream Destroyer said:

Quake 3 DOESN'T HAVE SKYBOXS. Unreal DOES. SKYBOXS ARE GOOD. BETTER THAN WHAT QUAKE 3 HAS. POINT PROVEN. That is the bottom line. With a claim like yours, I only need one point to win, and I got it.

1)JC can imlement them in 1 day!!!
2)UT ENGINE SUCKS!! POINT PROVEN!!
3)The Geometry is limited and the levels are blocky!
THE TECHNOLOGY IS DATED!!

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Dream Destroyer
Psyonisis said:

Well think about this for example:

I have an AMDK6 200 with 32mb of ram and a 4 meg piece of shit accelerator that can do 3dfx. Sure, it takes about 5 mins to load UT, but it runs as smooth as hell on high resolution 3dfx rendering.

Meanwhile, Quake 3 doesn't even come close to running on my machine! Besides, UT engine has beautiful graphics, who gives a shit if the Q3 can do certain small things better.

It's not the engine that makes the game fun.

Which is a very good point. Let's not even get started on the gameplay features that UT has that Quake 3 doesn't have. Both games have their benifits. Which one is better is personal opinion, nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Dream Destroyer
Dima said:

1)JC can imlement them in 1 day!!!
2)UT ENGINE SUCKS!! POINT PROVEN!!
3)The Geometry is limited and the levels are blocky!
THE TECHNOLOGY IS DATED!!

Can implement them, BUT DIDN'T.

Share this post


Link to post
Dream Destroyer said:

Which is a very good point. Let's not even get started on the gameplay features that UT has that Quake 3 doesn't have. Both games have their benifits. Which one is better is personal opinion, nothing more.

Let's not even start talking about features Q3 TA has that UT doesn't!

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Dream Destroyer

But that isn't what this arguement is about. Look at it this way, in a arguement, you make a claim, and then the opposers attempt to prove you wrong, if they prove you wrong, then you lose the argument.
Claim: Quake 3 is better than UT in EVERY WAY.
My argument: UT has skyboxs, Q3 doesn't. Skybox's are better than the picture sky's of Q3. Therefore not everything in Q3 is better than in UT.

Q3 TA isn't part of this arugment, that's a addition to the original game. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Dream Destroyer said:

Can implement them, BUT DIDN'T.

WHO CARES!!
THEY DOESN'T DO ANYTHING ANYWAY!!
QUAKE 3 TECHNOLOGY IS THE BEST!!

Share this post


Link to post

The sky in Quake 3 is better looking than the stupid ugly cartoony sky in unreal

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Dream Destroyer

I'm done my arguement, your too bullheaded to see my point, further aruging would prove nothing. I've stated my points. It's over.

Share this post


Link to post
Dream Destroyer said:

No, it isn't wrong. I don't care how easily the features could be implemented, the fact is that they aren't. Point proven, Unreal does have things in it, that are better than the things in Quake 3. Which makes your statement that Nothing in UT is better than in Quake 3 seem shallow, and just wrong.

u know what alright!
Unreal has skyboxes and Quake 3 doesn't have!
but I still think that despite that the sky in Quake 3 looks better!

Share this post


Link to post
Dream Destroyer said:

This isn't taking into effect that UT runs smoothly on my Pentium 200mmx with a voodoo 1. Where as Quake 3 won't run at all, and if it did, it would be a slideshow.

Uh, I've got a AMD 233 overdrive (so basically a 486 motherboard) and Q3 runs like a dream.

This is with a Voodoo 3 2000 card and 96 megs RAM though...

Share this post


Link to post
Dima said:

1)U did mention Portals!
2)For these that still have Software Video Cards it is their problem!!
They should have found at least a Voodoo 2 at trash near them!
3)Software is BAD!!
Quake 3 has moved on to the next level while Unreal stayed at previous!
4)Skybokes can be already found on soon to be released Zdoom 1.23 which is built by the way on the sources of the original Doomengine!!
So implementing skyboxes in Q3A shouldn't be a problem at all!!
5)So basically all u said is WRONG except Software mode which is ANCIENT anyway!!

Sure skyboxes are possible with Q3 - there's an example skybox in there that isn't actually used in the game but does look pretty good. It's Quake 2's space skybox with weird purply clouds laid over it - I've used it in my own Q3 maps and it looks great.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest elyuca

Dima, you have the best way to prove things, you tell everybody!!!!! The Quake 3 engine:
1. Was developed by a GOD, John Carmack
2. Was developed by a company who practically invented FPS 3d engines.
3. I dont care what anybody says, when I look at a Q3 level and then I look at a UT one, it makes me want to take a shit on UT.

So everybody can agree, skyboxes, or no skyboxes, I dont give a shit, Q3 still looks better that the ugly ass UT engine, which is just a patched up version of the Unreal engine. And the only engine that will ever look better than Q3 will be Doom 3, so my point is prooven, nobody will EVER beat id in developing 3d engines in the next couple of decades!

Share this post


Link to post

This is fun...

OK, OK people!!! The thread´s responses are leading to the wrong end. Look at the title of the topic, it´s called "Unreal Engine vs Quake 3 Engine". This isn´t about "UT´s better than Q3A or viceversa", it´s about the technollogical aspects underneath. Dima already know that i´ll bet everything i have for the Q3 engine, altough i believe that Rune had beatiful graphics.

Let´s look at both engines.

1. Texturing: JC & Sweeney have pointed that the future of texturing on engines will be based on multi-layered blendings and computer generated textures. We can´t keep expanding texts limits to insane amounts like 1024x1024. Even a 64 MB accelerator would suffer death quite rapidly with that giant true-color surfaces stored. So, what we have already? We have normal texturing, upgraded with stuff like anysothropic filtering, mipmapping & bi/trilinear filtering. Then there´s the detail texturing, a Multiply-blended tileable texture that enhances microdetail on proximity. Then there´s UT engine classic algorythmic effects, like the fire/water distortion. The force fields, all those litlle effects. Both engines have lightmaps, so, let´s focus on Q3A incredible advance : shaders.
For those who don´t know what are shaders, shaders are small scripted sequences that allow a group of textures to be blended using any OpenGL filter that you wish, and also allows the geometry of the brush to suffer modifications. An example, the breathing NURBS, the water and lava effects, the monitors displays, the reflecting glasses, the portals, the metal shading on the levels & on Minx suit, the energy that crosses Angel, Flisk, and Gorre models, the jumppads FX, even the sky functionality.
BTW, Q3A have Skyboxes, as Lord Flathead noted. Those are made using shaders, in fact, the one he mentioned it´s one of the official shaders/sky entries. You can make the sky be anything you want.
I think Q3A it´s the clear winner here.

NURBS : I don´t know why so many people don´t take this feature seriously. NURBSs aren´t just to make flesh pilars. Everytime you see a rounded desk, those are NURBSs, everyime you see a beatiful pipe, it´s a NURBS. Gate archs, building corners, curved walls, cilindrical rooms... see the power of NURBSs?
For the first time, there´s a light change on the standard blockiness of FPSs, things that are supposed to be round, now look round.

Terrain generator : Well, this feature had just entered Q3A engine, and it looks beatiful. It´s also equiped with blending capabilities to archieve smooth transitions between altitude-based textures. They speak of almost same fps, so Im pleased.
The Q3radiant grid have been expanded, so the classic BIG levels of Unreal could be ported fairly easy.

Compiling times : Yes Q3A takes more time. But that´s because it´s well planned. Visibility is designed to retrieve maximum possible fps on any point of the level. It takes a lot of time to process, so as RAD, but that´s not a real problem. Just a night with the machine turned on. Even Sweeney knows that the VIS algorythm on UT engine it´s wrong. It worked perfectly on the MMX era of Unreal, but now is dragging back UT´s capabilities. He´s working on that, anyway.

Hardware specs : Sure, Q3A want´s more power than UT, but the results confirm that. Nobody speak of Software Mode, cause it´s unsupported, looks ugly, and it doens´t really archieve nice framerates, unless you have a very good CPU, and a 3D accelerator as primary video adapter.
Remember when the original GeForce came out? Q3A became a dream, while UT suffered from Z-buffer problems.

I really respect Tim Sweeney. I have enjoyed games like Deus Ex and Rune, and sometimes i was marveled because of the graphics they presented me. The inner issues of the UT core are being solved right now. It wasn´t really Sweeney fault, it was company desicion to upgrade certain aspects of the engine before those. I hope Unreal engine keeps in the map as much time as iD software engines. Why, you ask? Well, competition leads to more progress, and many companies who know to make great game designs doesn´t know how to work under Q3A. It´s a tough engine, only Raven, Ritual, Rogue & Valve had ever worked with that platform. UT have more documentation, as people who´s willing to bring technicall support for the programmers.

Even Sweeney says, "iD´s still first on technollogy, and Epic´s second".
JC is da man, Q3A engine rules. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest elyuca

I didnt bother to read, but i do agree with the bottom part that JC is #1, Sweetney is #2.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest TheJediYoda
Dream Destroyer said:

Boo ya!

ok after reading most of the posts on this topic, i have notice many of you are probally Quake3 players (as well as i) more than UT player, in my opinion as a level designer i would have to say that each engine has its on advantage and disadvantages over each other, for expample the UT engine can handle wide open areas better than the q3 engine, and one main argument that most people use is that Q3 has curve ablities and UT doesn't etc, u can't reply to a topic "Unreal Engine Versus Quake 3 Engine" if you are totally agaist UT or Q3, You have to look at both of the engines and find what each engine does better that the other, not just to state that the Q3 or UT is totally crap because bla bla bla.... etc get the idea, so if feel both engine have the good and bad point about them, and just because and engine doesn't get used for other games doesn't mean is crap, i feel most developer use a particular game engine because yes it is good but also if it is popular, a way of getting say q3 player to play "ST-V Elite force" etc, i think most UT hatters will buy a game with a q3 base engine that a UT one, which i yes silly but that what my point is, that a company will look at current sales and say "oh quake3 has 80% of FPS sales, let use that engine" it something that people will buy know the engine of the game is good in their own (not anyone elses) opinion,because its something familiar to them as either a Q3 player or UT player :)

fin...
heh :)

TheJediYoda

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Dream Destroyer
elyuca said:

I didnt bother to read, but i do agree with the bottom part that JC is #1, Sweetney is #2.

I'll also agree that Q3 is better than UT. The only reason I argued is because UT does have some features that Q3 doesn't, which makes it worth playing.

Share this post


Link to post

Deus Ex was a very nice looking game made using the unreal engine. The only obvious advantage of the engine, as far as I can see, is skyboxes though.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
×