Yeah, TF2 is real substandard with its 5177 US players (right now) vs. UT3's 169. Silly Valve and their crappy games.
They are 'radically different' in the perceived style those games offer.Saying that UT3 was bound to fail is a bit negative, JaFO.
Sure, arena shooters aren't the hip thing they were way back anymore, but the genre isn't dead. Far from it. I think if you look at most popular FPS games, there's an arena FPS at the base of them....
It's not like these games are radically different from what UT3 offers.
It's the movement, high speed and unique playstyle that UT and Quake offer that set them apart, not the arena 'genre'.
Like I said ... it wasn't exactly a popular genre. And when you get stuff like you just mention then things won't exactly be in its favour.I can see four main reasons why UT3 is what it is.
1) Release alongside three or more mega-hyped, more 'hip' competing titles on the same platform.
2) Playerbase. Most players playing UT3 are veterans and will pound the everliving cr*p out of new players.
4) Us. We just can't stop talking about all the bad things about UT3...ON A FREAKING UT3 FAN BOARD. How ridiculous is that?
I don't, because (2) and (4) still exist.I really do believe that this game will pick up.
If not, that's a damn shame and I'll have to go back to the current wave of noobified games.
There's a point where talking about what went wrong and what could be better is pointless. I think this point was reached weeks, if not months ago.
Aside from gameplay/patch suggestions, there is literally nothing we can do to improve the launch of UT3 by talking about it all day.
I think that part of its success is that that the majority simply liked the game for what it was when it was released.I hate to bring up Battlefield 2 again, but I'll do it anyway.
That game was MESSED UP when it was released. Despite screwed up punkbuster integration, horrible load times+menu, gargantuan system requirements, seriously unbalanced and one-sided gameplay and COUNTLESS bugs and glitches, people played it....
You know why that is? People gave the game a chance....
The “Single player = immersion and story; multiplayer = gameplay and fun” quote and sig says otherwise.
I think that the reason for UT3's lack of success is the genre it represents.
Yeah, TF2 is real substandard with its 5177 US players (right now) vs. UT3's 169. Silly Valve and their crappy games.
UT3 doesn't have that many players, but you and I both know its more than 169.
please define 'consolized' ... because to me the best thing that a pc-game could achieve is to become more like the console-experience : a game that works ...The reason for UT3's lack of success on the PC is that the game was consolized. The game play itself is good but everything else around it was awful at release and most of it is still awful:
Since I play off-line that never bothered me although I have to admit that some of the problems mentioned do make it look like something from the Quake1-era of gaming.The server browser was horrendous.
Lack of settings was and still is an advantage IMHO.The user interface is clunky and slow, and it offered few settings tweaking options. You shouldn't have to wait while the main menu loads and youshouldn't have to leave a server to check the server browser, etc.
I beg to differ. The organization of this game was transparent as it complied to official Windows-standard.The organization of the game's folders and files was also bad and not very transparent, making it difficult for players to manage custom maps and mods.
I doubt it.If Epic had given us a real UT99-2 with the same gameplay as UT99 but with same game types as UT3 (with the addition of Invasion, Assault, and UT99 Domination) and the UT 2004 user interface, server browser, and file structure, then UT3 could have been a hit.
And that's good in what way? None. The standard Windows method doesn't even allow you to keep your game installs on separate partitions/drives. To even make the folder tree navigable I had to create two shortcuts on my own which just adds to the clutter.I beg to differ. The organization of this game was transparent as it complied to official Windows-standard.
That is and always will be a silly myth that has no backing. Anyone who plays UT for more than two hours will easily understand why. The problem is it's different, and currently this difference is not popular. How, pray tell, is COD4 less point-and-clicky than UT? Tactical shock combos and rocket spirals vs. yet another game filled with three-round, instant-hit bursts? If the gaming community cared to understand this, UT wouldn't be niche.1. UT is nothing more than a point-and-click-fest than requires no brain power.
Somehow the notion got out there that being good at COD4 and CS was some sort of achievement even if that's not really true.
COD4 < CS < UT in terms of skill. The same twitch pew-pew that dominates the first two is still present in UT, as well as a host of other necessary skills that aren't present in the first two.