Epic Working On PC-Exclusive Title

[Capt.Toilet]

Originally Posted by [GU]elmur_fud

Yeah. People are a bunch of gullible sheep that will waste their money on instant gratification. I'd rather walk into a store, have a physical product, the benefit of the exercise, a product that can not be so easily taken away (read the Steam EULA), and the ability to sell it or give it to somebody else if the game blows.

It is personal but relates to one of Valves products, if I had any evidence I could probably sue for lots of money in the all too typical American fashion. I don't though, just have allot of butthurt and grudge.



Doesn't work on all games though. Considering since I decided against buying the game on it's multiplayer, and I will not buy solely digital, the steam option seems a mute point.

What you butthurt that Valve can't count to 3?

Also a vast majority of new games require some sort of online activation through Steam, Origin, GFWL, etc. And most likely the next gen of consoles are doing away with used games and linking the game with your account ala Steam/Origin. You might as well just stick with games prior to 2004 then because that is all you will ever be able to play.

[Wail of Suicide]

Originally Posted by Capt.Toilet

What you butthurt that Valve can't count to 3?

Also a vast majority of new games require some sort of online activation through Steam, Origin, GFWL, etc. And most likely the next gen of consoles are doing away with used games and linking the game with your account ala Steam/Origin. You might as well just stick with games prior to 2004 then because that is all you will ever be able to play.

Or just play indie games that generally speaking aren't concerned with infringing on their customers' rights just to make a few more bucks.

[Leo(T.C.K.)]

Originally Posted by moonflyer

The question I have is why Atari didn't give enough trust and freedom to LE to make U2 a game like they planned?
Like we always hear, bussiness is bussiness.
Many projects are like that, start off like block buster coz developers don't realize they won't be given enough time and budget to make everything they want, then one year or two goes by and they are told by their boss, this is no go, that is no go, we have to cut those features to save time and budget (that is to save money), we have to dumb it down so more casual gamers will feel interested.
Bosses always sound like they have good reasons and they want the game to be best. That's the way they motivate the developer team. Trust me I have my first hand experiences here.
And the fact is, no matter how big the original plan is, a great game gets its fame from the result, and result is made by very good management and execution.

I bought wheel of time, and I liked it. I know that game was published by GT and GT was acquired by Atari later and then U2 and LE got shut down. I had to suspect Atari did wet work in it.

UT2k4, even though it was a mess of content from different studios, was still better than UT2K3.
As I remember, UT2K3 had a lot promotion too. I still remember how exciting UT fans were when they heard anything about this game.
UT2k4 was better simply because most players felt that way. We all knew UT2K4 was an upgraded version of UT2K3, and that was what we wanted, more game modes, more maps, with latest patches, more options, and ONS was fun.
I don't care how they did it, outsource or not. Some of the best maps like DM-Rankin were outsourced.

Because Atari, my friend, is simply full of douchebags and unlike Epic, they owned Legend directly and could close them down any minute. I don't believe the decisions were any good, it was probably a case of them updating the engine further too, but if they were given a little bit more time and released it the way they planned to originally it would be much better game, but then again I doubt it was the case in the end, the multiplayer portion was removed simply because of collective decision between atari, epic, de and legend, not to compete with UT2K3, but imo this was nonsense since Unreal 2 multiplayer was completely different style, it was supposed to have DM, TDM, CTF, coop perhaps(the terrible xbox version had that at least) and XMP( They cancelled even multiple Unreal games in developement, including the PSX version of Unreal early 2000 when gti got acquired by them.

Anyway here is some prerelease U2FAQ, in case you never read it: http://web.archive.org/web/200904040...2FAQ/U2FAQ.htm

Don't know why it isn't in this site anymore, but whatever.

As for UT2K4.
DM-Rankin was by Hourences, who probably made one of the best new maps for the game, but I am not talking about ONS and stuff either, the deathmatch just fell flat in UT2K4, it wasn't fast enough, the air control was off, weapon damage different, unless you played it with multiple mutators it was no fun, but wait a minute, in the SP ladder you can't even use mutators so the DM matches get really ****ing boring and frustrating, not to mention CTF and there's no ONS in the SP ladder and it is all a knockoff of UT2K3 beta tournament combined with UT2K3 final, and then thrown stuff like you lose your credits if you lose a match, what the ****, it's the most boring SP ladder in any Tournament game. If it actually had VCTF in first place(other than being a disabled/unfinished gametype), it would fare much better but no..
So, to me, UT2K4 was a much worse game in all it did, I consider it the least enjoyable too, of the UT games, not to mention the art direction it went etc etc. Okay some of the assault maps were enjoyable too and I ran an invasion server as well (but using lots of mutator so it wouldn't be boring or unfair). But that's as far the enjoyability went. The Deathmatch was absolutely terrible, unless with that mod, which name I cannot remember right now, but that made it somehow bearable erven without additional mutators.

[hal]

Originally Posted by moonflyer

UT2k4, even though it was a mess of content from different studios, was still better than UT2K3.
As I remember, UT2K3 had a lot promotion too. I still remember how exciting UT fans were when they heard anything about this game.
UT2k4 was better simply because most players felt that way. We all knew UT2K4 was an upgraded version of UT2K3, and that was what we wanted, more game modes, more maps, with latest patches, more options, and ONS was fun.
I don't care how they did it, outsource or not. Some of the best maps like DM-Rankin were outsourced.

This is pretty much the case as far as I'm concerned. 2k4 wasn't a "cash-in". It was part of the business model they pursued when they came up with the name UT 2003. They flat-out said the year as part of the name was indicative of their plans to provide regular updates. 2k4 was also Epic's attempt to "fix" the things that were deemed "wrong" with 2k3.

2k3 was supposed to be a console game and it took a turn at some point in the development and was, unfortunately, still saddled with some of those design decisions. 2k3 was a good game - it just wasn't a direct successor to UT and when it became clear that the PC market for this game was the strongest they sat out to steer it in that direction. 2k4 is the result.

The reason 2k4 was a success and was well-reviewed wasn't because it was "hyped" or because of marketing. It was just one hell of a package (what was it? 100+ maps?), it was because of the introduction of Psyonix's ONS gametype, and it was because they brought back Assault. It was definitely in the right place at the right time.

Originally Posted by Leo(T.C.K.)

the deathmatch just fell flat in UT2K4, it wasn't fast enough, the air control was off, weapon damage different, unless you played it with multiple mutators it was no fun, but wait a minute, in the SP ladder you can't even use mutators so the DM matches get really ****ing boring and frustrating, not to mention CTF and there's no ONS in the SP ladder and it is all a knockoff of UT2K3 beta tournament combined with UT2K3 final, and then thrown stuff like you lose your credits if you lose a match, what the ****, it's the most boring SP ladder in any Tournament game. If it actually had VCTF in first place(other than being a disabled/unfinished gametype), it would fare much better but no..
So, to me, UT2K4 was a much worse game in all it did, I consider it the least enjoyable too, of the UT games, not to mention the art direction it went etc etc. Okay some of the assault maps were enjoyable too and I ran an invasion server as well (but using lots of mutator so it wouldn't be boring or unfair). But that's as far the enjoyability went. The Deathmatch was absolutely terrible, unless with that mod, which name I cannot remember right now, but that made it somehow bearable erven without additional mutators.

Forget about SP in UT. It's there as a courtesy anyway. It deserves one line in any argument - not an entire paragraph. I'd wager most people played it online and offline in bot matches.

The art direction is another non-argument. It looks exactly like what it was supposed to... a variety collection of the best available level designs. And variety is what people want in a game like this. It's what UT did so well and possibly where they went a bit off in UT3.

There were problems with UT2004, but the sum of its parts make it a better - if less cohesive - version of UT2003.

[UBerserker]

I was plain disgusted by the UT2k3/4 art direction. UT2k3 was slightly better than UT2k4 in the UI and gameplay departments but I wish both never existed.

[ambershee]

I like the UT singleplayer - it just needs to be longer and deeper when it comes to all the management stuff / ladder systems etc. I'm playing through the UT2004 SP right now again for ****s and giggles.

[Leo(T.C.K.)]

At least UT3 had a common theme, the maps in UT2004 were terrible mess, the level design was terrible, most of the dm maps were total garbage (they even brought one terrible cut map from UT2003 to the mix, which aside from Smote which was really great ctf map, I am not surprised why it was cut in first place) and of course there was lack of lavagiant2 too in ut2Kx and I hated curse4, curse 3 was ****ing perfect).
And UT2003 had common themes too, it was all maps based on the various planet themes, nothing more nothing less and it worked well and nicely, the maps were decent.

But no, UT2004 brought it with a dose of nonsense, plus breaking "canon" storylines in the assault matches, etc etc. All the new DM maps looked the same, the same boring z axis bull****. There's no ****ing variety at all, the maps were just utter ****, I remember davidm telling me that he made some maps for UT2004 too, although they didn't make it in the final game, but that they were really bland looking and ****ty as the rest of the new DM maps for that game.

Yes, it was an upgrade, but they didn't announce it from the get go, it was decided around late 2002-2003 they would go with the year naming thing, which was terrible decision on its own.
I am glad they fixed it with UT3 and that UT3 didn't take itself seriously at all. They might have got a bit way too much influence from gears style at parts, but I don't really mind that much. It had a coherent style after all and good gameplay, I don't care for the 100 plus maps and milking of content for the sake of milking, there's no real art in that, no real idea, all of it was mediocre at best, including the new music in UT2K4, I really can't stand most of these KR tracks and I could stand his music in UT2K3, I wonder why really. The Rankin music gets annoying too after you hear it so many times over and over again (and that's not the worst track). It's just for the dumb protogamers of the CounterStrike like group, that's what it is. To attract the masses who have no idea about real gameplay and real design.

My guess it's a Free 2 Play FPS, or (less likely) a MMO of some sort. If it was a game released the traditional way, there's no way they'd skip consoles. So they're going for something that makes sense on PC nowadays, which is F2P and MMO, with F2P having far less risks involved. Also, concerning how Epic hates the PC, there's no way they'd risk a PC only game if there wasn't something like a F2P or MMO.

Probably a F2P UT game imo. Would make sense to reuse a well known franchishe, especially one that's associated with PCs.

[Bi()ha2arD]

Originally Posted by moonflyer

Yup, u1,ut1 was like ancient Greek or Rome. Simple, classic, solid and neat.
ut2,3 were like Baroque or Rococo. Details, details, and details.
Now time to try Neoclassical style, or maybe modernism/postmodernism.

Well, HOLP maps are kind of like that. And surprise, surprise, they usually have the best gameplay.

[Al]

STEEM SUX! ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

[moonflyer]

Originally Posted by Leo(T.C.K.)

At least UT3 had a common theme, the maps in UT2004 were terrible mess, the level design was terrible, most of the dm maps were total garbage (they even brought one terrible cut map from UT2003 to the mix, which aside from Smote which was really great ctf map, I am not surprised why it was cut in first place) and of course there was lack of lavagiant2 too in ut2Kx and I hated curse4, curse 3 was ****ing perfect).
And UT2003 had common themes too, it was all maps based on the various planet themes, nothing more nothing less and it worked well and nicely, the maps were decent.

But no, UT2004 brought it with a dose of nonsense, plus breaking "canon" storylines in the assault matches, etc etc. All the new DM maps looked the same, the same boring z axis bull****. There's no ****ing variety at all, the maps were just utter ****, I remember davidm telling me that he made some maps for UT2004 too, although they didn't make it in the final game, but that they were really bland looking and ****ty as the rest of the new DM maps for that game.

Yes, it was an upgrade, but they didn't announce it from the get go, it was decided around late 2002-2003 they would go with the year naming thing, which was terrible decision on its own.
I am glad they fixed it with UT3 and that UT3 didn't take itself seriously at all. They might have got a bit way too much influence from gears style at parts, but I don't really mind that much. It had a coherent style after all and good gameplay, I don't care for the 100 plus maps and milking of content for the sake of milking, there's no real art in that, no real idea, all of it was mediocre at best, including the new music in UT2K4, I really can't stand most of these KR tracks and I could stand his music in UT2K3, I wonder why really. The Rankin music gets annoying too after you hear it so many times over and over again (and that's not the worst track). It's just for the dumb protogamers of the CounterStrike like group, that's what it is. To attract the masses who have no idea about real gameplay and real design.

I see.
I don't like ut2k3/4 art direction either.
But IMO ut2k4 had pretty much the same looking of UT2K3. At least 80% if not 100%. So if you think ut2k4 theme was a mess then I am sure UT2K3 was too. Just 2K3 didn't have that much content so somehow it was not obvious, and 2K3's GUI did look more hardcore, unlike the colorful plastic thing of 2k4.
Epic clearly knew that so they went back to the consistent theme routine, but unfortunately it was so Gears-ish that made me think 2k3/4 at least had something of its own. So I dislike UT3 art direction (except the SFX, music, sound) more than 2k3/4.

And my opinion on 2k3/4 level design is, most of the map suffered from the movement/scale problem, the visual detail/map flow problem, and the fun/competitive problem (I don't want to get into details otherwise I have to write a document).
Not all of them are garbage. Most designers just did what they had to do. It's always easy to blame level designers for the bad gameplay, but the actual problem could be systematic. I used to face that thing a lot so WHATEVER.

About the movement, all I have to say is fast movement and some tricky jumps didn't simply make 2k3 a better UT. If I want to play a fast movement oldschool shooter, I would rather choose CPMA or Painkiller. And I did played more CPMA back in those years. CPMA had much better tricky jump options and smooth movement (thanks to Quake physics). Smooth movement means you can move very slow or very fast and the transition between slow and fast is smooth.
That degree of smooth makes it possible for level designers to create both long/large/open areas and short/narrow/face2face areas in one map, and still the flow is fast and of good rhythm. And the combat feels versatile. Face to face, middle range, or distant.
But UT was never like that. From 99 UT didn't have anything smooth in its dodge-based movement system. But UT99 was good because basically dodge was all you can do in 90% of time. The dodging jump system created in 2K3 gave you fast speed but you never had full control of it. So basically it was dodge number 2 which you just use it anywhere anytime. And to make things worse, the map scale had to be big so that you didn't get interrupted very often by bumping into wall.

[moonflyer]

Originally Posted by Bi()ha2arD

Well, HOLP maps are kind of like that. And surprise, surprise, they usually have the best gameplay.

HOLP maps are as neat as that, just don't have Global Illuminations and all these modern visual features now UE3.5 has.
That is exactly how I think a new UT or UT3.5 is doable, with the UT99 atmosphere, the neat way to design and create maps, and UE3.5.

[Leo(T.C.K.)]

I am not blaming the designers for these maps, in fact after what davidm told me I am sure they were told to design it that way, but really, most of these UT2K4 dm maps just consisted of two rooms connected with ramps and niches, very simplistic design (even in DM there should be some exploration present, look at the UT3 maps, many have secrets and stuff and are not looking one like each other, all have different gameplay), many looked just the same, it wouldn't matter if it was two maps or so, but when almost all the new maps suffer from this kind of thing, I think something went really wrong. There's only like one map of those I enjoyed and that's because it had the right scale, the rest were really crappy.
But I would be surprised if UT2004 had an actual design doc, which I am sure was the case of all the titles, either that or the design doc wasn't really cohesive, maybe for Assault there was or something and for ONS the way they made it, as they already planned this mod of their own for UT2003 which turned into ONS..but the rest, it all seems random and if anything those were separate design docs.

It seemed all very disjointed, then again even original UT felt disjointed at few maps or conflicted, like the description of DM-Cryptic being human made thing. Uh, really? The texture set was used originally by Unreal and was on Na Pali, then again they cut the cryptic maps, but to leave such description, that's just cheap.

I am not saying fast movement alone did it, but in UT2004 it all felt more odd and constrained, I am not really fan of painkiller movement either and that's because I tend to lose a lot, in online matches at that because it is entirely depenadand on bunny hoping and also **** is rather hard to hit. If only the PKplus bots worked for me offline...I think UT2003 was somehow a mix of the fast movement/flow thing and a less agressive approach to the DM, like Unreal/UT. That alone was kind of unique to see the both "worlds" combine and UT2004 somehow disbalanced it and made it more of a casual game for me. It's hard to describe. Tbh I believe Quake 1 DM was really good for its time (and is still probably my favorite of the quake games), but I'm not so sure about quake 3/quake live, quake live felt kind of like UT2004 to UT2003 to me in a certain way, too. The DM where I could excel most was Unreal though, not even UT, maybe due to the weapon strengh and just that I was so used to its gameplay. I could actually win matches rather than being frustrated in some of the uts etc. Well, of course this comes down on player's experience after all and his preferences.

[ambershee]

Onslaught was developed by a different company, which is why it feels different.

[Leo(T.C.K.)]

Originally Posted by ambershee

Onslaught was developed by a different company, which is why it feels different.

I know, but that's precisely what I meant anyway. And I don't get why it wasn't part of the SP tournament either.

[StalwartUK]

Originally Posted by Leo(T.C.K.)

I know, but that's precisely what I meant anyway. And I don't get why it wasn't part of the SP tournament either.

You'd think they would want to show it off wouldn't they. Though it was in the demo.

Speaking of UT3 again it's very obvious that the "war" story was bolted on at the last minute. Jumping between plot-driven cutscenes and instant action games that had little to do with one another and then there's stuff like FLaGs, really? They need to explain what flags are in a Capture the Flag game? Stuff like that just made it more laughable than anything else.

Starting over is really the best thing for them to do at this point.

[Arnox]

See, this is the problem now with the Unreal franchise. It's been more passed on to other developers than a village bicycle. You've got Unreal in so many different games and flavors. What comes with this is a vastly broken up fanbase. Some people want another Unreal game. Some people want another UT2kX. Some people want another UC. Add to that the failure of UT3 and you've got another blow to an already very destabilized fanbase.

Now, I don't know exactly what Epic should do about this mess. But I do know that if Epic's going to make another Unreal game of any kind, they need to rise above this heap of different takes on the franchise. There were some great Unreal games made but they number too many now. What we need more than anything is a quality Unreal game. It may not be able to have everything all the fans want in it but it can start again by feeling fresh, unique, and polished. Something that people, old and new, can rally around again.

[ambershee]

Originally Posted by Leo(T.C.K.)

I don't get why it wasn't part of the SP tournament either.

Your team is five people - Onslaught is a game mode for lots of players, so it just wouldn't work.

[moonflyer]

Originally Posted by Arnox

See, this is the problem now with the Unreal franchise. It's been more passed on to other developers than a village bicycle. You've got Unreal in so many different games and flavors. What comes with this is a vastly broken up fanbase. Some people want another Unreal game. Some people want another UT2kX. Some people want another UC. Add to that the failure of UT3 and you've got another blow to an already very destabilized fanbase.

Now, I don't know exactly what Epic should do about this mess. But I do know that if Epic's going to make another Unreal game of any kind, they need to rise above this heap of different takes on the franchise. There were some great Unreal games made but they number too many now. What we need more than anything is a quality Unreal game. It may not be able to have everything all the fans want in it but it can start again by feeling fresh, unique, and polished. Something that people, old and new, can rally around again.

YES！Exactly! This is why I think it's time to make Unreal 3
1) Forget about UT, if you want MP, play U3 MP as a great SP shooter can always come with its MP. And we all know U3 MP will be meant to be played like UT4.
2) Make decent SP, the way an Unreal should taste like, that unique adventure, nothing like realistic-or-not marine shooters today we see everywhere.
3) Keep development cycle short. They can make 3 Gears in about 6 years. Why that can't happen to Unreal?
4) Epic has the skills and knowledge and experiences to figure out how to make a great SP shooter. They did make a couple of mistakes in UT series, but by far their two major SP games, U1 and Gears1/2/3 (Gears 2,3 are actually the advanced versions of Gears1), were big success. So don't waste time to try another UT coz fast-paced MP shooters are always tricky. Even idsoft failed to keep its fame.

[ambershee]

Originally Posted by moonflyer

They can make 3 Gears in about 6 years.

Err, no. Try about eight to nine years - more if you count the development time on the engine side.

The original Gears was a budget title built by around 25 people at a time. True story.