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.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.
I think, though, that that is the perfect opportunity to try to introduce those people to another way or playing the 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.
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.
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).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.
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).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...
The problem is, Epic has a niche market. Frankly, they aren't goign to get Halo gamers to move to UT, even with vehicles.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.
Lack of polish, IMO. Polish it til it almost shines and people will come back.