No announcement yet.

System Requirements for UT2003

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • System Requirements for UT2003

    In case you hadn't seen this around, these are the system requirements for the game that everybody is waiting for:

    Operating System: WIN 98/ME/2000/XP
    CPU: Pentium III or AMD Athlon 733MHz processor (*PentiumĀ® or AMD 1.0 GHz or greater RECOMMENDED)
    Memory: 128 MB RAM (256 MB RAM or greater RECOMMENDED)
    Hard Disk Space: 3 GB
    CD ROM or CD/DVD ROM: 8X
    Audio System: Windows compatible sound card (*Sound BlasterĀ® Audigy(tm) series sound card RECOMMENDED) (NVIDIA nForce or other motherboards/soundcards containing the Dolby Digital Interactive Content Encoder required for Dolby Digital audio. Also RECOMMENDED)
    Video System: 3D Accelerator card with 16 MB VRAM (*32-128 MB VRAM RECOMMENDED) 16 MB TNT2-class DirectX version 6 compliant video card. (*NVIDIA GeForce 2/ATI Radeon RECOMMENDED) DirectX version 8.1 (Included on game disc)
    Multiplayer: Internet (TCP/IP) and LAN (TCP/IP) play supported. *Internet play requires a 33.6 Kbps or faster modem

    WOW... 3GB of hard drive space? It looks like it will be pushing our systems a bit harder than the old stuff ever has. :)
    Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill
    My Toys

  • #2
    that would have to be the most demanding game to date, wouldn't it?

    Comment


    • #3
      As far as I've seen so far, but who can say what the future will hold? I think we'll be seeing a lot more games with these kind of requirements pretty soon, though. As the graphics keep getting better and the textures get more complicated, the system will have to be able to maintain a higher power rating to handle the workload. :)

      But then, that's why they call us enthusiasts, isn't it? :)
      Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill
      My Toys

      Comment


      • #4
        So the vid card minimum is a 16 MB TNT2-class ??

        Man thats gotta be embarrasing for Epic, because the Q3 suggested minimum was 8 Meg TNT-class and that was TWO and a half years ago!

        And btw, the vid card minimum for Doom3 is a Geforce3 Ti200.

        Comment


        • #5
          So is mega amounts of RAM going to help you with these requirements? (ai 1 gig or more)

          Comment


          • #6
            No, not really, the 3 gig install space required, just means lots of lots of textures. MOH:AA was just a quake mod with LOTS of textures and its base install was 1.2 Gig.

            And the proof is in the pudding, with a TNT2 minimum vid card required, anyone who is happy with how their computer runs Q3, will be just as happy with it running UT2003.

            No upgrades needed here! ;)

            Comment


            • #7
              Thanks for that. Looks fairly reasonable to me. For almost every game out today, ignore the minimum requirements and look at the recommended requirements. That's the kind of system you'll need to get the game running at barely acceptable resolution/detail levels.

              And let's not forget that the original Unreal Tournament had a lot of scalability built in. Even playing the odd game of UT now, I still love the second disk S3 textures and all the tweaking options available in the .ini file to crank up the details.

              I'm sure UT2K3 will have the same depth.
              My Machine

              Comment


              • #8
                I cant see how this works.
                Higher the system requirements=better the game

                stupid.

                Any serious gamer will have more than enough grunt in their box to run whatever comes out on the market. The hype should be focused on gameplay and enjoyment factors, not whether game x will need a gf3 minimum or not. How does that offer any accuracy what-so-ever to the games worth?

                Game requirements have got to be the most innacurate stats ever created. They exist purely to sell a product. Joe Blow with his 3k dell pc he brought 2 years ago wants to play a game, he picks up the latest game, sees the specs are well within his limits and purchases it. The game runs ****, he ends up having to run it lowest possible resolution possible @ lowest detail possible.

                Gee, like that scenario has never happened before. :rolleyes:

                The fact that Epics game-engine can run on the most archaic video card known to man should tell you that the engine has scaleability, not a deformity.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Looking back through the responses of this thread, I can't see where anyone claimed that a game that requires more power is a better game. The topic of the thread was the high end workhorse of a machine that will be required to play this new game at an acceptable level.

                  And while scalability is a great thing in gaming, it still will require more and more horsepower to run the added number of textures and vertices in the newer 3d models.
                  Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill
                  My Toys

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Also to the fact that people who actually spend all the money on a high end system want to see something worth-while for their results.... No point going out and getting a brand new P4 with GF4, and then going home and playing Zork 'because it's got better gameplay'...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      FFS a 16MB TNT2?!?
                      Like someone said, i cant see it working (at any decent speed/detail) without a GF3 or R8500LE minimum

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I agree with Beefy.

                        I also believe that there is no need to wallow in the past. Q3 has been out for 2.5 years, no need to do a remake of it. And when UT came out, Q2 had been out for 2 years, and UT was graphically Q2 with botched gameplay and an array of weapons designed to attract newbs. Which had all been tried already in a Q2 mod called "Chaos Deathmatch" Damn near ALL of the UT weapons are included with that Free mod.

                        And I agree with BZ. It IS all about gameplay, but if UT2003 suffers from the ailments shared by UT, HL, CS, etc, Then I don't see any improvements being made as far as gameplay. But I will without a doubt, buy it and give it a shot. I'm a huge fan of competition.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Once again, I'll say things come down to personal opinion. I liked UT much better than Quake 2 / 3.

                          Here's a question though... If something looks terrific, but plays the same as everything else, then is it a better gaming experience? Not necessarily better game play... just a better experience?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Darthtanion
                            Looking back through the responses of this thread, I can't see where anyone claimed that a game that requires more power is a better game.
                            Nobody said it in those words, but it is pretty obvious given the other threads on this are of the board.

                            gameplay vs game experience is a bit of a grey area. Depending on how you look at it, they can be the same, or be entirely different. I see them as being in different worlds. q3a was an experience. I saw through the pretty colors and 'wow his head just flew past my mine' crap and realised this just isnt what everyone had raved about for the year or so before it was released. It was dull, repetitive and yet horribly addictive and popular. With UT (and other games, UT is just one and many examples) I saw gameplay. I needed to have my brain turned on to achieve results. The game stimulated me in ways q3a never could/can.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I ran UT2k3 on my bros pc which has a TNT2 32MB at 640X480 and the slow framerate was unbearable. I'd say I was getting an average of around 10-15 FPS. I don't see a TNT2 being anywhere near suitable for playing UT2k3.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X