• Join Us |
  • |
  • Sign in with:

Latest News

UT2003 Demo Update

by Maarten Goldstein, Sep 04, 2002 6:27am PDT
Related Topics – Unreal Tournament 2003, Demo, CliffyB

Hey about that, another Unreal Tournament 2003 demo update. CliffyB with the post about the maps and gamemodes that will be included. Though, "We could be more than 2 weeks away still".





Comments

39 Threads* | 144 Comments*













  • BTW ClffyB followed up that post with another....

    Vidona is a better looking map than Asbestos but it is too small for the demo. FWIW Vidona has been renamed to Oceanic. (easier to remember name)

    I initially replied to the thread because everyone jumped the gun and assumed we were hours from release. We're not.

    Go play Battlefield 1942 or Mario Sunshine in the meantime.

    Bottom line: It's just a video game. Don't care *too* much.

    FYI - demo size - looking like it will be under 100 megs.

    Cliff


    So he agrees, go play BF1942.










  • I'm glad to hear it's coming along. I'll have battlefield 1942 to play till UT2 comes out, and honetly I'll be playing quite a bit of BF1942 AFTER UT2 comes out, it's all good.

    All I care about right now is that UT2 (at least the demo) makes it out by the CPL's cutoff date. I'm not going to go to go if they're not having the UT2 tourney, so I want to know either way before the signup deadline hits.

    Considering that UT2 has no real competition for the forseeable future as far as pro gaming goes, it's still important that they get started off on the right leg. If they miss the winter CPL event, it will be 6 months before another huge pro event rolls around that has any chance of hosting a serious UT2 tourney.

    Actually, one thing I do want to know is how big will the demo be? I have broadband so it doesn't really matter, but if the final full install wiht 30 maps is 3 gigs, then a demo with 4 maps will be (3,000 Megs/30 Maps=100 megs/map x 4 maps=400 megs?) I know there's more to the game than just textures and map data and all, but that stuff takes up the bulk of the space doesn't it?

    Anyway, I think it's funny that they switched the release dates with U2, and now UT2 is slipping so far back that it's going to come out at nearly it's original date. I think it's safe to assume that U2 will slip at least a little... I wouldn't be suprised if they still try and get it out before Xmas, but I also wouldn't be suprised if U2 slips to Q1 or Q2 of 2003. Heh, then we can call U2 "U2-2003" :) Just to be annoying. It would be especially amusing if UT2003 slipped all the way to 2003... would they change the name of it to 2004 then?