Make People Like UT3

[Bi()ha2arD]

Originally Posted by Icy

tam in ut3 would be odd

What's wrong with it?

[oldkawman]

Originally Posted by Icy

tam in ut3 would be odd

Why would it be odd? What about freeze tag?

[GreatEmerald]

Originally Posted by Sir_Brizz

I think you're heading off in the wrong direction there, mang.

Hmm, what do you mean?

[Bort]

Originally Posted by GreatEmerald

while UT3, that at least had good graphics and was original enough with opponents and history, get only this much attention?

[N1ghtmare]

Originally Posted by GreatEmerald

Hmm, what do you mean?

Unreal Championship 2 was released in 2005, and was using UE 2.5, which had better graphics than UE2.

[Sir_Brizz]

Left 4 Dead has better graphics than UT2x.

[GreatEmerald]

Originally Posted by Sir_Brizz

Left 4 Dead has better graphics than UT2x.

From what I saw, it has the same graphics as UT2KX, with weapons being low poly. Maybe that depends on the settings, though?

[Sir_Brizz]

Surely. I'm betting that both games on low look terrible.

[Northrawn]

TBH, L4D looks much better than UT2kX (and I am a huge 2kx fan).

[xMurphyx]

Originally Posted by GreatEmerald

Hmm, what do you mean?

a) it doesn't matter when they made the content. What matters is when the game was released. You are comparing it to games of its time and from those other games you take the release date too and not a random date during its development cycle.
b) UT2004 looks a lot better than UC1 and I'm not even talking about the resolution. It's not as apparent in the maps UT2004 still has from UT2003 which are also in UC1, but even in those the textures are a lot sharper. There is even a difference between UT2003 and UT2004 although it's a lot smaller than the one between UC1 and UT2004. Again, the textures are slightly sharper and the maps that are new in UT2004 also pack more graphical punch than the UT2003 ones.
c) thus you can't just take UT2004 and say it is a 2001 game just because a twin product of its predecessor was in development in 2001.

You can compare the looks of UT2004 and Left4Dead and maybe argue that Left4Dead doesn't look that much better (although it's hard to compare as they look nothing alike), but that doesn't mean Left4Dead looks like a 2001 game.

To get back to your original train of thought:
I also prefer UT3. I think it looks fantastic in every sense of the word and I enjoy how it plays. I also enjoy it as a co-op game and as bare-bones as the campaign may be, my brother and I are on our third way through it (Normal, Hard and now Insane) and we play Instant Action together and against each-other as well.
I like the idea behind Left4Dead's survivors but the game itself never really appealed to me enough to make me want to buy it. Most likely not a bad game. Just not something I am interested in at the moment. Its popularity is probably due to it being a zombie game in a time when zombie games and mods were extremely popular; it being a co-op game when good online co-op games were relatively rare (especially on the pc); it being very polished and it being released by a reputable company as Valve. As it's co-op the peer pressure to get it ("you must get this game so we can play together") was probably higher than average too and with its low system requirements and its non-full-price price the threshold for people who were on the fence was a lot lower as well.
All in all it was the right game in the right time.

[GreatEmerald]

Originally Posted by xMurphyx

All in all it was the right game in the right time.

Very interesting! And that leads to the question: when was L4D actually released?

[JohnDoe641]

Why don't you google it and found out?

[Grobut]

Originally Posted by Northrawn

TBH, L4D looks much better than UT2kX (and I am a huge 2kx fan).

L4D does have some advantages like bumpmapping, which definately makes a difference, especially over a 2004 game.

But here's a more apt comparison: L4D versus Killing Floor, an UE2.5 game made recently, and with more comparable artstyle.

Now KF also lacks bumpmapping, and there again it's at a disadvantage, but beeing more recent, the poly counts are better, and the game makes much more liberal use of effects like combiners and specularity masks and the like, on the whole, i'd say it's pretty clouse to the graphics quality of L4D, the only thing holding it back is the lack of true Bumpmaps.

But thouse could be added to the engine, a mod team managed to add it to a Half-Life1 mod called "Paranoia", because they had the soucecode to the Quake engine, it's doable, and if the UE2.5 engine was to become a lot cheaper, chances are that small indie developers would use it, and modify it, and we could definately see something very interesting come out of that.

[Sir_Brizz]

For all we know, Epic is planning something better than that.

I can't even remember why we started talking about this... but I don't think there is anything wrong with having a cheaper version of the engine available.

[Dogger]

Originally Posted by GreatEmerald

Nobody asks you to play with DoF/Bloom. I like having it off, too.

The thing is, id rather have them turned on but not overly done as they are. It seems that somewere down the line people started thinking that our eyes work like camera lenses.

[ambershee]

Technically, they do - but not to the point where it needs to be emphasised in games. Lens flares are the one that get me the most -now eyes never do those.

[Sportaçus]

I posted in this thread.
I repeat, I posted in this thread.

[Bort]

Originally Posted by Icy

I posted in this thread.
I repeat, I posted in this thread.

Stop posting.
I repeat, stop posting.