What direction do you want the next UT game to go?
- Thread starter pinnacle
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
The biggest problem with the vehicle game types is they attract a whole separate player base from the original UT arena shooter mind set.
How many people seriously post in these forms and start talking about "what this game needs" or "what tweaks they would make" and start ranting about vehicles, orbs, and nodes, like they are a stock part of all gameplay? I count quite a few, and I think there in lies the problem.
ONS/WAR simply isn't UT. Makes me almost think maybe that should be released and focused on like a separate game.
How many people seriously post in these forms and start talking about "what this game needs" or "what tweaks they would make" and start ranting about vehicles, orbs, and nodes, like they are a stock part of all gameplay? I count quite a few, and I think there in lies the problem.
ONS/WAR simply isn't UT. Makes me almost think maybe that should be released and focused on like a separate game.
I've noticed this. Some of those types of people go into threads giving advice on how to get better stating tactics about raptors and tanks when the guy is asking about how to improve his DM skill set.
Kinda silly, but it is indeed a problem.
They should dump UT entirely and bring back a souped up XMP!! Imagine XMP on the new engine? Knowing these guys, they would screw it up!!
The guys who made xmp need to get up some funds, license the engine, and make it it's own game, instead of doing the conversion mod thing. That game is good, but way too different from UT to work as a total conversion mod IMO.
Please explain to me, how will it make Unreal (the core game unreal: DM, TDM, CTF, 1v1) more popular if we remove some more gametypes?
Wasn't that one of the gripes with UT3? That it offered less content than it's predecessor?
I guess the general idea is that if you remove the vehicle gametypes, people will be forced to play the traditional gametypes. There's something wrong with that assumption though: they still have to buy the game.
All that a division like that would fix was some misunderstandings in forum topics. I don't see that as a good enough reason to lose even more players.
Let's face it: The oldschool deathmatch shooter is exactly what the name implies: oldschool. Meaning that it isn't something that would generally be released today. And there's good reason for that:
Today's gamers want something different. They want a more cinematic experience. They want 'tactical, realistic' gameplay, whatever the hell that means.
They want Co-op. And preferably with the graphics as pretty as they can be.
Also, dare I say it, they want their games easier.
While it might be slightly less 'hardcore' (god I hate that word), I'm not one to judge them based on that. They simply enjoy those games more.
What the vehicle gametypes did for UT2k4 is bring in more players. Players that I described above, who were attracted to the idea of tactical battles on large battlefields with vehicles and air support etc.
Some of those thought the game was too frantic and left.
Others played only vCTF, ONS and Assault.
Others still fell in love with UT and started playing the traditional gametypes as well.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and speculate that at least a quarter of the UT2k4 players belong to that last group.
Alienating this group from the next UT by means of separating the vehicle gametypes from the 'real' UT, or even removing them altogether, will not fix the playercounts for UT. It will diminish them even further, or split the community between these two versions.
My guess is that there will always be those who enjoy the arena-type games when introduced to them. While we shouldn't count on loads of new arena shooters being released every year, we can still play the classics.
What COULD be done is this:
1) The community should be as helpful and friendly as possible. No yelling n00b, pwnd, or other semi-insulting terms. If the choice for a gamer is to either try learning that new 'hard' game that they rather enjoy and be laughed at for not being pro, or just going back to getting cheap kills in CoD6, that choice is easily made.
It's the developer's job to make the game as fun as possible, it's ours to do the same for the community.
2) UT should innovate. I agree that every other game has vehicles nowadays and that it won't make everyone queue outside the shops for UT4, but there are other additions and innovations possible for UT. These are also possible without disrupting the core gameplay that long-time fans have come to love.
HOWEVER, and this is a big however, the (semi-)/(wannabe-)pro scene is known to be stubborn.
While I agree that UT99 was a very good game, I don't think the next UT should necessarily be a better remake of UT99: We already have UT99 and can go play that when we want UT99-style gameplay; let the sequels offer something different.
Hell, as long as Epic keeps in mind who the fans of UT are and what kind of games they like, they can probably come up with something that might be not very much like UT99 at all, and still very competitive and frantic and fun, most importantly: very unreal.
The balance is in retaining what people love about the game, and changing the rest up.
Hmm...I had a third point in mind, but I forgot what it was while typing the last section.
TL;DR
The vehicle gametypes probably increase 'traditional gametype' playercounts if anything because they introduce new people to them. Removing these will only alienate part of the UT players and kill the community even more.
Wasn't that one of the gripes with UT3? That it offered less content than it's predecessor?
I guess the general idea is that if you remove the vehicle gametypes, people will be forced to play the traditional gametypes. There's something wrong with that assumption though: they still have to buy the game.
All that a division like that would fix was some misunderstandings in forum topics. I don't see that as a good enough reason to lose even more players.
Let's face it: The oldschool deathmatch shooter is exactly what the name implies: oldschool. Meaning that it isn't something that would generally be released today. And there's good reason for that:
Today's gamers want something different. They want a more cinematic experience. They want 'tactical, realistic' gameplay, whatever the hell that means.
They want Co-op. And preferably with the graphics as pretty as they can be.
Also, dare I say it, they want their games easier.
While it might be slightly less 'hardcore' (god I hate that word), I'm not one to judge them based on that. They simply enjoy those games more.
What the vehicle gametypes did for UT2k4 is bring in more players. Players that I described above, who were attracted to the idea of tactical battles on large battlefields with vehicles and air support etc.
Some of those thought the game was too frantic and left.
Others played only vCTF, ONS and Assault.
Others still fell in love with UT and started playing the traditional gametypes as well.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and speculate that at least a quarter of the UT2k4 players belong to that last group.
Alienating this group from the next UT by means of separating the vehicle gametypes from the 'real' UT, or even removing them altogether, will not fix the playercounts for UT. It will diminish them even further, or split the community between these two versions.
My guess is that there will always be those who enjoy the arena-type games when introduced to them. While we shouldn't count on loads of new arena shooters being released every year, we can still play the classics.
What COULD be done is this:
1) The community should be as helpful and friendly as possible. No yelling n00b, pwnd, or other semi-insulting terms. If the choice for a gamer is to either try learning that new 'hard' game that they rather enjoy and be laughed at for not being pro, or just going back to getting cheap kills in CoD6, that choice is easily made.
It's the developer's job to make the game as fun as possible, it's ours to do the same for the community.
2) UT should innovate. I agree that every other game has vehicles nowadays and that it won't make everyone queue outside the shops for UT4, but there are other additions and innovations possible for UT. These are also possible without disrupting the core gameplay that long-time fans have come to love.
HOWEVER, and this is a big however, the (semi-)/(wannabe-)pro scene is known to be stubborn.
While I agree that UT99 was a very good game, I don't think the next UT should necessarily be a better remake of UT99: We already have UT99 and can go play that when we want UT99-style gameplay; let the sequels offer something different.
Hell, as long as Epic keeps in mind who the fans of UT are and what kind of games they like, they can probably come up with something that might be not very much like UT99 at all, and still very competitive and frantic and fun, most importantly: very unreal.
The balance is in retaining what people love about the game, and changing the rest up.
Hmm...I had a third point in mind, but I forgot what it was while typing the last section.
TL;DR
The vehicle gametypes probably increase 'traditional gametype' playercounts if anything because they introduce new people to them. Removing these will only alienate part of the UT players and kill the community even more.
Last edited:
I think, though, that that is the perfect opportunity to try to introduce those people to another way or playing the game.
I know it doesn't happen much now, but several years ago it used to be the case that someone would jump in IRC and be invited to "try out" some other gametype and be shown why their tactics in another gametype won't work in that one. I guess most of us arre too busy during the day to take the time to do that, but that is what used to make the UT community so great.
I believe that, thanks to UT200X's lackluster release, that most of the "old school community" that proactively upheld those ideals have moved on to greener pastures. But that doesn't mean that we can't do whatever we can to keep it going. UT used to be a community of friends more than a community of casual/pro-wannabe/pr0/pro gamers. most of us (including me) could do better at doing our part to help bring that reputation back around.
Splitting vehicle and non vehicle gametypes up just seems like a poor idea. The same basic gameplay mechanics work just fine between the two modes, all that really changes is strategy/tactics employed. I realize that soldier->vehicle balance is one or the other extreme in most cases, but those are the cards for this game. Learn how to deal with them. Nobody won a game of blackjack by complaining that it wasn't as fair as poker.
Dark Pulse
Dolla, Dolla. Holla, Holla.
And vehicle vs. soldier gameplay is pretty balanced, as it is. Soldiers can no longer shock-rape vehicles, and frontal assaults rarely succeed, yet it is still possible for a skilled player to take down nearly any vehicle on foot. It's not easy, of course, but it's entirely possible to destroy a Darkwalker on foot. The sole exception is probably the Leviathan and that's because it has so much goddamn Armor.
That's not to say it's PERFECT, but it is very balanced. The "unfairness" is due to tactical errors on the soldier, usually, like going after a Manta with the Enforcer.
That's not to say it's PERFECT, but it is very balanced. The "unfairness" is due to tactical errors on the soldier, usually, like going after a Manta with the Enforcer.
Meh. I don't really dig the current vehicle - soldier balance. Not that its "unfair", its actually fine, just that it makes Warfare sometimes feel more like a Vehicle Deathmatch rather than a War. There are less on foot player vs player battles between troops, except for the occasional squabble building a node.
Perhaps there could be a vehicle balance with more troops and fewer, more powerful vehicles. It doesn't seem right that a single person can bring down a Darkwalker or a Goliath, but a squad certainly should be able to. I think the should be more seats on some of the vehicles, so they can play more of a supporting role rather than being a deathmatch weapon.
Another thing that could be cool in a future UT would be modular vehicles. Instead of vehicles having fix weapons and parts they would have a basic shell with several empty slots. In each of these, different weapons, upgrades and parts can be added to visually and functionally alter the vehicle.
Perhaps there could be a vehicle balance with more troops and fewer, more powerful vehicles. It doesn't seem right that a single person can bring down a Darkwalker or a Goliath, but a squad certainly should be able to. I think the should be more seats on some of the vehicles, so they can play more of a supporting role rather than being a deathmatch weapon.
Another thing that could be cool in a future UT would be modular vehicles. Instead of vehicles having fix weapons and parts they would have a basic shell with several empty slots. In each of these, different weapons, upgrades and parts can be added to visually and functionally alter the vehicle.
Last edited:
I'm just saying I think if you go to the store to buy a game, you are going to buy either a large scale vehicle combat game, or an arena shooter. I don't think there are enough people on the fence who would be happy to be able to try the other one out for free because it's included.
Also, why not buy a separate game for each when your fairly certain each game was developed independently of the other, and hence more thoroughly? I think id had the right idea releasing there Quake Wars as a separate title. I'm not sure how successful it was, I know I tried it and liked it. I just don't think I liked it more than BF so I didn't buy it after demo. I also figured more of my friends would play BF with me, so...
By doing that, id left themselves open to tweak their weapons appropriately for vehicle combat, and didn't have to use the same set of weapons and their stats for arena vs vehicles. I think that's a flaw with UT3, even despite how well I think they have done it.
I just think less content should breed more polish, and keeping in one genre of shooter will keep a more defined community. I think maybe their flagship game for the engine should be a nice polished up warfare, where there is only warfare conquest, and they sell it that way, and they provide a web based arena shooter for free or virtually free, with the 3 core game types, a few maps, and and editor.
Some even argue that UT's online success had a lot to do with being able to get it for free. So give us something with decent, but not top of the line graphics, so everyone can play it, and since it's old tech, don't charge for it, so literally EVERYONE can play it. I think quake zero has a good idea going, I just like UT so much better.
Also, why not buy a separate game for each when your fairly certain each game was developed independently of the other, and hence more thoroughly? I think id had the right idea releasing there Quake Wars as a separate title. I'm not sure how successful it was, I know I tried it and liked it. I just don't think I liked it more than BF so I didn't buy it after demo. I also figured more of my friends would play BF with me, so...
By doing that, id left themselves open to tweak their weapons appropriately for vehicle combat, and didn't have to use the same set of weapons and their stats for arena vs vehicles. I think that's a flaw with UT3, even despite how well I think they have done it.
I just think less content should breed more polish, and keeping in one genre of shooter will keep a more defined community. I think maybe their flagship game for the engine should be a nice polished up warfare, where there is only warfare conquest, and they sell it that way, and they provide a web based arena shooter for free or virtually free, with the 3 core game types, a few maps, and and editor.
Some even argue that UT's online success had a lot to do with being able to get it for free. So give us something with decent, but not top of the line graphics, so everyone can play it, and since it's old tech, don't charge for it, so literally EVERYONE can play it. I think quake zero has a good idea going, I just like UT so much better.
Thats kinda what I mean. It does a mediocre job of trying to do both.
Earlier in the thread, I posted the idea of splitting up the Arena (CTF, DM, TDM, LMS, BR, DOM) and Warfare (ONS, CON, WAR, AS etc) style gametypes and balancing each appropriately. Or it could be split into two different games (A "Unreal Warfare" as originally planned) but I think it would be split the community less to have the two different gamemodes in one title.
The best way to keep people playing all these gametypes would be better online features.
The scale at which Warfare and regular Arena style combat works are too different.
Last edited:
Salut everyone!
Please get my 7 ideas about UT3 progress. Probably most of these were mentioned repeatedly, but I find following topics still very important:
1) Adequate UI with real usability:
- clear view,
- easy navigation and controls,
- nested levels for advanced options,
- user and special presets
2) On-line gaming system oriented for advanced teamplay:
- detailed player and server stats,
- common game awards,
- improved server-browser, lobbies,
- good-looking score/team-board detailed with:
- - health, location, weapon/vehicle, role/orb/flag status, awards, groups,
- smart tool for team balancing,
- MaxPlayers count specified by map,
- flexible voting system,
- advanced web support
3) More communication options:
- completed messaging and team-speaking system,
- service for demos, screenshots and videos
- web central with player profiles
4) Common game improvements:
- TP zoom for all units,
- 1st person pov. in vehicles,
- more handy driving,
- well animated chars,
- fully customized HUD,
- modified 1st key weapon,
- linking chains return,
- adjustable hitsounds,
- editable nickname under fixed account name,
- visual key bindings,
- auto-update system,
- advanced mod support,
- gameplay manuals
5) Paid content
6) Assault revival
and finally
7) Progress of Warfare/the Conquest topics:
- ONS-style link-setups for more advanced gameplay, !
- switching points:
- - less impact, more optional,
- - variety of new facilities,
- nerfing the orb:
- - less instant effect,
- - variable respawn delay,
- - relation with node type,
- large-sized maps with lot of tricks,
- multi-team support,
- upgradable fortifications (within one match),
- new tactical vehicle and weapon,
- destructible and transforming locations,
- more navigating features,
- communicated levels.
So I voted for 2 and 5, but
Epics, engage me as a game architect and you'l get the Game (UT3.5?) that pays all-round dividends - gains cybersport acceptance, satisfies old fans (not everyone OC) and ATST has packed servers and great resource for futher development (and no necessity of disgraceful \for legendary UT makers\ motto "From producer of GoW")
P.S. Obiter I have some idea how to merge on-line PC and console players securely,)
Please get my 7 ideas about UT3 progress. Probably most of these were mentioned repeatedly, but I find following topics still very important:
1) Adequate UI with real usability:
- clear view,
- easy navigation and controls,
- nested levels for advanced options,
- user and special presets
2) On-line gaming system oriented for advanced teamplay:
- detailed player and server stats,
- common game awards,
- improved server-browser, lobbies,
- good-looking score/team-board detailed with:
- - health, location, weapon/vehicle, role/orb/flag status, awards, groups,
- smart tool for team balancing,
- MaxPlayers count specified by map,
- flexible voting system,
- advanced web support
3) More communication options:
- completed messaging and team-speaking system,
- service for demos, screenshots and videos
- web central with player profiles
4) Common game improvements:
- TP zoom for all units,
- 1st person pov. in vehicles,
- more handy driving,
- well animated chars,
- fully customized HUD,
- modified 1st key weapon,
- linking chains return,
- adjustable hitsounds,
- editable nickname under fixed account name,
- visual key bindings,
- auto-update system,
- advanced mod support,
- gameplay manuals
5) Paid content
6) Assault revival
and finally
7) Progress of Warfare/the Conquest topics:
- ONS-style link-setups for more advanced gameplay, !
- switching points:
- - less impact, more optional,
- - variety of new facilities,
- nerfing the orb:
- - less instant effect,
- - variable respawn delay,
- - relation with node type,
- large-sized maps with lot of tricks,
- multi-team support,
- upgradable fortifications (within one match),
- new tactical vehicle and weapon,
- destructible and transforming locations,
- more navigating features,
- communicated levels.
So I voted for 2 and 5, but
Epics, engage me as a game architect and you'l get the Game (UT3.5?) that pays all-round dividends - gains cybersport acceptance, satisfies old fans (not everyone OC) and ATST has packed servers and great resource for futher development (and no necessity of disgraceful \for legendary UT makers\ motto "From producer of GoW")
P.S. Obiter I have some idea how to merge on-line PC and console players securely,)
Last edited:
Oh, you're so wrong! Really i'm on PC and Mac, second Stallman's concepts and never paid for any game additions. But I consider it's a good way to reward makers and can raise the qualification standard. BTW only skins I meant.
Last edited:
If epic wanted to be rewarded for UT3, i'd first want to reccommend them actually make UT3 worth purchasing at a 50, wait, scratch that, 40 dollars.
I mean, the game had to sink to 30 bucks before I purchased it.
If epic let loose some 5 dollar map pack for UT3, i'd throw a ****storm. Not that it costs 5 dollars, more of the principle of the matter.
I mean, the game had to sink to 30 bucks before I purchased it.
If epic let loose some 5 dollar map pack for UT3, i'd throw a ****storm. Not that it costs 5 dollars, more of the principle of the matter.
There are plenty of people who don't know they are on the fence, which is what others were getting at. Vehicles are what is "in" right now, so most people are going to buy games that have vehicles in them. If UT3 didn't have vehicles, it would have tanked worse than it did. The only real chance of getting he current generation of "average joe gamer" into classic gametypes is by bundling them with vehicle standard gametypes (ala Halo).
Did id figure it out? Their latest arena shooter, Quake 4, tanked at retail. And from what I understand, Quake Wars had about equal as a reception (though more people at least still play it).
With Quake Zero/Live/Free/whatever the crap, id is admitting the same thing Epic admitted with UT3 - Their original formula was the best one.
The problem is, Epic has a niche market. Frankly, they aren't goign to get Halo gamers to move to UT, even with vehicles.
Personally, I haven't seen a compelling reason to break up the different styles of play. They are both UT, they both fit the "bill", they both work reasonably well (and none of the UT games have worked better than reasonably well, which is better than any other game IMO
). I don't think "tweaking the game styles separately" is making much of a case. The same could be said for any game that allows you to have maps with and without vehicles.Or as a more lame example, why doesn't Battlefield have two different games for ground vehicles and air vehicles?
Battlefield mapping is way better for it's game types. They impose balance better with what vehicles are in place by only giving each side certain counter vehicles, and certain anti vehicle turrets. Foot soldiers have such a little impact on the vehicles, that they can balance it almost totally independently of the infantry.
I mean, only one class can even do substantial damage to vehicles. Most classes just have to hide. Totally different balancing a class based mostly realism shooter to a sci-fi arena-gone-large-scale shooter.
Even all that aside, you have plenty of good points, I still think system specs is a larger issue than any of this. Consoles all run pretty smooth, because the games are made for that one set of specs. Halo's graphics aren't that great, but FPS is never an issue. Nor is maintaining the beast that is windows.
Besides, even if by the "vehicles are in" logic, than that makes my plan sound even better. Focus your retail title on ons/war/conq, make it a polished, large scale vehicle shooter game, sell it as such. Then polish up a retro style free web based arena shooter. If that's for the niche community, and it doesn't get that much traffic, than don't put out a lot of content for it. Give them an ed, where they can port the old maps, and make new ones, and let them take it where they want to.
At least this way they can show off their graphics and fluff on the side that is "hot" right now, with the vehicles and what not, and save the arena shooter side for the hardcore gamers who care more about game play, and competition, and less about graphics. Balancing there current game at this point is small tweaks, and second nature. Most of the time they spend on development has to be in producing these super high poly models for everything. It won't even take them that much time. Christ, it's 10 year old code, lol.
I mean, only one class can even do substantial damage to vehicles. Most classes just have to hide. Totally different balancing a class based mostly realism shooter to a sci-fi arena-gone-large-scale shooter.
Even all that aside, you have plenty of good points, I still think system specs is a larger issue than any of this. Consoles all run pretty smooth, because the games are made for that one set of specs. Halo's graphics aren't that great, but FPS is never an issue. Nor is maintaining the beast that is windows.
Besides, even if by the "vehicles are in" logic, than that makes my plan sound even better. Focus your retail title on ons/war/conq, make it a polished, large scale vehicle shooter game, sell it as such. Then polish up a retro style free web based arena shooter. If that's for the niche community, and it doesn't get that much traffic, than don't put out a lot of content for it. Give them an ed, where they can port the old maps, and make new ones, and let them take it where they want to.
At least this way they can show off their graphics and fluff on the side that is "hot" right now, with the vehicles and what not, and save the arena shooter side for the hardcore gamers who care more about game play, and competition, and less about graphics. Balancing there current game at this point is small tweaks, and second nature. Most of the time they spend on development has to be in producing these super high poly models for everything. It won't even take them that much time. Christ, it's 10 year old code, lol.
I don't think the arena shooter vs. large scale combat idea is particularly relevant. I mean, I certainly don't think of games in that sense, and I really doubt your average gamer does either. I think the overwhelming criteria are - Is this game fun, and are my friends playing it?
I don't think UT3 really stands up in the fun department, just because the skill level of UT play is so much higher than in other games. You're not getting, in general, things like more than a handful of weapons, reloading, random spread on most weapons, critical hits and all the other things that slow down the pace of the game and reduce the impact of high skill level to make things more accessible.
You're also not getting any encouragement - Look at TF2 - Every time you die you get some kind of positive encouragement about something that you did well. If you're a Medic, other people's characters will actually say "Thank you!" after you heal them, and you get points for assists when your friends kill stuff while you heal them. Wouldn't it be nice if, in UT3, other characters said, "Thanks for linking up!" when you link to someone to heal a node, or "Thanks for the repair!" when you heal a vehicle? There are unanswered questions about how to deal with this kind of thing in a game like UT3 which doesn't have classes... But I think the general point of a better feedback system is really necessary for people to feel like they're doing well.
And then there are other issues that bear mentioning, like lack of basic features that just made UT3 really unfun. I mean, for example, lack of team balancing and randomization. Not fun at all to begin playing a match, lose badly, and then realize that the next hour is just going to be consistent losses unless someone switches teams to even things up.
Then, well, on the friends aspect - Sure, you can play UT3 with friends on a LAN, or in some other pre-organized event. But you pretty much can't play UT3 with friends by starting up the game, seeing that they're playing incidentally, and joining their game. If you want to do that you've got to compulsively check the friends area, which means leaving your game if you're playing one. And that's all assuming that the friends thing is even going to work, not exactly a guarantee there.
Addendum: This isn't to say that I necessarily disagree with the idea of releasing a UT-styled Battlefield-esque game as retail, and a free oldschool style UT. I'm pretty open to differing rules for different gametypes, and even the actual separation of the two (though I think that's a bit extreme). I just think UT3's failure has to do with completely different issues.
I don't think UT3 really stands up in the fun department, just because the skill level of UT play is so much higher than in other games. You're not getting, in general, things like more than a handful of weapons, reloading, random spread on most weapons, critical hits and all the other things that slow down the pace of the game and reduce the impact of high skill level to make things more accessible.
You're also not getting any encouragement - Look at TF2 - Every time you die you get some kind of positive encouragement about something that you did well. If you're a Medic, other people's characters will actually say "Thank you!" after you heal them, and you get points for assists when your friends kill stuff while you heal them. Wouldn't it be nice if, in UT3, other characters said, "Thanks for linking up!" when you link to someone to heal a node, or "Thanks for the repair!" when you heal a vehicle? There are unanswered questions about how to deal with this kind of thing in a game like UT3 which doesn't have classes... But I think the general point of a better feedback system is really necessary for people to feel like they're doing well.
And then there are other issues that bear mentioning, like lack of basic features that just made UT3 really unfun. I mean, for example, lack of team balancing and randomization. Not fun at all to begin playing a match, lose badly, and then realize that the next hour is just going to be consistent losses unless someone switches teams to even things up.
Then, well, on the friends aspect - Sure, you can play UT3 with friends on a LAN, or in some other pre-organized event. But you pretty much can't play UT3 with friends by starting up the game, seeing that they're playing incidentally, and joining their game. If you want to do that you've got to compulsively check the friends area, which means leaving your game if you're playing one. And that's all assuming that the friends thing is even going to work, not exactly a guarantee there.
Addendum: This isn't to say that I necessarily disagree with the idea of releasing a UT-styled Battlefield-esque game as retail, and a free oldschool style UT. I'm pretty open to differing rules for different gametypes, and even the actual separation of the two (though I think that's a bit extreme). I just think UT3's failure has to do with completely different issues.
Last edited:
Thank you. Well said.
Also, as Olympus mentioned, focus on community building, since it's pretty pathetic online right now, and the UT community needs a lot of help to begin recovering.
UT3 has got heart, that's for sure, but has very thin skin, as it were. Let's return to the "When it's done" mentality, and see Epic guard its reputation more carefully with the fans. Whatever the next UT contains, let's not hear brainstorming ideas and napkin-level concepts touted as features. Epic took it in the ahss with UT3, and it was mostly their own fault. Listen more, and talk less during the development cycle.
That said, I think fresh thinking is in order for UT3+. Creative implementation of ingame team-building and a super-intuitive interface would make communication and tactics far better than voice-chat, since everyone hates it, and it isn't useful in pub games, anyway.
I think UT could put the team into team games in a way never before seen. We've all seen every gun out there a million times, but a truly innovative teamplay and order system would wake up dormant gametypes, and give fresh tactical blood to any new game modes they care to implement. No matter what the specifics of the new gametype list, a super-slick communication and order interface would take the game to a whole new level, even if the content stayed otherwise the same (same weapons and vehicles, for instance, since they rule as they are... except for the Cicada. And the Paladin.).