Jump to navigation
Sponsored by Alienware tracer
Advertisement

Unreal Engine 3 Interview

PC PlayStation 2 GameCube Xbox
Interview by Kristan Reed

1 July, 2004

'Unreal Engine 3' Screenshot 1

Ever since Unreal burst onto the scene over six years ago, Epic's technology has been at the forefront of gaming, providing the raw power for an increasing catalogue of games from its own Unreal series, then onto titles as diverse as Splinter Cell, XIII and even Harry Potter titles. Now onto the third generation (screenshots), Epic has been touring the globe over the last three months with its latest creation to offer a glimpse of what's to come in future generations of PC and next generation console titles. As part of a three-day stopover in London, Epic's main men Mark Rein (Vice President, the self-confessed business head of company), Tim Sweeney (programmer and founder), and Alan Willard (level designer) spoke to Eurogamer about how the technology is shaping up, their plans for an all-new non-Unreal-related title and the kind of horsepower gamers will require for their next-gen gaming.

Eurogamer: First of all, at what stage of completion is the Unreal 3 (engine) at the moment?

Tim Sweeney: Unreal 3 engine has been in development for [over] 18 months now. It's come a very long way - we've been developing next generation content with it very seriously for our next game for about six months. It's the tools that have come together. A handful of development teams are actually using Unreal Engine 3 for early development work and pre-production for their next games. But the first Unreal 3 engine game is planned for early 2006. There's a combination of next generation PC games and next generation console games in the works. The engine is in a state now where a team can start putting an early development team of 10 to 15 people on a project with the engine, ramping up to a full size team of 30 to 50 people over the next few months.

Eurogamer: Has anyone else confirmed projects using Unreal engine 3?

Mark Rein: No, not yet. No one's announced a single game using Unreal 3, not even us, in fact! So many of the developers using the next generation of technology are focused on next generation consoles, and of course those haven't even been announced, so I don't think you'll see product announcements for another four or five months.

Eurogamer: So, you're saying you're hoping to release early 2006?

Tim Sweeney: The first Unreal 3 engine games will begin shipping then.

Mark Rein: We don't put any restrictions on our licensees. If someone wants to ship a game for fall 2005, that's perfectly possible. We're just talking about our game, right, when we think we'll ship.

Eurogamer: You think you'll ship in early 2006?

Mark Rein: Yeah. Sometime in 2006.

Eurogamer: Will you ship on PC or next gen consoles?

Mark Rein: We don't know what platform we'll ship on first time, it's too early to say. The first game Epic is creating with this technology isn't in the Unreal franchise at all, so it's a little confusing, but this is Unreal Engine 3, the third generation Unreal engine. We have no current plans for Unreal 3, but eventually we'll do one. For sure we'll do another Unreal Tournament game, and we'll do it with this technology, but the big game we're making right now is a single-player-focused game in a totally new franchise, but it'll be a while before we can talk about it.

Eurogamer: How flexible is the Unreal 3 engine?

Mark Rein: I would say the third generation Unreal engine is even more wide open. You could make an RTS, an action adventure, first person shooter, third person shooter. Now we have the general purpose shaders system that you can pretty much not just stylise the materials on people, on characters and objects, but you can actually stylise the whole look and feel of the game very easily. You can easily make a gritty Film Noir feeling, or something that's really bright and colourful or cel shaded with not a lot of extra work.

Eurogamer: What benefits does this relationship with Nvidia bring to the project?

Mark Rein: The best benefit is we now have a card [the 6800] that can run this in real time and do Pixel Shader 3, which is a key component of what we're doing. It's pretty good that Nvidia's come along and is pushing this technology hard. We've had a long relationship with Nvidia and they've done a great job of keeping us on our toes and giving us new powerful toys to play with.

Eurogamer: We're always being told that this relationship doesn't involve any money changing hands, so what's the incentive?

Mark Rein: Nvidia's 'The Way It's Meant To Be Played' programme is basically a quality seal for customers to say if I own an Nvidia card - which the majority of gamers do - and I buy this game it's going to work and when Nvidia releases a new driver they probably would have tested it against it to make sure it still works, and that's really important for us, because it means that when our game shows up on people's screens, regardless of what Nvidia card they have, the best possible way it could run on that card - because they're not all equal in performance. And it also means that it's fewer support calls for our publisher, fewer returns at retail, so it's a very powerful thing that they do. The other thing they do is go and market games, they run ads for games because it's a shared interest - they want to get more people into playing games, and we want to get more people into playing games. The more people that play games the more chance we have to sell games. It's a really fantastic programme - they've been an absolute leader in that area.

Eurogamer: The owners of other cards will be asking what compromises will there be for their cards?

Mark Rein: None. It's not about making the game not run well on other cards. We'd be totally stupid to not run well on ATI cards. There are a large percentage of people who have those cards. We even have a software renderer in our Unreal 2 engine, so we can run on a 2D card! We'd be stupid to deliver a bad experience. We want to make the game run the best it can on every customer's system - that's our absolute goal, and not doing that doesn't help Nvidia any more than it doesn't help us, so that's something we always strive to do. We even run on Linux, we run on Mac. We work really hard to have the largest audience of gamers we can possibly have.

Eurogamer: What system would you have to build or buy to makes sure there are no compromises in an Unreal Engine 3 game?

Mark Rein: This is pretty much it, what we're running here. A really fast high end processor, either Intel or AMD, a GeForce 6800, half a gig to a gig of RAM would be good - pretty much a top of the line system right now. But by the time we ship games with this technology, that's going to be a relatively low-end machine. But the cool thing is, with Nvidia's SLI set-up, as we move into PCI express, even though that would technically, with a single one of those that might be at the relatively low end of the scale. You could just go out and - they'll be cheap by then - just go out and buy another one of these same GT cards and plop it in, connect them together and you've doubled your performance; you've now moved up to the middle of the pack in terms of performance, so that's pretty exciting.

Eurogamer: At the low end of the scale, what's the minimum you would need?

Mark Rein: We're pretty much aiming that if you're a real gamer and you want decent performance of this engine, that's pretty much where we want you to start. It doesn't mean that the game won't run on things that are less than that - of course we'll have some fallbacks for the previous generation of video cards and systems that don't have all that power, but it'll be like playing in software today. It's okay and it works and you don't have to return the game but it's not the optimal experience. We believe in that term 'The Way It's Meant To Be Played' and we really want people to have a good experience.

That's... not all, folks. Check back tomorrow for the second part of the interview, in which Sweeney, Rein and Willard discuss massively multiplayer games, next-gen consoles, licensing issues, and how its new technology ranks alongside Id and Valve.

Advertisement

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

Comments: 1-13 of 13 in total

Poster
Comment Low-scoring comments hidden. Log in to see them!
terminalterror
01/07/04 @ 14:38
#1
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Damnit, once Half Life 2 is out and you buy a new rig to play that, once Unreal 3 games start coming out you only have a low spec PC.
Xensor
01/07/04 @ 14:50
#2
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Lot's of Nvidia cock-smoking here... Let's hope the ATI solution is up to scratch...
oldfruit
01/07/04 @ 16:01
#3
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I'll look forward to the Atari/Tantalus port of Unreal III for my xbox in 2010.
Frank
01/07/04 @ 17:02
#4
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I can't wait for the day when these graphics look shit!
sir_tripod
01/07/04 @ 17:19
#5
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
quote: "We're pretty much aiming that if you're a real gamer and you want decent performance of this engine, that's pretty much where we want you to start."

--

So, we're gonna have to shell out a shit-load of money to get anything remotely like what's been shown to us. Yay!
3william56
02/07/04 @ 06:26
#6
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
The next few years are going to be an interesting one for graphics card companies. It won't be long before the performance of the cards is going to be so far ahead of what it's economical to utilise in a game, the upgrade cycle *must* grind to a halt. The next gen of consoles will be right up there with the economic limit - no upgrades there. And the rez of the monitor will be a limit too. So who's going to be buying new cards?

The only folks who will be supplying graphics models and environments detailed enough to stretch cards like these will be direct from movies. Which would be fine, except we all know the quality of the average movie game.

BTW: Why does C-12 Final Resistance always show up in the latest comments box? Is this the mother of all threads?
degust
02/07/04 @ 10:40
#7
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Geforce 6800 are better then Radeon X800 overall - that's a fact since i have them both :)

Well, RX800 may be a bit faster but that really doesn't matter when you're comparing 55fps to 60fps. And GF6800 has a much better feature set.

While i fully agree that FX series sucks hard, the new GF6 series has nothing to do with previous generation problems and these are a very good cards, not in any way worse than current ATI's generation.

And if you compare an individual cards, then you'll find out, that GF6800GT is significantly better than RX800Pro and that ATI simply doesn't have an answer to GF6800-non-ultra/gt. GF6800U is on par with RX800XT.

That's how it is now guys, you can start to forget about FX fiasco.
WoodenSpoon
02/07/04 @ 11:01
#8
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
By the time games with this engine come out I will probably want neither the 6800 or the X800.
degust
02/07/04 @ 21:46
#9
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Stud Lee

Don't try to talk about something you don't have any clue about -)

MSRP - ATI - NV
$499 - X800XT - GF6800U
$399 - X800Pro - GF6800GT
$299 - 9800XT - GF6800

Now look at my first posting. ATI has a considerably good offer only for $499 price point. GT beats Pro and 6800 simply demolishes 9800XT. Look for latest benchmarks on you favorite hardware site (i work on ixbt.com btw, it's a Russian hardware site with an english version on digit-life.com).

You can't compare cards basing on a quad count, you can compare ONLY basing on a manufacturer suggested retail price (aka MSRP).

No, X800XTPE is not overclocked, it just rare b/c ATI have troubles with getting r420 chips with 4 working quads. That's why we see so many x800pro's but not much x800xt's. Gotta mention that almost ALL x800pro's are resonably simple to overclock to x800xtpe level, so it's not a frequency trouble with x800xt's.

GF6800 on the other hand has a trouble with a production line at IBM fab in East Fishkill. IBM's just not very good when it comes to mass volume production. But that's gonna be fixed in time for back to school season.

Something like this.
penhalion
02/07/04 @ 23:44
#10
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Er

First off the X800 has a much lower power consumption than the 6800 so you can't realistically use a 6800 ultra in anything but a custom rig whereas the x800 has some leg room left in both the amount of transistors on the chip + the power stakes. A x800pro will happily live in any standard 250w power supply case, making it a straight replacement for a 9800xt board.

The 6800 ultra is pretty much at the limit of what Nvidia can do to ramp up it's speed short of giving it it's own power supply and water cooling rig (kind of stupid) after all who except a custom rigger has an 800w power supply in their system. I build server that have smaller power supplies than this to support 5 or more scsi drives for grud sake!

As for the 6800 having better features. This is a mute point as PS3.0 isn't going to appear in any games for at least 1 1/2 to 2 years at which point both of these cards will have bee superseeded by better and faster versions as both companies now follow a 6 month release cycle + ATI will have released their PS3.0 card.

Using rrp as a way of comparing the cards is in fact wrong as both ATI and NVidia confirm what markets their lineup is aimed at.

x800pro to 6800 - lowend
x800XT to 6800gt - midrange
x800XTPE to 6800u - custom riggers

Comparison should always be done on like for like as in low-end card to low-end card, mid-range to mid-range etc.

This is because prices are on a per manufacturer basis i.e. powercolor charge more for some cards than sapphire and visa versa. rrp is just that a recommended retail price which sellers are free to ignore and often do.
penhalion
04/07/04 @ 20:34
#11
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Kind of my point really who gives a flying $%^& what NVidia and ATI release today except NVida and ATI fanboys with more money than sense. Heck the human eye sees at 25 frames a second so why would I want a card that does 120 frames per second for UT2K4.

I would much rather the processing used to display the same frame to me 30 times as second was used to enhance the image quality with better lighting , fogging effects etc at a steady smooth 25/30 frames a second.

Sycle
06/07/04 @ 08:24
#12
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
penhalion - a common misunderstanding, while it's generally accepted/estimated that the human eye can perceive ~12 distinct images a second (hence 24fps being deemed acceptable for film) the eye uses a lot of tricks to get more information out of the scene. Fast moving objects on film blur, fast moving objects in videogames don't. We notice. If I remember correctly, people can notice the difference in smoothness up to about 90fps (so the argument for 60fps over 30fps is perfectly valid) although people trying to run their cards at 160+fps are possibly wasting their efforts.

Although that said, I kind of agree with you in that I'd prefer a game ran at a rock steady, properly vsynced 30fps than spiking wildly at a higher average FPS as I find the change in framerate to be more jarring to the experience than failing to hit those big benchmark numbers.
Kami
21/02/05 @ 22:23
#13
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Fuke? What's that? Some new slang word? Something coined by a celebrity? Can't you spell right? Or is it, as I suspect, you just didn't have the courage to spell it right and therefore get flamed into the middle of next week?

Comments: 1-13 of 13 in total

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

Get Games.  Download Great PC Games!

X View gallery