Epic commitment to UT3

[Sir_Brizz]

The Unreal menu was normal for that time, PC games of around then and earlier had menu's like that, it was the norm, hence there was no reason to complain.

But alot has happened since then, and that menu would not recive a warm welcome thease days..

I disagree. If Unreal was the first game in it's series today with the same type of menu I don't think anyone would complain. The other thing is, the Unreal menu didn't support the mouse at all. If anything, it was MORE "consolized" than the menus in every single subsequent game, including UT3.

* The way the interface works for one seems very gamepad freindly, and not all that freindly for a mouse, how you select items on the main menu is a prime example.

I don't understand this point, really. A mouse is used to move to areas of the screen and click (when there is a cursor, anyway). The main menu is no different, you move your mouse to whatever you want to click on and then click on it. Why would it be less "consolized" if the options were horizontal instead of vertical and didn't have the rollover effect? the mouse still operates on them the same way either way.

* There are only few choices on every screen, and in big text, this is usually done in console menu's because it is easy to use on a TV that is farther away, but there is no reason for it on the PC, where it is better to have fewer menu's with more options.

I can actually see the logic in this argument. Previous to UT2003, the text/size of UI elements scaled with the screen resolutions. HOWEVER, I can also see why this argument would not make sense. That scaling causes all sorts of issues. Ever tried playing Unreal at 1600x1200? You can hardly tell what the options are!

* Lack of advanced features, this is normal on consoles because the games do not need tweaking, but they do on the PC, a pair of sliders is not what we are used to or want.
* Lack of options overall, again normal in many console games, as they often aim at a more casual gamer, and it helps to keep the number of menu's down and make things easier, tweaking thease things with a gamepad can be a pain afterall, but it is not cool on the PC, where it is so easy to have thease things in very few menu's, and easy to tweak them.

I wouldn't say this is normal or not normal on any platform. Some games have more options, some have less. I'd blame this more on expectations set by previous games than "consolization".

The many menus thing is, again, just a design, and I'd say that since UT2003, UT hasn't had great menu flow. Yes, even UT2004 does not have a great menu, as it suffers from the "more than 3 clicks to do anything"-itis.

So far, though, for the most part I've found that "consolization" simply means "we don't like this menu design so it's obviously made for consoles".

 

[Grobut]

Um, what? UT was released on two consoles, don't forget: PS2 and Dreamcast.

None of which happened simultaniously with the PC release, they where all ported later, it was not an all out cross platform release.

This is the first one where the PC and console versions had to happen at the same time, and where patches have to be made for several versions at once (patching was not even really possible with thouse older consoles), along with a another AAA title in production aswell, and that is different to anything we have seen with UT before.

I disagree. If Unreal was the first game in it's series today with the same type of menu I don't think anyone would complain. The other thing is, the Unreal menu didn't support the mouse at all. If anything, it was MORE "consolized" than the menus in every single subsequent game, including UT3.

Err.. i think all the complaining about UT3's menu's proove you wrong right there, and its menu is better than Unreal's, people would most definately not approve!

And again, this was ages ago, it was normal for PC games to work like this back then, remember the Build engine games? Quake one and two? games like Chasm? all had menu's along thease lines, it was the norm in the mid 90's and twords the end of the 90's, and alot of them did not have mouse support.
On consoles, time has pretty much stood still, and the menu's they use today are really no different from thease old 90's style menu's, but the same is not true for the PC, where alot has happened since then.. untill now! now that everyone is hopping on the cross platfrom bandwagon, we are seeing thease dreadfull 90's/console menu's return, because the Dev's are too cheap to make their games propperly cross platform, with propper support for the features each platform deserves, and we get this terrible "one size fits all" trite.

I don't understand this point, really. A mouse is used to move to areas of the screen and click (when there is a cursor, anyway). The main menu is no different, you move your mouse to whatever you want to click on and then click on it. Why would it be less "consolized" if the options were horizontal instead of vertical and didn't have the rollover effect? the mouse still operates on them the same way either way.

Take a good look at how the menu's report to you, the user, which item you are infact clicking on.. this system does not work well with the high accuracy of a mouse, and can give you a confusing readout that we dont need, but it would work very well with the low accuracy of an analogue stick, where you have to make such compromises to make it work.

What we have here is the training wheels that Dev's put into console menu's to make them work with the low accuracy of the analogue, but not only do we not need them with the mouse, they just muddy the waters for us and makes it harder to see what you are doing.

And who said anything about horizontal menu options? thats just bad design..

I can actually see the logic in this argument. Previous to UT2003, the text/size of UI elements scaled with the screen resolutions. HOWEVER, I can also see why this argument would not make sense. That scaling causes all sorts of issues. Ever tried playing Unreal at 1600x1200? You can hardly tell what the options are!

No, scaling does not cause all kinds of issues if it is done propperly, the problem with Unreal was that it did not scale at all, nothing, nada, zilch, like so many older games before it, the dev's never really considdered that in x amount of years we would be able to play the game at the large resolutions we do today, and thus they did nothing at all to make that work in Unreal.

Take UT2004 though, the menu's can be used both in the highest of the high resolutions, but also in the smallest it will go (640x480), you just have to use your scroll wheel a bit more to see all the options in low res, but they are all perfectly legible, and it still beats having to navigate even more menu's, or not having the options at all.

I wouldn't say this is normal or not normal on any platform. Some games have more options, some have less. I'd blame this more on expectations set by previous games than "consolization".

Then you have not been paying attention since.. uhh, around the time the PS1 hit the market to present day.

It is quite normal for console games to have fewer options, both due to technical limitations, mostly related to the gamepad, but also because dev's aim at two different markets, two different kind of players, when making a game for one or the other.

And if you want a hands on example, then try this on for size: System shock 2 (PC), versus Bioshock (Xbox360 + half arsed port to PC), there are pretty big differences in the number of options you have there, both in menu and in game, despite the PC game beeing the older one, it clearly offers much more!
And this is the norm, you see it all the time, the R6 series anyone? when that went console all of a sudden?
Or lets go a good while back in time here, Tomb Raider? see any differences here and what was offered in contemporary PC only titles?
Pick any console and PC title the past.. 10 years, that where similar games, and take a look at whats on offer, its that simple, the PC title has more 9 out of 10 times.

You can call it circumstantial evidence if you want, but theres more than a decade worth of it! so this jury finds him guildty!

The many menus thing is, again, just a design, and I'd say that since UT2003, UT hasn't had great menu flow. Yes, even UT2004 does not have a great menu, as it suffers from the "more than 3 clicks to do anything"-itis.

So far, though, for the most part I've found that "consolization" simply means "we don't like this menu design so it's obviously made for consoles".

You can lead a horse to water, but you just can't force him to drink.

You dont really seem to understand the mechanics behind this stuff, no offense, but i belive that to be the case, this is very basic stuff Brizz.

Can you really, truely and honestly, tell me that you cannot observe the differences between a console and PC menu? and observe trends in their designs and what kind of options the two have or does not have? or how current cross-platform titles of today are offering us PC users less now than we got years ago in PC only titles?

 

[JaFO]

PC's have more options because every damned system is different so it is hard to simplify & streamline those options into something that works for everyone.

Consoles otoh only ever have to worry about gamma-settings and (only for games like Rockband/Guitar Hero) on timing-differences between sound and picture due to the way flat-screen tv's and AV-receivers work.

I'd blame UT3's design on a wannabe artist/coder trying to make it look 'cool' by having a shadow/fish-eye effect in there.

The fact that there's fewer items per page/view is something that makes scaling to higher and lower resolutions easier.
Add more items and you will run into problems and restrictions.
AFAIK it's also been proven that for users it is easier to navigate if there's not too many items at once on a single view. Something like 6-7 items is easy for the majority to remember (which is why good presentations have similar layouts btw)

 

[Sir_Brizz]

PC's have more options because every damned system is different so it is hard to simplify & streamline those options into something that works for everyone.

Consoles otoh only ever have to worry about gamma-settings and (only for games like Rockband/Guitar Hero) on timing-differences between sound and picture due to the way flat-screen tv's and AV-receivers work.

QFT.

The fact that there's fewer items per page/view is something that makes scaling to higher and lower resolutions easier.
Add more items and you will run into problems and restrictions.
AFAIK it's also been proven that for users it is easier to navigate if there's not too many items at once on a single view. Something like 6-7 items is easy for the majority to remember (which is why good presentations have similar layouts btw)

QFMFT.

And again, this was ages ago, it was normal for PC games to work like this back then, remember the Build engine games? Quake one and two? games like Chasm? all had menu's along thease lines, it was the norm in the mid 90's and twords the end of the 90's, and alot of them did not have mouse support.

A lot of them didn't, because the games you aret alking about ran on DOS. Once Windows 95 (and particularly Windows 98) came out, that started changing pretty rapidly. Just look at Half Life. I'm sure I could find at least a dozen other games that disagree with you.

On consoles, time has pretty much stood still, and the menu's they use today are really no different from thease old 90's style menu's, but the same is not true for the PC, where alot has happened since then.. untill now! now that everyone is hopping on the cross platfrom bandwagon, we are seeing thease dreadfull 90's/console menu's return, because the Dev's are too cheap to make their games propperly cross platform, with propper support for the features each platform deserves, and we get this terrible "one size fits all" trite.

That's because, in general, the UI design doesn't make any difference. Most of what people call "good UI" could easily be adapted to work on a Console. Look at Gears of War. It's menu system is clean and elegant on both platforms, but it's almost exactly the same, as well.

Take a good look at how the menu's report to you, the user, which item you are infact clicking on.. this system does not work well with the high accuracy of a mouse, and can give you a confusing readout that we dont need, but it would work very well with the low accuracy of an analogue stick, where you have to make such compromises to make it work.

I won't disagree that the fisheye thing is kind of retarded, but it actually doesn't prevent the menu from being used or reduce it's usability. You can still move your mouse over items and click on them. The core of their position doesn't really change unless you are over another item. It doesn't make it harder to use.

And who said anything about horizontal menu options? thats just bad design..

I was drawing a comparison to UT. Take the fisheye effect off for a second. Other than that, what makes the main menu so consolized? If the items were in the upper left and horizontal, what makes that suddenly better than having the vertical on the middle right?

No, scaling does not cause all kinds of issues if it is done propperly, the problem with Unreal was that it did not scale at all, nothing, nada, zilch, like so many older games before it, the dev's never really considdered that in x amount of years we would be able to play the game at the large resolutions we do today, and thus they did nothing at all to make that work in Unreal.

Take UT2004 though, the menu's can be used both in the highest of the high resolutions, but also in the smallest it will go (640x480), you just have to use your scroll wheel a bit more to see all the options in low res, but they are all perfectly legible, and it still beats having to navigate even more menu's, or not having the options at all.

Yet UT2004 will have exactly the same problem once even larger resolutions come around. Unreal and UT scaled very well between 400x300 and 1024x768.

I disagree about having the scrolling boxes. The problem with that is that half the time you don't even know the options are there. I had that problem in UT2004 and I have that problem in UT3.

Then you have not been paying attention since.. uhh, around the time the PS1 hit the market to present day.

It is quite normal for console games to have fewer options, both due to technical limitations, mostly related to the gamepad, but also because dev's aim at two different markets, two different kind of players, when making a game for one or the other.

And if you want a hands on example, then try this on for size: System shock 2 (PC), versus Bioshock (Xbox360 + half arsed port to PC), there are pretty big differences in the number of options you have there, both in menu and in game, despite the PC game beeing the older one, it clearly offers much more!
And this is the norm, you see it all the time, the R6 series anyone? when that went console all of a sudden?
Or lets go a good while back in time here, Tomb Raider? see any differences here and what was offered in contemporary PC only titles?
Pick any console and PC title the past.. 10 years, that where similar games, and take a look at whats on offer, its that simple, the PC title has more 9 out of 10 times.

You can call it circumstantial evidence if you want, but theres more than a decade worth of it! so this jury finds him guildty!

Read Jafo's post.

You dont really seem to understand the mechanics behind this stuff, no offense, but i belive that to be the case, this is very basic stuff Brizz.

Can you really, truely and honestly, tell me that you cannot observe the differences between a console and PC menu? and observe trends in their designs and what kind of options the two have or does not have? or how current cross-platform titles of today are offering us PC users less now than we got years ago in PC only titles?

I can truly honestly tell you that, in all your typing above, I still do not see any really good argument for what makes a menu consolized. It still all sounds like "I don't like this design so it must be made for consoles".

If I'm being frank with you, it sounds like you're just making up arguments to support a point that does not even exist. Menus weren't that bad in the 90s. They were just fine while DOS was still popular and in use and resolutions were low. And saying consoles use those kind of menus is really a joke. Console menus are much more usable for this generation than the menus of the 90s would be in this generation.

The options argument is simply a strawman and a fallacy. Why would you have thousands of options on a console when the console can't make use of any of the options? As a lame example, why would a developer put an antialiasing level on the Xbox version of a game if the only choices were on and off? Being able to select 2x, 4x, 8x, QxS, etc would be completely useless. In addition, I wouldn't say UT3 has less options because it's consolized. I'd say it has less options for the same reason people have been finding when INI diving. Too many of the options are inter-related. Therefore, for just about any user the sliders are going to be easier to use.

 

[FuLLBLeeD]

I think the game has proven to be an Epic Failure based on the online player counts; that's the ultimate measuring stick, IMHO. Also, it's not as though large numbers of custom maps and mods are being made for the game and even if they were, there isn't enough of a player base to maintain server player counts for them.

As for the user interface, my primary complaint about it is that it's clunky and slow and you still can't do many things you could with the other games.

Let me give you an example. Have you ever been on a server and contemplated leaving that server for another server? Ever wanted to open up the server browser and see what the player counts were on other servers? In UT99 and UT 2004 I could pull up the server browser and look at other servers in about three seconds. With UT3 I have to first leave the server, wait for the main menu to load up, then open up the server browser, and if I want to keep playing on the server that I was on, I have to wait for it to reload the map, etc.

That gripe is representative of the user interface and server browser as a whole. Why the !#?$! should I have to load the main menu in the first place? I don't really care about the cute map in the background! And just how exactly do you make a clear-cut aspect of the game--something as fundamental as the user interface and server browser--dramatically worse than what you had in previous games?

I could go on. It isn't just one or two aspects of the gameplay's packaging that are substandard; it's most if not almost all aspects of it.

I'm not a bad guy. I don't take any pleasure in UT3's failure. I didn't want it to fail. I love the UT franchise and had hoped that UT3 would live up to UT99's success. I was very enthusiastic about it. However, I am disgusted with this mess that Epic has created. It's not that Epic didn't get delicate and difficult chemistry right; the user interface and server browser are straightforward and they are design decisions, and those decisions resulted in a substandard user interface and server browser that played a very large role in souring players on the game.

I'm also bothered by my perception that Epic really does not care and has no desire to make another good UT game for the PC. I think that the franchise could be revitalized and that there is in fact a market for a hardcore competitive online multiplayer FPS. Epic could do it ala UT 2003 to UT 2004, but I don't think Epic has the desire, and that's what's so sad.

/thread

Really, Epic just cares about Gears now. I was always hoping UT3 would be a huge success and I am very disappointed about how things turned out.

And a more positive note, UT3 is just $30 now. That might help.

 

[N1ghtmare]

/thread

Really, Epic just cares about Gears now. I was always hoping UT3 would be a huge success and I am very disappointed about how things turned out.

And a more positive note, UT3 is just $30 now. That might help.

Thats totally the reason why a third patch will be released...

"OH BUT NIGHTMARE IT IS TAKING TOO LONG"

No it is not. Things take much longer to develop these days.

 

[Draco73]

With UT3 Epic did a decent job with the feel of the game play. The game play feels more like the tried-and-true UT99. The game play was good and many UT99 players who'd rejected UT 2003/2004 style liked the game play of the demo. But...and here's where Epic ****ed the duck...everything else about the game was god-awful. Everything surrounding the game play was rotten! Epic consolized the user interface and server browser and then hopped into bed with Gamespy. The user interface is clunky and slow and requires people to have to wait to load the main menu constantly and it offers few settings tweaking options and you cannot keybind taunts and communications comments. ("Cover me!") The server browser, at the game's release, barely functioned and was featureless. In fact, it wasn't even possible to make a list of server favorites. People are also required to log into Gamespy which can sometimes cause a number of problems. The retail version of the game was also released as an unfinished, buggy beta and it was released when other more polished, big name titles were being released. Hence, the game sold poorly and now has low player counts and few custom, user-made maps and mods.

The UT 2004 user interface and server browser were pretty good and the UT99 UWindows user interface was good also. People were expecting that for UT3, but when they saw just how crappy it was in UT3, they lost enthusiasm for the game. UT3 also has fewer game types than the other games, few player skins, and awful, awful taunts.

It's very sad when a sequel pales in comparison to what previous versions offered, but with UT3, that's what happened. Hence, UT3 has proven to be an Epic Failure.

Can the Unreal Tournament franchise be saved? Yes, and Epic could do it and might even be able to figure out what to do. However, the problem is a lack of desire on Epic's part, not ability. Having been infected with an awful case of consolitus, it seems doubtful that Epic will ever make another game for the PC that will rival the greatness of the original Unreal Tournament.

In the meantime many of us will continue to play the original UT in clanner-style pickup games (PUG) matches for as long as such activity continues to last, maintaining fond memories of how much fun the game was years ago when thousands of people could be found on the public servers 24/7 and when custom map aficionados eagerly awaited seeing new maps.

Whatever amount of activity and community UT3 has, it's merely a faint shadow of what UT99 had and even of what UT 2004 had. Will the real story about what led Epic to kill the franchise ever come out? Did Midway force Epic to release an unpolished, unfinished buggy beta with a consolized user interface and server browser months before the game was really ready for the PC? Or did Epic really believe that PC players wanted a consolized, clunky and slow user interface with a featureless server browser? Or did Epic make a conscious business decision to kill the UT franchise on the PC? Perhaps, one day, the real story will come out.

+1 to all of this, its a shame too, cause i wanted ut3 to be a smash hit as well

 

[Draco73]

Thats totally the reason why a third patch will be released...

"OH BUT NIGHTMARE IT IS TAKING TOO LONG"

No it is not. Things take much longer to develop these days.

yeah but like all normal patches, Patch 1.3 will be fixing 99% of the issues or items dealing directly with the game and game play its self. it does not help fix the biggest overall complaint which is the UI. so they can release patch 3, 4 ,5 6, etc, its still not going to fix the UI, and its not going to stop people from complaining about the UI

so until epic releases a "UT3newUIpatch" the complaints will just continue to come, and the over success of the game will suffer (of course we have no way to know for sure how much it will cause it to suffer, but it is obvious it does have some effect)

 

[N1ghtmare]

"OH BUT NIGHTMARE, THIS PATCH DOESN'T FIX ALL THE PROBLEMS EPIC MUST HAVE ABANDONED THE GAME"

 

[Sir_Brizz]

yeah but like all normal patches, Patch 1.3 will be fixing 99% of the issues or items dealing directly with the game and game play its self. it does not help fix the biggest overall complaint which is the UI. so they can release patch 3, 4 ,5 6, etc, its still not going to fix the UI, and its not going to stop people from complaining about the UI

so until epic releases a "UT3newUIpatch" the complaints will just continue to come, and the over success of the game will suffer (of course we have no way to know for sure how much it will cause it to suffer, but it is obvious it does have some effect)

The UI has been fine for the most part ever since 1.2 came out. The only problems with it now are 1) the server browser and 2) the mid game menu. If they fix those two things, then they will have pretty much made it perfectly fine.

 

[Lethargy]

I'm not especially fond of the SWOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHH every time i do ANYTHING in the menu either.

 

[Draco73]

The UI has been fine for the most part ever since 1.2 came out. The only problems with it now are 1) the server browser and 2) the mid game menu. If they fix those two things, then they will have pretty much made it perfectly fine.

fine?

1. the server browser sux
2. you cant add server to your fav any way but the server browser (no ip add, no anything)
3. no ability to add server fav, or buddies while in the game match its self as in previous version
4. no mid game menu, no ability to vote new maps, no ability to change game types, basically no nothing.
5. visual control settings are absolutely absurd, in 2k4, we had a page with nearly 25 GUI options to control and change almost everything without havening to go edit the ini's manually, UT3 we get two slider bars 1-5, wtf?
6. no options to turn off auto taunts (again we have to manually edit ini's)
7. no custom X-hairs
8. not being able to search server browser while in a match, you have to literally close everything out, go all the way back to the main menu and start from scratch.
9. the whole epic in bed with game spy issues (which isnt entirely UI related) but the fact that you have to log in to game spy, and the fact that you cant play on line if your not log is so crappy, especially since it seems as though almost every day, or every other day the gamespy server decides it doesn't want to work...so no one can play...yay!
10. the whole UI its self is so clunky, too fancy, annoy swoooosh!!!! sounds on everything you click, having to wait a few seconds on everything you click because of how the UI is set up, its just bad across the board.

im just going to stop at 10 there, i really dont want to get into all of this, but i could go on and on, and if i sat here all day making a list about whats wrong with the UI, it would probably be 3 pages long. its far, very far from being fine.

and when people say the UI turns people off, its for real. I am literally probably one of the biggest unreal fans out there, i have owned every single "unreal" game ever made on basically the day they were all released. I was one of those people so enthusiastic about UT3 and so excited about it, and the second i saw the UI, all of that just flew out the window, i couldn't comprehend how such a quality company such as epic could put out such a POS UI such as UT3's. and it if effects me, and how i look at UT3, with being how "Unreal fan" i am, imagine how it might effect just the every day gamer.

i have also seen numerous posts in different "ut" forums going by the theme of "if i cant figure out how to do this / turn this off / change this, im going to stop playing ut3" and it has to do with how crappy the UI is, and how little options it offers its users over the control. and just for example, the last one i saw was some guy pissed he couldn't figure out how to turn off the auto taunts, which he was told he had to manually edit the ini's. which obviously he shouldn't have to go searching through INI's trying to turn off something that should be a simple option within the game UI its self.

 

[N1ghtmare]

The first four of those go in the category Brizz put as "server browser."

ANd when you hear the word "UT3" and all you think of is the UI, then you are not getting hte bigger picture.

 

[Draco73]

The first four of those go in the category Brizz put as "server browser."

ANd when you hear the word "UT3" and all you think of is the UI, then you are not getting hte bigger picture.

well like i said, those 10 things were just off the top of my head in 30 sec of typing, i did not sit down and arrange them in any sort of way. and as far as what i think about when i hear ut3, its def NOT the UI. in fact the first thing i think of when i hear UT3 is the countdown nodes in warfare because imo they are quite fun to fight over. and don't take my posts wrong, i enjoy ut3, i love all unreal games, but with how awful UI is, it effects the game as a whole, and i want this game around for years to come...i don't want it to be a one and done, and come next year barely anyone playing it...and having one of the main contributing factors to its demise being a terrible GUI...its such a dumb reason for a game to fail

 

[Grobut]

PC's have more options because every damned system is different so it is hard to simplify & streamline those options into something that works for everyone.

Consoles otoh only ever have to worry about gamma-settings and (only for games like Rockband/Guitar Hero) on timing-differences between sound and picture due to the way flat-screen tv's and AV-receivers work.

No JaFo, that only acounts for the system setup menu's, which obviously need to contain more options on the PC.

I'm not counting thouse, because they are a given, and an unfair comparison, i am looking at everything else instead.

Console games are notorious for having less options, anything from not letting the user redefine their controls, or restricting what they can redefine, to basic gameplay options, most console games are alot more "arcade" than PC games, and seems more fucused on making the player play by set rules instead of letting him/her choose what rules to play by, its many things really, like how the inventory system from SS2 was dropped from Bioshock, in many racing games you dont have the same amount of race modes and views as in similar PC racers (and i stress the word "similar" here, obviously it is unfair to compare RidgeRacer to GTR2), its.. just alot of things, and its very hard to make a comprihensive rundown here, because this is something i have noticed over the past decade and more, ever since the days of the PS1! Its in the menu's and the games themselves really.

Ultimately it is futile for me to sit here and try to write all this down, how can i possibly proove 10 years worth of games in one post?, if you really want to debate this, do what i have done, open your eyes and start looking at the games of the past 10 years, compare the PC exclusive titles and their options and gameplay features to their console/cross-platform counterparts of the time and look at what you get, it is really that simple, then we can start talking about what trends we see.

That goes for you too Brizz, since you have obviously also misunderstood everything i said.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

No JaFo, that only acounts for the system setup menu's, which obviously need to contain more options on the PC.

I'm not counting thouse, because they are a given, and an unfair comparison, i am looking at everything else instead.

Such as? That's the only place I've ever heard of ANYONE saying there were too few options. And frankly, it's the only place there could be.

Ultimately it is futile for me to sit here and try to write all this down, how can i possibly proove 10 years worth of games in one post?, if you really want to debate this, do what i have done, open your eyes and start looking at the games of the past 10 years, compare the PC exclusive titles and their options and gameplay features to their console/cross-platform counterparts of the time and look at what you get, it is really that simple, then we can start talking about what trends we see.

I've been looking. And guess what? It's not there. As I said before, everything you've said so far makes it sound more like you want a reason to make such a distinction, not that there is actually one there.

I've played half a dozen games or more that co-exist on PC and console, and the only difference I really see about how they are made in general is the dumbing down of certain options.

I'll agree that the options menu has been dumbed down somewhat in UT3, but I don't think it's consolitis, I think it's noobitis. Your average gamer is not going to care about 90% of the options in UT2004. And chances are, if the auto-tuner got the settings wrong, it would mess up the gaming experience for that person until they figured out all the options (or had to go INI diving That is certainly not exclusive to UT3. ). But this is all aside from the point, since you aren't counting the options menus

That goes for you too Brizz, since you have obviously also misunderstood everything i said.

I can only assume you don't know how to respond.

Regarding the "swoosh" sound, have you guys ever played ANY UT game? They ALL make sounds when you click menu items.

 

[Grobut]

Such as? That's the only place I've ever heard of ANYONE saying there were too few options. And frankly, it's the only place there could be.

I've been looking. And guess what? It's not there. As I said before, everything you've said so far makes it sound more like you want a reason to make such a distinction, not that there is actually one there.

I have given you perfectly good examples, like SS2 versus Bioshock, and Classic R6 games versus the latest cross-platform R6 games, thease are perfectly hands on examples, and its even UE3 so you should know of them.
Thouse games definately have suffered dumbing down since going cross platform, both ingame and in menu, i don't think anyone who has played them can really dispute that.
And it should also be pretty obvious why the dumbing down has occured, its the gamepad, you need to make sacrifices to make games such as thease play on a gamepad or it just wont work, the origionals had way too many features to be used with such few buttons, and thus, it is consolitis.

I've played half a dozen games or more that co-exist on PC and console, and the only difference I really see about how they are made in general is the dumbing down of certain options.

If they "co-exist on PC and console" then they are cross-platform, and not subject to comparison, as i said, you need to compare PC-exclusive titles to similar console/cross-platform titles before you see the differences, comparing the same game to itself wont tell you anything meaningfull.
Again, try comparing something like SS2 to Bioshock, one is PC exclusive the other cross-platform, and the latter is a spiritual successor the the former so the comparison will be apt, the differences you see between thease two titles is what we referr to as "consolitis", are you following me this far?

I'll agree that the options menu has been dumbed down somewhat in UT3, but I don't think it's consolitis, I think it's noobitis. Your average gamer is not going to care about 90% of the options in UT2004. And chances are, if the auto-tuner got the settings wrong, it would mess up the gaming experience for that person until they figured out all the options (or had to go INI diving That is certainly not exclusive to UT3. ). But this is all aside from the point, since you aren't counting the options menus

How is this even up for debate anymore? Epic themselves have admitted what happened, they had the UI ready on console, but needed to slap togeather an UI for the PC really quick before release, this is fact is it not? that is what they told us happened in an interview not long ago, agreed?

Thus, the UI is infact a victim of cross-platform development (this is also covered by the broad term "consolitis"), had UT3 been PC exclusive, had there only been one UI in the works from the very start, this would not have happened, this is why so many of us old timey PC players dislike cross-platform games so much, there will allways be compromises made in them, even if it is a result of time constraint.

I can only assume you don't know how to respond.

How can i? we seem to be talking about 2 different things! and your constant dismissal of anything i say as merely "you just see what you want to see" is hardly a healthy foundation for a rational and frank discussion.. if we could please end up on the same page, perhabs we could bring some meat to the table and have a mature exchange of opinions.

 

[Crotale]

I just want to thank all of you who have been constantly harping on Epic about the fracking UI. For about the last nine years or so I have had an Unreal game on my PC, but now I seriously am considering uninstalling all Unreal products. All this nonstop whining and complaining that was once belonging primarily to the console kiddies (mostly young XBoxers) has now become a staple of the PC crowd. Honestly, all this whining and complaining has made feel as though I have no place here or on any of my old haunts. The way I see it, if you're gonna whine here you're gonna whine on the servers, so I have no reason to play online at all.

This hurts me to no end, but no matter how much I try to ignore it, the constant whining seems to it crop up in almost every thread I wander into. Jeebus frackin' crimony sakes people, will it hurt any of you just give it a GD break for a spell? It's been six months already and the sh1t got old five months ago. We get it, you hate the UI. I don't like it either, but I'm not constantly whining about how Epic fracked me over. I spent my $60 on the CE and I have no regrets.

The only reason I am not uninstalling the games today is because I want to give my son a chance put in his two cents on this decision. He'll be the ONLY reason I keep the games installed.

 

[Dark Pulse]

I just want to thank all of you who have been constantly harping on Epic about the fracking UI. For about the last nine years or so I have had an Unreal game on my PC, but now I seriously am considering uninstalling all Unreal products. All this nonstop whining and complaining that was once belonging primarily to the console kiddies (mostly young XBoxers) has now become a staple of the PC crowd. Honestly, all this whining and complaining has made feel as though I have no place here or on any of my old haunts. The way I see it, if you're gonna whine here you're gonna whine on the servers, so I have no reason to play online at all.

This hurts me to no end, but no matter how much I try to ignore it, the constant whining seems to it crop up in almost every thread I wander into. Jeebus frackin' crimony sakes people, will it hurt any of you just give it a GD break for a spell? It's been six months already and the sh1t got old five months ago. We get it, you hate the UI. I don't like it either, but I'm not constantly whining about how Epic fracked me over. I spent my $60 on the CE and I have no regrets.

The only reason I am not uninstalling the games today is because I want to give my son a chance put in his two cents on this decision. He'll be the ONLY reason I keep the games installed.

Just put those people on your ignore list. Save yourself some heartache.

They're still awesome games, it's the people (not) playing them that are ruining it for everyone else.

 

[hilo_]

Just put those people on your ignore list. Save yourself some heartache.

They're still awesome games, it's the people (not) playing them that are ruining it for everyone else.

I've never understood how the ignore list is a good idea. If people say things you don't like you should learn not to let get to you, instead of just blocking out every type of post that you might not like to read. If someone is clearly trolling or inciting flames on purpose that's something else entirely. There are a few people who post annoying stuff but it's really not that hard to just keep reading without letting it tick you off. If you add them to the ignore list, it doesn't change the fact that they're still here, complaining. You're just creating an illusion of what you'd like to see happening instead of what people are really saying.

Crotale, if you enjoy the game play it, don't worry about what others are doing/thinking.