What direction do you want the next UT game to go?

[Bersy]

I actually agree with Darq that UT or a derivative needs a tactical gametype or to promote/reward tactical gameplay more. Tactical play was a very strong aspect of UT's success: Sniper and Zark servers offered players the choice of "camping" style play, and they came in droves. Sniper maps were some of the most fun I've ever had in UT. They may not be for everybody, but that kind of gameplay brings much higher numbers because it is a more casual style of play overall - but there are still frenzied run and gun situations mixed in.

As far as my earlier comments regarding how the campaign was designed for the consoles - It is not shortsighted... it's the truth.. Again, I have nothing against campaigns and they can work well, but if you looked honestly at the one we got you'd realize that it has very little to do with the series and was written to make the game appeal to Gears players - why do you think they played up the "from the studio that brought you Gears of War" aspect so much? Then Jeff said something to the effect of how it was the smarter thing to do businesswise. The promotion, maybe.. but the story was a dud and didn't work the way they did it. But I disagree with the other guy who says to let the story die.. the concept I wrote for the continuation is an example of how to save face and actually make the story work, rather than "forgetting it happened".

I also disagree with Malcolm not making a good boss. He's not the hero of the game anymore, and while Reaper is pretty lame, they could do some things to save him like un-emoify him a bit.. make the character progress. Make him lose the dress and goggles. Less about "revenge" and more determined to uncrown Malcolm simply because he has no honor anymore. Make malcolm more dispicable like revealing he uses some underhanded tactics to gain an advantage in the tournament. There are often characters that start off likeable and "go bad" later. Xan is good for a villain, but hasn't been developed. In a game, the player should have a reason to hate the final boss, and with UT3 we have a set up already... work with it.

[DarQraven]

True .. a campaign is not a bad idea by definition.
It could work, I just expected a lot more.
When I saw some of the preview movies, specifically one where they drove a scorpion through dark city streets up to a barricade, then went on on foot, I half expected assault to be in there again in some sort of cinematic variant.

Instead we got a random series of botmatches.

One possible way it could have been done better is if they just added "in" and "out" doorways to each TDM map. You'd come in through one, they would both close, you'd have to win the match in that specific arena to get them to open again, and you could continue on your path to *whatever you set out to do*.
Of course there would be continuous map transitions between matches, so no loading screen. Maybe even little stretches of 'real' SP level design, after which another 'boss battle' (CTF match, DM match, etc) followed. A WAR match would be perfect to top this off, in the absence of assault...

THis would make a series of matches like one giant match of assault....kinda.
ANyway, it would help tie all the loose matches together.
You could make these maps all have a similar or at least coherent theme, so that 'mission one' consisted of first infiltrating a base through a WAR match, once inside you'd have some traditional SP level design with one or two Duel/TDM stages and then the final mission which could be anything, depending on the scenario.

I just think that the unreal weapons aren't very suited for traditional campaign play. The challenge in these games often comes from the number of enemies you have to face, not their intelligence or weapons skills. The latter two are what UT is mostly about for me.
So I'm wondering how you could make a gears-style campaign where the grunts and wretches all carry shock rifles and rocket launchers. Wouldn't make for a very good experience, I guess.. Mostly spam and death.

In that sense, the 'ladder' type campaign used in games before UT3 is probably the best option.
It's okay to have some backstory in there, but to just take out all of the options that made the campaign more interesting than instant action is stupid. Add back in the teammate selection, maybe make it transition-less like I described above, add some new gametypes, fine...

[WHIPperSNAPper]

Make a real UT99-2 with Deathmatch, Capture-the-Flag, Assault, UT99-style Domination, Onslaught, Invasion, and Bombing Run with exactly the same feel as UT99 but with a first rate, outstanding user interface and server browser and without any of the Gamespy BS and release it after months of beta play-testing so that it would be nearly bug free.

[MonsOlympus]

Originally Posted by hal

• Player classes, such as in Team Fortress - not going to happen
• Large-scale combat, like the old description of Conquest - not going to happen as long as it will also have to scale to Xbox 360 and PS3. Not to mention, without tons of players it might not even be fun.
• Get rid of vehicle gametypes and focus on old gametypes - that's the opposite of the direction in which they seem to be going.
• Get rid of old gametypes and focus on vehicle gametypes - I can see them being minimalized, but not tossed aside entirely. Deathmatch is still a popular gametype in other franchises.
• An 'expansion' to UT3 (like UT2k4 was to UT2k3) is enough for me - seems most likely.

I agree with the larger scale combat, its really difficult to make the matches play decent (especially pubs) but I think DICE made a nice go of it with the battlefield series. I preferred the 48 player matches but if done right (I still have faith in Epic) 64 or higher could work. Things like better social networking and team commands etc would be a start and would also help other gamemodes as well.

With playerclasses, perhaps as in Team Fortress it wont happen but Epic has done it 3 times so far with both UT and UC, counting UC and 2k3 as one though. It might not be default and it might not be what the community prefers for UT but I think theres plenty of room for it like the species mutator in 2k4. I think the popularity of games with player classes over those which dont have them is alittle testament to how times are changing, ofcoarse not every game needs player classes or similar which is why Im happy to sit on the middle with both crowds since I like and enjoy both.

Originally Posted by Kantham

You'd have to call it something else than "Unreal 3" otherwise people will get confused to death with UT3 and U3.

I know a few people who shorten UT3 down to Unreal 3 alot already.


Theres some great suggestions in all this towards expanding on UT3, Id be down with the skaarj returning perhaps even with some krall buddies since the necris might take alittle more of a back seat.

Id like to know what happened to brock though, being one of the other main characters I think he deserves atleast a decent fairwell.

Basically though a reintroduction to the tourney would be nice, actually include it this time even if there is another SP/Coop campaign or PvE type modes. Ladder play seems to be big for some people and considering both ascension rites and liandri ladders (unique per character I might add) were included in UC2 I dont see why Epic couldnt do that again.

Then again if anything suffers because of a SP campaign Id rather not have it, UT should be first and foremost about MP no matter how much I enjoy the bits of story which come through in bio's etc

Id hate to see any of the classic gamemodes get dumped or neglected in favour of vehicle modes, I think polish is where its at and as Ive said before UT3 is a much more solid base to build upon going forward than UT2k3 was. Im happy to let Epic just work on what they got behind closed doors and perhaps surprise us, show us what you can do hey, not everyone is buying 360's to play Gears

[MuLuNGuS]

An 'expansion' to UT3 that brings back an official "Assault" mode and polishes UT3 is enough for me

oh, and the Malcolm player model would be fine.(still wondering why it's not in!?)

[DarQraven]

Well .. polish and assault is more something that should have been in THIS UT, not the next one.

In terms of an actual next UT game you just want UT3 with one more game mode?

[brdempsey69]

Originally Posted by FuLLBLeeD

I just want Epic to ship a PC game instead of a console port.

+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The UT series established its legacy as a PC game. Give PC gamers a true PC game.

I voted for "An 'expansion' to UT3 (like UT2k4 was to UT2k3) is enough for me" as for what direction I want the next UT to go.

Unfortunately, we know which direction UT3 mostly went -- STRAIGHT TO HELL !!

[Trynant]

DarQuaven, you might want to try Tribes. Intricate move system, team-based gameplay, fast-paced combat, pretty good game from what I know about it.

As for the next UT, I think I'll refrain from making any more elaborate, radical decisions and see what direction it is taken by the people who actually make the game

[SuperApe]

How about add a single player campaign. No, not like what they called Campaign, but rather more like what was alluded to in the single player trailer: large battles, progression through a story by making relevant choices, character development and maybe a couple puzzles for variety. Then, plop that SP code in the editor for the mapping community to take advantage of.

/my $0.02

[-AEnubis-]

Graphics that the average computer can run.

[Bersy]

avg gamer's pc nowadays is something like mine. amd 3200 / 7900 GT, 2 gb ram.

there are lower end rigs (CS players) and higher end rigs (crysis players)..

mine handles UT3. obviously not at high end settings, but I do decently.

performance is the least of the game's problems, but that isn't to say it can't or shouldn't be improved.

[Hyrage]

I would like more interesting twists in the Core Gameplays; the jump "key" is already a good example of interesting gameplay twists by using a single "key".

[Zer0]

Originally Posted by Hyrage

I would like more interesting twists in the Core Gameplays; the jump "key" is already a good example of interesting gameplay twists by using a single "key".

Jumping is an interesting gameplay twist?

[Sir_Brizz]

Everyone asks for Assault to come back in threads like these, and then when Epic brings it back, none of them play it.

[DarQraven]

Well, yeah .. according to Epic we never play it...just like domination.
The only question I have regarding that is how to explain the domination mod then...
apparently enough players played or wanted to play domination to warrant the creation of a mod.

Assault may not be the MOST played gametype, but that doesn't mean it isn't played at all.
Thing is, you need a lot of players and good attitudes/nice teams to make an assault match fun. Have a few lamers or unbalanced teams and the match will suck.
That effect is less prominent in simpler gamemodes like DM. That's why, when I want a quick match of UT, I usually join a (T)DM server, and not an assault one.
That doesn't mean I don't WANT to play Assault, however. It's just harder to get fun matches up and running.

[gregori]

Originally Posted by Sir_Brizz

Everyone asks for Assault to come back in threads like these, and then when Epic brings it back, none of them play it.

True - but I've got the feeling most people played Assault offline!!

I believe Assault and other complex team games aren't popular online because the necessary online features aren't there to make them fun or playable. It's hard to fight as a coherent team with a bunch of random strangers.

[MrMaddog]

I'm gonna be honest... As much as I love the UT series, I don't want to see another Unreal Tournament game again. Ever!

Just look at the other multiplayer games that are out. Why is Epic still releasing 1998 deathmatchers with a vehicle gametype slapped in it? Even id released a class based objective goal game (Quake Wars) while putting a Q3A type game on a web browser to play for free. Ok, so Epic doesn't want to have Team Fortress style classes. Why not do other stuff like selecting a loadout based for roles like base assauling or defense? Even UC2 was innovative in that you pick two types of weapons based on what "you" want to do, as opposed to running around the map just for that one weapon you can work best with. In other words, instead of the same type of game with better graphics (and shoddier gameplay) just do something different!

In short, I want a game like what Unreal Warfare was suppose to be like instead of #$&*ing UT2003. And even a return to the main Unreal single player series where you explore worlds while the story consists of finding out what's really going on. (I'm not counting Unreal 2 cause the storyline and missions are too disjointed).

But it ain't gonna happen so I don't care anymore...

[Hyrage]

Originally Posted by -Zer0-

Jumping is an interesting gameplay twist?

Absolutely, take it out and it's not UT.
Plus, jumping = multiple jumps.

Double tap your movement keys is always a good gameplay twist:

• dodging bullets
• wall-dodging accurately

That kind of interesting twists using the same Key. Multiple opportunities, strategies and gameplays with one action, that is the interesting twist that I was talking about.

[Bersy]

I never asked for assault to come back as a seperate gametype. I asked for the assaultlike objectives we were promised, and the ability to make WAR maps that play out like assault. Thus circumventing the need for another gametype. In turn, WAR would have the potential to be much more flexible and popular.

[Sir_Brizz]

Nereid was making a Kismet framework for Warfare (or possibly any other maps, I guess) that could have assault objectives in it. I'm not sure how far he got.