Its not so much the look&feel and a lot more the lack of options. The look isn't bad. What is, is the amount of navigating through the menus and the few options you can actually change.
Example: UT3 vs CoD4
[SCREENSHOT]http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a123/OlympusMons/GUIDiscuss/UT3_AdvancedVideo.jpg[/SCREENSHOT] [SCREENSHOT]http://screenshot.xfire.com/screenshot/large/49e009279d122d349ced0a8b2af8ad0d55dfc084.jpg[/SCREENSHOT]
Do I care if I need to change a setting by clicking on the value, and not use checkboxes, radio buttons or dropdown boxes? No, I can still change the values with ease.
Do I care if its not entirely clear what a setting means when I look at it? Yes, I guess that was a mistake in CoD4's interface. But at least I
can change those settings
in the interface if I wanted to, and that's certainly not the case with UT3. It doesn't go much further than world and texture detail, while the CoD4
settings screen equals UT3's world detail
setting.
Of course, in the end its all a matter of preference and about what is important to you. I want an interface to be clean, easy to use and easily accessible.
For CoD4, I rate this: good, moderate-good and good.
For UT3, I rate this: moderate, bad-moderate and bad-moderate.
Hence, I prefer CoD4's.
Judging by
post 11 you seem to hold most value for correctness of the user interface. If you find that important, then that's your call, but it doesn't for the vast majority of the community (insert reference to UI poll on utforums here).
It looks like this thread was made just to point out one good thing about the UT3 UI, and its something almost no-one really cares about.
