PDA

View Full Version : UT2007 a bit too dark?


kafros
21st May 2005, 01:47 AM
I just had a look (actually 10 successive looks) at the new gameplay video for UT2007 http://media.pc.ign.com/media/746/746632/vids_1.html

I found it a bit dark. I couldn't really tell where players were.

I can understand that a darker enviroment shows better the shadows and the lighting effects. But for ONS gameplay (which was the gametype in the video) it was very difficult to pick up things in the distance.

Even the darkest "dungeon" spots on some DM UT2004 maps are not that dark.

Maybe just pushing up the gamma slider is all that it takes but I have a feeling this is what it will look like in terms of luminocity.

Wowbagger
21st May 2005, 02:27 AM
Dont worry there will be mods out giving us 1337 brightskins so we all can look like teletubbies on crack :tup:

Bullet10k
21st May 2005, 02:39 AM
Its night time and +, the video was really low quality (unless YOU are a subscriber). So you couldnt really tell. But the sides in the beginning part looked like good hiding places, perhaps that is on purpose for stealth?

Bullet10k
21st May 2005, 02:41 AM
O yea, I dont want those UGLY bright skins for UT2007, UGH, ugly pink Gorge.

Discord
21st May 2005, 04:30 AM
Dont worry there will be mods out giving us 1337 brightskins so we all can look like teletubbies on crack :tup:

Yeah, you're probably right. That was one of my first reactions to the video as well.

On the upside, though, that's just one map... I'm sure there will be some daylight maps as well, since that was the going thing in UT2k3/4.

The darkness is probably there in an effort to woo UT99 holdouts.

And yeah, there are video issues there as well. Nothing's set in stone just yet...

iron12
21st May 2005, 05:15 AM
Could they put more crap in the way.

Maybe a few more broken down cars.

Majik
21st May 2005, 06:51 AM
What better way of showing us what the new engine is capable of is there than to build a huge freakin' city map with lots of detailed geometry? And we all know cities look better at night (with all the shiny neon lights etc.), right? Well, I think that was their intention anyway.

But seriously, they only showed us one map. A map set in an immersive city at night theme rich with detail and lustrous lighting and given the new engine's capability, I think we're going to see a lot of other interesting new themes. This particular map/theme is somewhat dark (although it's hard to really tell how dark), but I figure there'll be plenty of bright maps as well.

hal
21st May 2005, 11:39 AM
That's a Conquest map too. Remember, it's a cross between AS and ONS with a little tug-o-war thrown in. Lots of the UT2004 AS maps had tons of debris lying about. It's probably one of the few gametypes that allows you to fill up like the maps like a single player level.

It did look dark to me too, but I'm not worried about that at this point. If I start to see CTF and DM maps that are ultra dark then I'll worry. :)

iron12
21st May 2005, 11:52 AM
UT2007 a bit too dark?

Maybe they will add flashlights. :lol:

Twisted Metal
21st May 2005, 02:35 PM
Or maybe some headlights on the hoverboard :D

Hell why don't we go all out and make it NFS:Underground style, I for one am going to be putting neons on my hoverboard, how about you guys?

Raden
21st May 2005, 03:08 PM
UT2007 a bit too dark?

Maybe they will add flashlights. :lol:
I wonder if they've figured out how to hold a flashlight and a gun at the same time in the future. ;)

Olga
21st May 2005, 03:14 PM
You all suck if you didn't see the video on TV. The levels aren't dark in the least, but the ones online have bad gamma.

-AEnubis-
21st May 2005, 03:21 PM
I was more concerned with the RoF on prime shock...

Doikor
21st May 2005, 03:21 PM
Just put in the gamma in the settings like in ut2004 and im fine :D

hal
21st May 2005, 03:25 PM
I saw the trailer on TV and it still looked a little dark to me.

I'm fine with darkness as long as the player characters are large enough to see and contrast well with their environment - at least for DM and CTF. If they want people hiding around in Conquest and Onslaught that's fine with me.

Kantham
21st May 2005, 04:36 PM
Dont worry there will be mods out giving us 1337 brightskins so we all can look like teletubbies on crack :tup:

Yeah , damn darkness.....

Xipher
21st May 2005, 06:08 PM
It could be dark due to the fact its being recorded in some fashion to be shown on TV? I don't know what method they use to capture the video, but that could be some of the cause, since I don't think the guy actually playing it saw it that dark (as he fires at guys I can't even see).

JohnDoe641
22nd May 2005, 02:05 AM
It could be dark due to the fact its being recorded in some fashion to be shown on TV? I don't know what method they use to capture the video, but that could be some of the cause, since I don't think the guy actually playing it saw it that dark (as he fires at guys I can't even see).
That just might be the case. As with screenshots, iirc the gamma setting in the game does not transfer over to 3rd party apps ex: screen shots are always darker than in-game. Perhaps this is true for video capture as well. D:

iron12
22nd May 2005, 08:23 AM
Maybe if the headlights on the scorpion worked.

I see the brake lights and the back up lights worked.

BooGiTyBoY
22nd May 2005, 01:12 PM
1) Seems movement is a tiny bit faster than 2k4, also the dodges seem to travel quite a ways. Looks like they took a happy medium between 2k4's normal dodge and a dodge/jump.
2) Yes it's dark... whatever. So is 2k4. Put your brightness and/or gamma up
3) Not too fond of the scorpions front blades... takes the fun out of skidding out and catching someone on your blade during the spin. That's just me.
4) RoF on the manta and raptor seems rather juiced up. Don't know if that's good or bad. I can sit here and say "oh that sucks blah blah" but we have no idea how much damage each shot does so...
5) Well so much for new versions of weapons. RL and SHock look exactly the same function-wise. Even the projectiles themselves look almost exactly the same... just the weap models have changed. Booooooo!!!!
6) Doesn't look like they fixed the scaling too much, but it just might be the vid (crosses fingers and hopes it's just the vid)
7) Morgan Webb needs to get those huge honkin' dumbo ears of hers pinned back already.

Xipher
22nd May 2005, 01:34 PM
1) Seems movement is a tiny bit faster than 2k4, also the dodges seem to travel quite a ways. Looks like they took a happy medium between 2k4's normal dodge and a dodge/jump.
Aye, although I think dodges don't go nearly as far (in the video, the dodge went from one side of his screen to the other, and the guy was pretty close, so thats what? 5 feet?
3) Not too fond of the scorpions front blades... takes the fun out of skidding out and catching someone on your blade during the spin. That's just me.
Yea, but I can see why they might put them up there.
4) RoF on the manta and raptor seems rather juiced up. Don't know if that's good or bad. I can sit here and say "oh that sucks blah blah" but we have no idea how much damage each shot does so...
Yea, from the looks of it, I don't think its all that much, since he must have gotten quite a few pumped into that tank before he blew it up, and the tank didn't get destroyed
5) Well so much for new versions of weapons. RL and SHock look exactly the same function-wise. Even the projectiles themselves look almost exactly the same... just the weap models have changed. Booooooo!!!!
Umm, the Shock hasn't really changed at all in function since the original UT (maybe even Unreal, didn't play it) and thats because thats how people like it. The only change I have seen is with UC2, and that was the ablity to "stop" the balls mid air. I think they got the Shock, Rocket, and Flack all fine, no need to change and piss off fans.
6) Doesn't look like they fixed the scaling too much, but it just might be the vid (crosses fingers and hopes it's just the vid)
Well, the demo was of a conquest map, which I think are ment to be much larger and open, have to wait and see how (T)DM and CTF play out later
7) Morgan Webb needs to get those huge honkin' dumbo ears of hers pinned back already.
:rolleyes: I think she looks fine :con:

-AEnubis-
22nd May 2005, 02:20 PM
The scaling was up quite a bit.

...and for some reason when I saw the manta fire, I got the impression that it was like some special burst type attack, and not the normal fire. Maybe an alt fire, considering we can use crouch/jump for it's elevation changes.

Majik
22nd May 2005, 02:41 PM
I'm just hoping, if it was the primary fire and it wasn't burst fire, that the splash damage have been toned down so players are able to jump or dodge while being shot at. That goes for both the manta and the raptor.

Either that or I'm hoping splash damage won't limit movement as much as it does in UT2k4, as it's one of the things that irritate me the most in UT2k4.

hal
22nd May 2005, 03:36 PM
Here's a thought:

Perhaps in an effort to balance things out, Epic has increased the abilities (rate of fire, burst shots, etc) of the vehicles a bit more. As it is right now, a player on foot with a decent amount of cover has a pretty good chance against a vehicle. Some vehicles are totally useless against someone with good hitscan abilities.

Giving the player a hoverboard gives a respawning player a chance to get to a vehicle his or herself. Maybe with the increase in number of vehicles, this incarnation of Onslaught (and Conquest too) will depend more heavily on vehicles as it should.

Keep in mind - I don't know that to be true. Just a thought.

-AEnubis-
22nd May 2005, 04:37 PM
Yeah, I've debated that myself. Though I've never really taken a solid opinion on how/if I think that should be changed. The fact that I, well equipped, and on foot, can usually hold my own against multiple vehicles, barring a Goli, or Levi, does seem a bit odd, and can also be quite un-balancing if my team is making good use of vehicles, but unless they change the way vehicles are handled, that ability is almost necessary.

I see it needing to go one of two ways. If vehicles are beefed up to more consistantly take on lots of infantry: A) There needs to be much less of them then there are now. or B) There needs to be enough for everyone at almost all times.

Considering how gameflow in current onslaught almost makes fast manta travel from node to node a necessity, then maybe having beefed them up, is a bi-product of having less of them, and as well, making the "hoverboard" or something like that neccessary, so that even if you don't have the offensive power of a vehicle, you still have a means to get where you gotta go.

Just hope user maps account for these things.

Vault
31st May 2005, 11:51 AM
i like the dark look. I thought most of the UT2004 maps were to bright

gregori
31st May 2005, 12:39 PM
the problem with ut2kx maps was the lack of lights and darks and varied lighting,
every thing was a dull flat mix of browns and greys, this is mostly because they used to many static meshes which can only do flat vertex lighting unlike bsp,
The real time lighting will probably make the static meshes look solid and realistic for once! Ultimately you cant have to much darkness in a multiplayer game because its not resident evil or doom and the focus is on speedy shot for shot battles between you and your opponent!

krjal
31st May 2005, 08:40 PM
i like the dark look. I thought most of the UT2004 maps were to bright

ditto

And you can have something look dark and gritty AND still be able to see things. Amazing, I know.

H20WingZero
1st Jun 2005, 02:54 AM
The primary RoF on the shock looked really fast. That's sort of bad, considering it'll be abused again hitscan wise with top players, but that would have to depend on how upclose these fights actually are (scale of the dm maps at least).

Black_Seeds
1st Jun 2005, 03:26 AM
how about you guys?
Hydraulics

EL BOURIKO
1st Jun 2005, 05:03 AM
O yea, I dont want those UGLY bright skins for UT2007, UGH, ugly pink Gorge.

Agree, bright skins only helps one kind of players (long range skilled players) while it really disadvantage another kind of players (ambusher)

I don t care to have it a bit dark if it helps to get the balance right.

Nosnos
1st Jun 2005, 05:46 AM
the problem of long range domination isnt the brightskins fault, you can see the opponents just as well in UT and isn't nearly as dominated by long range battles as UT2003... imo it's the scale of the maps fault and the weapons... as it is now you got three awesome long distance weapons in the LG/Shock/Mini... so you dont need to go into close combat if you dont want to and because of the large maps it often takes quite a long time to get close to your opponent... just using the shock/lg is often enough to dominate a map... They seem to be fixing the scale issue for UT2007 with the nerfed movement I just hope they make the needed changes to the weapons as well...

Oh and about the darkness in the game I agree that it's hard to see the models in the video but it's only a video and I really hope that they are going to make good teamskins this time so that the picking of a model doesnt effect how well you do... perhaps they need to add a "competitive mutator" with brightskins/hitsounds themselves? would be much better than having to use something like UTComp/TTM...

carmatic
1st Jun 2005, 08:36 AM
how about they use the realtime lighting with brightskins, like they literally light up their surroundings with their team colour and you can see specks of team coloured lights in the distance where the players are...

krjal
1st Jun 2005, 09:12 AM
That'd be kinda scary though. Like having a giant spotlight on you for the entire match...

Nosnos
1st Jun 2005, 09:20 AM
I think that the most important thing (for me and many other competitive gamers) is that the skins have the same visibility everwhere... players shouldnt be able to hide in shadows since that isn't what the game is about to "us"... that's bascily why I want a competitive mutator made by Epic with those kinds of settings... it would just make everyones lives so much easier ^^

EL BOURIKO
1st Jun 2005, 11:56 AM
I think that bright skins are really killing the fun of the hunt... everything becomes like a duel in the old west, BUT I am not sure that everyone is looking for that in UT.
I would like to imagine how good would be a tiger in the jungle with a purple fluorescent skin !!! we would just destroy the nature of the tiger then because he could not use the terrain as he should do!!!
that s what we do in UT with bright skins, we just skip a entire side of tactic based on ambush, brain and good use of the terrain to make it a simple and basical (and in IMO not fun) duel in an open field. Bright skins are just made for a kind of players who really believe that it is the way it have to be because it s the way it fits their own skills ---> UNFAIR

8-4-7-2
1st Jun 2005, 12:22 PM
Brightskins aren't too bad when you turn their brightness nearly almost down. Then you can still see the texture detail on the model without it being a uniform blue/pink

But better yet, they should just make the standard team colors a bit brighter or standout. In UT2004 they were too subdued, and that led to the creation of brightskins

EL BOURIKO
1st Jun 2005, 12:32 PM
I agree, a compromise between regular skins and bright skins as they are now in UT2004 should be surely a wise option

carmatic
1st Jun 2005, 07:02 PM
i think that theres an important difference here between spotting an enemy, and aiming effectively at an enemy... like, i know this first hand because i have a very lousy lcd monitor which needs alot of contrast to be able to show moving images properly, and altho i can aim reasonably on an enemy visible on screen, there are alot of times when i simply cant see where the enemy is, and i end up using my good aim to shoot at where i think the enemy is ,when my view is changing and im moving around myself, and worse still if my enemy is shooting spammy weapons at me , especially the flak cannon because the flak has got such a bright colour and when my enemy is in a dark place right behind the flak i wont be able to see him

FireCrack
1st Jun 2005, 08:06 PM
In that case you can only get a better moniter.

EL BOURIKO
2nd Jun 2005, 12:13 AM
not everyone have problems with their monitors, so that s why I keep on thinking that brightskins is not something totally fair for everyone...

FireCrack
2nd Jun 2005, 12:16 AM
Yeah, ofcourse, i was refering only to the previous poster.

Nosnos
2nd Jun 2005, 01:50 AM
At least if brightskins are used everyone sees the opponents just as well as the next guy and the hardware or eyesight of a person doesnt have less of an impact on how well they do...

carmatic
2nd Jun 2005, 03:35 AM
well, i mentioned my monitor because its the most extreme case of the situation, as in everyone would have problems aiming at someone hiding in the dark, its only harder for me... i think that the game should have a way of 'spotting' someone, as in if you look at someone for long enough, that person begins to light up, maybe for everyone else to see but maybe only for you to see so you can see him clearly... but if they manage to not catch your attention, they stay at their ambient brightness , allowing them to use shadows etc to let them hide

EL BOURIKO
2nd Jun 2005, 05:02 AM
you should be able to hide in the dark, because it s a part of the game too.
I don t think that people should be highlighted once spotted because you deny the fact that they keep on using the terrain at once you know that they are in some special places.
I think that we have to understand that maps are made of clear open areas and dark areas...
So instead of bright skins, why not having only open areas?!?... Where would be the fun then? We should save this hiding opportunity that dark areas can give and we should understand that not everyone are long range skilled players. if we want a wide range of different gameplay to be used then we should drop brightskins to make it possible.

EL BOURIKO
2nd Jun 2005, 05:05 AM
the only thing i could see as an acceptable solution instead of brightskin, an infra red filter on the secondary fire of the lightning gun:

MuLuNGuS
2nd Jun 2005, 06:00 AM
hmm...i've never understand the usefulness 4 neon looking brightskins.

people argument that they can see the enemy better with brightskins,
wtf..if you can see the enemy better than the enemy can see you better too, there is no advantage.

same with shadows: when the enemy can hide in shadows, you can hide in shadows too, lol

in contrary, real time lightnig/shadowing gives more ingame tactics.

i want a nice real looking environment, not neon-brightskins bunnyhopping in a simple box.

carmatic
2nd Jun 2005, 06:01 AM
or some other gun that can highlight people through the scope... so yeah, if there is an infra red filter thing, then you combine the not-getting-spotted aspect of hiding in the dark, but instead of the player lighting up when you spot them, you manually turn on the infra red and start fragging away like you would if you could see them properly...

MuLuNGuS
2nd Jun 2005, 06:04 AM
yep,

thats a nice idea :)

Nosnos
2nd Jun 2005, 07:56 AM
Well the things is that many gamers doesnt want UT to be about hiding in shadows, if they want a game that is about sneaking up on your opponent they will play something else. If you want the game to be about hiding and camping then ofc you dont want skins that arent effected by shadows or light... But if you want the opposite then you want those kinds of skins... that's why I want it in a mutator, a competitive mutator or whatever you want to call it which enables settings that suits the players that want a more "oldschool" approach to the game... And just as a side note, you can be extremly sneaky even if you play with brightskins you just have to think a bit when doing it since you cant just sit down in a dark area and be invisible... Making hiding in shadows a balanced things is only possible if you cant change the gamma and things like that since people could abuse it and remove shadows while other plays with them on and gain a huge advantage...

Im generally not a big fan of mutators, but one will be required if they make the skins like they were in UT2003/UT2004. And then I would rather see a that an official one made by Epic becomes then standard rather than a mut made by the community

EL BOURIKO
2nd Jun 2005, 10:35 AM
first, if ever one day the people from epic could pick up the infra red scope idea, I would not think that it would be a good idea to have it on several weapons, but just ONLY one of them, the lightning gun for instance since this weapon already have a scope.
Second, I think that those who wants to play on their long range skills must just then play on the most open fields of the map they re playing in or the most highlighted parts of it and avoid the dark areas if they don t like them. On the other hand those who wish to avoid snipers should keep on playing in the dark area and take advantage of it. I think that often, Epic has been smart to provide well balanced maps for both long range players and close combat players, why should a bright skin mutator destroy this balance? it s a kind of tyranny to claim that only long range is worth and that the rest is crap. It s what some people say in a way when they claim that everything HAVE TO be seen from any distance. They just want the whole game to fit their own skills and they don t try to understand some other alternative tactics... it s respectless. Next step: Maybe they suggest a mutator that freeze everyone who does not play with long range weapon too!!! ;).

Nosnos
2nd Jun 2005, 11:10 AM
As long as it's in a mutator it's optional so whats wrong about it? People who wants to use brightskins now uses UTComp just like they used TTM for UT2003. The same people will use another mutator (if needed) for UT2007 but it will not be forced upon anyone, just like it isnt forced upon anyone now...

I dont think the domination with LG/Shock is caused by brightskins, the problem was the same before we even had brightskins and it's still a problem in the gametypes that dont use UTComp as well. Epic seems to have figured out since they are nerfing the movement so they can make smaller maps so that close range weapons are more useful...

Going to be really interesting to see what they do with the weapons though, to make it a bit more balanced so that LG/Shock isn't so useful in closecombat anymore...

8-4-7-2
2nd Jun 2005, 11:45 AM
In clanmatches UTComp is often forced on you if the other clan insists to have it on. And a lot of clans do just that.
Arguing about it either results in endless whining and discussion, or in no match at all

Nosnos
2nd Jun 2005, 12:20 PM
Sure, but it's up to the league and it's players to decide on the rules... everyone will never be 100% satisfied and even if you play with UTComp you can still use the Epic Enhanched Skins which looks great and are still as visible as the neon skins..

H20WingZero
8th Jun 2005, 05:28 AM
Brightskins could possibly have some sort of part to do with Shock/LG dominance. The brightskin colors are adjusted by the user's choice to what he/she reacts best to; in other words without the brightskins, a player wouldn't react as fast with the Shock/LG long range since I'd have to say most of the time it would be semi-hard to see. The same could be said with the user adjusting the GAMMA/BRIGHTNESS which some people are too lazy to experiment with - prolly what led to "TTM & UTCOMP Brightskins". TBH, I've played 95% of my UT2004 time with Brightskins, the other 5% in servers that don't have it. To me, there's hardly much of a difference depending on how you adjust your brightness and gamma settings (for me, i don't touch brightness, just the GAMMA.)

Maybe part of the problem also could be the lighting on the maps. I was speculating a few times in UE3 a couple of weeks ago on most of the maps, with experience with UE1-UE2 editor - at least on Compressed I was convinced that there is lack of good placements where some lighting should be around the map. But that's for you to find out yourself, not really in the mood to further prove this little theory.