UT2003 visuals only on NVIDIA?

[Silent_One]

In an interview with Bill Rehbock over on HomeLAN the following was stated:

HomeLAN- What can you tell us about "The Way It's Meant to Be Played" program that we have seen in games like UT2003?

Bill Rehbock - The Way It's Meant to Be Played is a marketing program designed to promote PC games that play best on NVIDIA hardware. Games carrying the logo have been created and developed on NVIDIA hardware, providing a great experience right out of the box. In the case of UT2003, there are visual effects that can only be experienced on NVIDIA hardware. To date, more than 12 PC games have carried the logo, including top-sellers such as Unreal Tournament 2003 and Battlefield 1942 and many, many more will feature the logo this year

.
http://www.homelanfed.com/index.php?id=13702

Is this true. I mean I know Mr. Rehbock is NVIDIA's director of developer relations and is promotting NVIDIA's products, but what specifically is he refering to? Is this the supposed "Highest Detail Setting" which would need a 256MB card for, or what?

 

[Dave Baumann]

Asummung that what Dan Vogel and others have said here and elsewhere before, that there isn't any specific elements for NVIDIA that other similarly specced boards can't reproduce (that is the case isn't it Dan?) we could be going down the slightly tricky word game / marketting route.

For instance, UT2003 probably does have specific code paths that work for NVIDIA boards, which could lead to the claim that visuals produced via these code paths are only produced on NVIDIA board. Equally, there is a PS1.4 path for ATI boards that could lead ATI to claim that UT2003 has visuals produced specific to ATI boards.

 

[Ostsol]

Equally, there is a PS1.4 path for ATI boards that could lead ATI to claim that UT2003 has visuals produced specific to ATI boards.

Plus there's also TruForm support. . . Going even further, there's tripple-headed gaming support for the Matrox Parhelia. It seems that as far as vendor-specific features go (well, currently vendor-specific), ATI and Matrox have a better claim to UT2003 than NVidia does.

 

[Typedef Enum]

Couldn't it also be one of those deals where the game detects an nVidia board, and simply modifies the _default_ settings such that it raises the overall quality? And the only thing this guy forgot to mention was the fact that any guy with half a clue knows how to change the settings from within the game?

On a sidenote, I absolutely abhor the entire notion of that "The way it was meant to be played" garbage.

 

[RussSchultz]

On a sidenote, I absolutely abhor the entire notion of that "The way it was meant to be played" garbage.

I like the honesty. It says to me "we only really tested this on card X, anything else and it may play like ass".

At least then I know to avoid buying that product if I don't have the card.

 

[John Reynolds]

On a sidenote, I absolutely abhor the entire notion of that "The way it was meant to be played" garbage.

I like the honesty. It says to me "we only really tested this on card X, anything else and it may play like ass".

At least then I know to avoid buying that product if I don't have the card.

Unfortunately, in the case of UT2003 that notion will get you about 1/3rd the performance on Nvidia's best hardware than the competition's, if you use AA and AF.

It's marketing, no more, no less (the 'way it's meant to be played' campaign, that is). As such it's fairly worthless and little more than just potentially misleading.

 

[martrox]

On a sidenote, I absolutely abhor the entire notion of that "The way it was meant to be played" garbage.

I like the honesty. It says to me "we only really tested this on card X, anything else and it may play like ass".

At least then I know to avoid buying that product if I don't have the card.

Russ, I'm sorry, but I can't believe you said this. While I know that you are "somewhat" nVidia oriented, I cannot believe you "like" the way this kind of thing is going down. I can remember - way back - when Glide was condemned as being SO counterproductive(which I don't disagree with!).... primarily by nVidia supporters! Guess it only matters when it's not your favorite IHV.

 

[Evildeus]

He didn't say he like the trend in PC games, he said that he likes the honesty...

 

[BoardBonobo]

Russ, I'm sorry, but I can't believe you said this. While I know that you are "somewhat" nVidia oriented, I cannot believe you "like" the way this kind of thing is going down. I can remember - way back - when Glide was condemned as being SO counterproductive(which I don't disagree with!).... primarily by nVidia supporters! Guess it only matters when it's not your favorite IHV.

But didn't Glide only start to become counter productive when the playing field became level? As in other vendors developed hardware that could compete with 3dfx's kit along with the development of DX6. I think that's a slightly different scenario than having in game advertising and extra features for different cards.

 

[Arun]

Unfortunately, in the case of UT2003 that notion will get you about 1/3rd the performance on Nvidia's best hardware than the competition's, if you use AA and AF.

It's marketing, no more, no less (the 'way it's meant to be played' campaign, that is). As such it's fairly worthless and little more than just potentially misleading.

Not 100% true. The GFFX does look better in UT2003 than in many other apps - so I guess they did develop with nVidia hardware in mind more than ATI's hardware...

Of course, some people will think the other games are evyl and made with ATI hardware in mind, that is. But I've grown to ignore those type of people


Uttar

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Yes I notic the extra visuals on my NV20 vs my R300.

When the game runs at 2fps at 1280x960 with 4x FSAA on my NV20 it looks nicer because I just noticed the scenary.

On my R300, I am too busy running at 200fps to notice the scenary so it doesn't look so good.

 

[RussSchultz]

Feh on you. Learn how to read what I say, not what you want me to say.

I'd like every developer house to let me know what they've tested it on and what they've developed using so I can avoid the morons who only test one product or don't cross develop.

Since they don't do that, if they plaster endorsements on their product(which to me suggest "we're in bed" with said endorser, develop using said endorsers product, and likely only test with said endorser) and my video card is not endorsed, I'm not going to risk my $50 bucks on something that might run like ass.

p.s. I don't own UT2k3, and I don't have an NVIDIA card in my computer, so shove that "somewhat" up your arse.

 

[jb]

Not 100% true. The GFFX does look better in UT2003 than in many other apps - so I guess they did develop with nVidia hardware in mind more than ATI's hardware...

Oh you mean like when it does not render fog? Then yea I can see how that would make it look better as fog just gets in the way.....Just kidding

But remember a few months ago when Mark Rein said in an interview that there was the "speical nv30" mode or something? I thought we concluded that it was just increase in the texture quality that would push it over the 128mb limit and would only run on a 256 mb NV30 which back then was a popular romour. Maybe, IIRC, could that be it? (and thats a big IF I Remember Correctly)???

 

[SirPauly]

It says to me "we only really tested this on card X, anything else and it may play like ass".

Developed on nVidia hardware( card X) doesn't translate into we only really tested on nVidia hardware. That is what marketing wants the consumer to believe, imho, and you're offering the marketing message or theme, imho. I don't understand how nVidia's marketing translates into honesty in this example. It is also clear as a clean pixel that UT:2003 has been tested on other hardware and plays better for many without an nVidia based 3d product, imho. Certainly doesn't run like ass, but nVidia would want the consumer to think so -- one would suspect, imho. It is titles after all that fuel 3d upgrades, imho.

I agree that these "way it is meant to be played" marketed games may be tested more on nVidia hardware than others due to these marketed titles are developed on nVidia hardware. Certainly doesn't translate into we only really test on nVidia hardware and be very careful because if you don't have an nVidia 3d product these marketed games may run like ass. I see marketing........ I don't see any honesty.

 

[Dave Baumann]

There's actually not necessarily any guarantee that it was developed or tested more on NVIDIA hardware, and in the current climate that may be more likely not to be the case. What it does suggest is that NVIDIA's dev rel have offered help and there are probably some NVIDIA specific paths in there (which does not precule a generic path being just as good, or other specific paths).

 

[Tahir2]

Just cos it says, The Way It's Meant to be Played don't assume it was tested more on NVIDIA's products.

In fact how could it have been thoroughly tested on the GFFX considering the release date of the game.

 

[Tahir2]

Another thing I have just been benching UT2003 on the GFFX 5200 and the filtering mode (Quality setting) looks absolutely atrocious in motion.

Weird.

 

[Pete]

In the case of UT2003, there are visual effects that can only be experienced on NVIDIA hardware.

I think he means either OGMSAA or the lack of gamma-corrected RGMSAA.

 

[Arun]

In the case of UT2003, there are visual effects that can only be experienced on NVIDIA hardware.

I think he means either OGMSAA or the lack of gamma-corrected RGMSAA.

Let's summarize that by "World Leader In Aliasing", shall we?


Uttar

 

[Evildeus]

Is this the supposed "Highest Detail Setting" which would need a 256MB card for, or what?

I would bet on this, till 5200/5600 comes out with 256 Mo of RAM.