UT3.5 or UT4?

[Hedge-o-Matic]

No first person for vehicles and Fury auto-aim.

What is "console" about these? I don't get what the term even means, and these examples don't help.

To me, "consolization" would imply content restricted to teh hardware specs of the intended console, not arbitrary gameplay or design choices. So: not consolized.


As for the topic, I'm not sure what will help more. To release bunch of bonus packs wold be a huge task. The recent 3-map pack shows that the days of huge amounts of bonus content are over, if only from a download point of view. If Epic continues to provide a new map every month, it might help. In fact, a monthly contest, smaller than the MSU, would be a better deal. Say, a $100 prize for the best community map, as decided by Epic. Cheap, but effective in building the community, and keeping ongoing interest. Winners would be put into rotation on Epic servers.

To release a 3.5 edition would be a mighty undertaking, and basically admit to the flaws of UT3 that have turned so many players away. Could this save the game? It worked for 2k4, but that was so far beyond 2k3 I can't imagine what would be needed for a 3.5. An entirely new vehicle set, a couple of new factions, a couple of new gametypes, and 40 more new maps, if 2k4 is anything to go by.

To abandon UT3 to its fate and develop for UT4 would be a risk to the entire franchise, but the effort involved in rescuing UT3 might be seen as throwing good development time after bad. Epic might well have come to the conclusion that the UT phenomena has run its course, and not every title is going to be a blockbuster. In that case, they'll learn their lessons and move on.

Tough to say what will happen. But I hope the community starts to accept new content for this game online, or all the efforts of Epic and others won't mean a thing.

 

[elmuerte]

[...]

I was going to respond to various parts of your posts, but decided not to. It's again way off topic for this thread. There are more than enough threads about that.


Unreal Box is a bad idea. Why recreate the same thing. Something new is much better. We already have the old.

 

[Wunderbar_007]

As for the topic...

Some good points right there!
Overall though, any such undertaking would require lots of work. As for what they can add in free bonus packs, UT3.5 or UT4? TONS! For example...

Characters (old and new, get creative dammit)
THE RIPPER (maybe some new weapons too)
New single player or extension of current one (something big and cool like we thought we were going to get)
Classic or some new gametype (get creative dammit)
Character customization (like we were supposed to get)
Actual DX10 features (this alone would give a stiffy to many PC players)
New Menu System (the official website is soo nice, why can't the in game menu be like that?)

Basically a game that feels complete and can be played for years, making any free content pack from EPIC feel like a nice gesture rather than a rushed requirement for an incomplete game.

 

[Armagon917]

I was going to respond to various parts of your posts, but decided not to. It's again way off topic for this thread. There are more than enough threads about that.


Unreal Box is a bad idea. Why recreate the same thing. Something new is much better. We already have the old.

Your complaints were off topic, so I decided to respond to them. So you moved off topic first. I think its disrespectful to round up peoples opinions and say that they're wasting your time. I fealt that a response to what you said was necessary.

Anyways I don't take my own idea that seriously. I think it would be cool to go back like Valve did with CounterStrike and update UT99 with the new engine. It proved to be a good idea with CS Source. Because UT3.5 or UT4 would be an entire new game and a massive undertaking I proposed something that would hold over UT fans until EPIC can get around to making a new UT. It really wouldn't take that long to recreate UT99 or UT2004 and package it.

It may sound like a bad idea but in fact I bet it would find more people playing it then UT3. UT99 is a classic so why not re-release it with new technology. Graphics are important and why not package it with other UT titles as well as UT3. EPIC is selling games on Steam now too so you could buy whatever you wanted individually from the release. UT99 has nostalgia going for it and is considered by many to be one of the best multiplayer shooters ever made. A revamp of that, which wouldn't take that long would grab a lot of attention.

Anyway you could say that re-releasing CounterStrike with a new engine was a bad idea based on the same reasoning. Look how well thats doing. And most of us here consider UT99 to be the best of the series. It may not move the UT series forward, but it would be a lot of fun IMO. I bet there are a lot of people out there who feel the same way. Weather now is the right time to do something like that is debatable not implying that the entire idea isn't. Maybe more time needs to pass before a release like this.

This was from you.

"Can't you people(1) do anything else that complain? Or at least be constructive."


I consider this idea to be constructive. A few already like it. But apparently its not constructive if you don't like it. You come off as being a pretty grumpy guy no offense. Everytime I read one of your posts you seem to be complaining about something. And something new may not actually be better as UT3 is the newest and isn't doing well online right now. You know you could try and be nice to people. For example. You could've said.

Armagon, I'd rather see the UT series move forward and I feel a remake would be a step back. - see how much better that sounds.

Instead of its a bad idea. You reak of negativity. Wish you could argue instead of being argumentative.

 

[elmuerte]

I thought CS:Source failed compared to the regular CS

 

[N1ghtmare]

Your complaints were off topic, so I decided to respond to them. So you moved off topic first. I think its disrespectful to round up peoples opinions and say that they're wasting your time. I fealt that a response to what you said was necessary.
.

He is the one complaining? oh boy.

 

[Crotale]

I don't think Unreal Box is a good idea. After all, didn't we have the Unreal Anthology released just last year or so? Unreal Box seems ridiculously redundant.

As for UT Zero, or whatever it could be called, it is not a half bad idea. IMO, it could run on a modified version of Unreal Engine 3. Anyone remember the LOPO maps released for UT3? Just make everything LOPO, including characters and weapons, and you have UT on a newer engine. Now, does the movement really have to change much from UT3's current movement? I think not. This is one place I think Epic got right with UT3.

I'm sure the original maps, characters and weapons could all be created closely enough to make this work.

The big question would be whether to model this effort after the Quake Live concept or just make it a releasable game without all the online frills of Live. For me, I'd rather play UT as its own app than play it in my browser. Then again, we have the GS integration to think about. I doubt Epic wants to create an independent server browser and stat tracking service now that GS is in the picture.

Now, what to call it? Zero does not work since that was the original concept name for Quake Live. How about Unreal Tournament Reloaded?

 

[Armagon917]

He is the one complaining? oh boy.

Yes but I was complaining about his comments toward others opinions. Yeah I complain a lot about UT3. But when someone in a thread complains about people's opinions instead of debating with them respectfully then I have a problem with that. N1ghtmare, he ripped apart a post of mine which was JUST an opinion of mine like it was his life goal instead of being respectful and disagreeing with it.

It was extremely critical and for someone to try and be the voice for what is constructive is not his place. With that said nothing good from dialogue with him is ever going to do any good so I will just ignore his posts. You're right I shouldn't complain, I should ignore.

 

[T2A`]

I thought CS:Source failed compared to the regular CS

¿Qué?

Some old-school players might have bitched about it, but CS:S had a longer reach as far as grabbing players goes. That's not to say people don't still play CS, but more play CS:S.

As of this post (and in the US only) CS is looking at 6021 players vs. CS:S's 9233. Certainly that's not a failure.

For comparison's sake, UT3's got 241, UT2004 668, TF2 3124, and CoD4 11166.

 

[brdempsey69]

I thought CS:Source failed compared to the regular CS

A more accurate statement may be that CS:S wasn't the success that the original CS was, but I wouldn't call it a complete failure as it did have a far better amount of players -- and still has -- than UT3.

Hey Armagon917 -- what's happening man ? I've read all your posts and so far you've said nothing wrong. I have to agree, I'd like to see the Unreal Box released in the manner you suggested.

 

[Armagon917]

I don't think Unreal Box is a good idea. After all, didn't we have the Unreal Anthology released just last year or so? Unreal Box seems ridiculously redundant.

Oh, forgot all about Unreal Anthology. Yeah that wouldn't work as a retail release. I just think that some of EPIC's old games could be re-released with a facelift using new tech (UE3) and do really well via steam or whatever. So I guess it would have to be stripped down to a single title. Like I said earlier maybe one generation after is too soon to release a UT2004 remake but UT99 is a classic and I believe it could do well like CS:S

 

[N1ghtmare]

I actually think elmuerte has more of a point. It has been 4 months since the release of the game, and it gets to the point where repetative comments are not constructive anymore, they are just annoying to read. yes, I also have my problems with UT3.

"Targetting" consoles does not mean "exclusive development" for consoles. It seems logical to develop game engines based on the cycle of consoles, where they can fully utilize a console's hardware, while also keeping track with the newer PC's.

And I'm not sure what the point in an unreal box would be. It takes a lot longer to make levels in Unreal Engine 3, so to waste all that time for a carbon copy remake with better graphics? Why don't we all just go back to playing the old games. I would rather see epic waste there time developing a UT4 or Unreal 3.

 

[UnrealGrrl]

UT3 doesnt need anything more than to be fixed, polished, have content added and be rereleased properly to be more of the success it could have been. all this talk about UE4 has nothing to do with UT3, and get over the menu ppl, yes it sucks, Epic knows it too, but that didnt ruin the game, it just annoyed us.

hopefully Epic will do something along the lines of the UT2004 ECE release except instead of it being linked to the MSU this time, they will get the game fixed and polished to the point it should have been at release. Add a BUNCH of new content, maps, models, a couple vehicles (there i said it) and have the problems with making mods ironed out so there can actually be a good amount of modding done (besides just maps) to help keep the game going for the next few years... that = happy UT players & community (except of course for the "im complaining cause I can" whiners who have no life).

 

[DGUnreal]

My opinion on the current and future state of gaming and the UT franchise is this... for what it is worth...

Since the development tools are PC-based (C# and C++ Editors/Compilers, 3DS Max and Maya, PhotoShop, etc.) the tools for Epic and their Licensees will stay PC-based (UnrealEd, etc.). This is a given and won't change unless some other personal computer platform (Mac, Unix/Linux, SGI, etc.) takes over the workstation-level personal computer market share (which is highly unlikely). So the engines and tools will be developed on the PC, for the PC hardware and the current line of consoles.

Epic is one of the largest middle-ware companies now. There are currently and will be in the future, Licensees who want to create PC games with UEx and/or cross-platform games with UEx, so UEx will almost definitely support the PC hardware (Mac and Linux? Not so much... market share is too small).
Since Epic creates at least one game per platform that their engine runs on, in order for the Licensees to see a completed game with the tools they have purchased, we will still see something PC-based, whether it be "UT4 Tech Demo Game" or whatever... still... PC based...

Will there be a "full" UT4, 5, 6, ... for the PC? That is difficult to say. Only Epic knows for sure, and not even they know the entire future of computing.

The issue that I feel many game companies and PC gamers are missing is the fact that the console market is mostly the play-once and/or throw-away games and gamers. IMHO, because of this, certain game types or franchises are set to fail if they are made console-only.

The console sales on "what's cool and new" rocket up fast, beating out most PC sales of same or similar titles, but then the game is played for a shorter time and replaced by the console owner with the latest fad or "cool game" in a very quick time (days to weeks to a couple of months).
Where this doesn't fly with the PC gamers is the fact that the PC has always maintained games and franchises that had longevity.
How many XBox'ers still play their GoW? Sales were great for Epic, but how many of the total games sold are still "in-use".

If UT4+ were console only, IMHO it will fail, in that there will be little to no community and the overall longevity of play will be shorter. That is the nature of most console gamers. This game looks cool, I'll play it for a few days or weeks until it bores me (or "no longer entertains me" if you wish to be kinder and more p.c.), then it is on to the next new thing (most often a different title or franchise). And for those who might argue, well games like Halo that have multiple sequels sold well. Yes it did, but how many copies of H1/H2/H3 are still being played on the consoles (vs their total sales)? I haven't touched Halo XBox in many years. However, I still play UT99, UT2004, etc. (FEAR, Q3A, BF2142, QW, ...)

PC gamers are different. They stick to a game and/or a franchise and play it online and offline for years. Look at Sims, WoW, BF2, CS, UT99, etc.

Personally, I think a console only UT franchise game would die. Sales might be fine out-of-the-gate initially if it had "cool" or "wow" factor, but the game won't have any longevity.
Console games just don't. That is the nature of most console gamers when compared to PC gamers.
And most console games also don't survive the hardware upgrade path (how many total Xbox games play on the 360?). PC games often do still play upwards (I still play Q3A on newer hardware after probably five or six upgrades since it's release and love it).

Even though GoW XB360 has sold probably 10x of UT3 PC, a year from now there will be more people still playing UT3 PC than GoW XB360, if anyone even plays GoW at all by that time. But companies need income, and consoles are where the sales and money are, so that is where companies will go.

 

[Crotale]

I actually think elmuerte has more of a point. It has been 4 months since the release of the game, and it gets to the point where repetative comments are not constructive anymore, they are just annoying to read. yes, I also have my problems with UT3.

Good post. :tup:

"Targetting" consoles does not mean "exclusive development" for consoles. It seems logical to develop game engines based on the cycle of consoles, where they can fully utilize a console's hardware, while also keeping track with the newer PC's.

That's what I've been saying, but it appears that some folks refuse to listen.

And I'm not sure what the point in an unreal box would be. It takes a lot longer to make levels in Unreal Engine 3, so to waste all that time for a carbon copy remake with better graphics? Why don't we all just go back to playing the old games. I would rather see epic waste there time developing a UT4 or Unreal 3.

I agree about the "Box." But I do like the idea of remaking the original game on the newer engine to reignite the franchise. Let's face it, UT3 failed to bring in the players, for whatever reasons. I love the game, but it somehow just did not click with (PC) gamers in the way the previous versions did.

IMO, the "small" investment that would be made for this venture could really bring PC gamers back to the UT franchise.

 

[Wunderbar_007]

UT3 doesnt need anything more than to be fixed, polished, have content added and be rereleased properly to be more of the success it could have been. all this talk about UE4 has nothing to do with UT3, and get over the menu ppl, yes it sucks, Epic knows it too, but that didnt ruin the game, it just annoyed us.

hopefully Epic will do something along the lines of the UT2004 ECE release except instead of it being linked to the MSU this time, they will get the game fixed and polished to the point it should have been at release. Add a BUNCH of new content, maps, models, a couple vehicles (there i said it) and have the problems with making mods ironed out so there can actually be a good amount of modding done (besides just maps) to help keep the game going for the next few years... that = happy UT players & community (except of course for the "im complaining cause I can" whiners who have no life).

That's what I'm hoping for, I just wonder if EPIC agrees...

 

[UnrealGrrl]

My opinion on the current and future state of gaming and the UT franchise is this... for what it is worth...

- > Insert alot of very realistic and smart stuff said well here < -

... haven't touched Halo XBox in many years. However, I still play UT99, UT2004, etc. (FEAR, Q3A, BF2142, QW, ...)

PC gamers are different. They stick to a game and/or a franchise and play it online and offline for years. Look at Sims, WoW, BF2, CS, UT99, etc.

Personally, I think a console only UT franchise game would die.

QFT

my concern about the longevity factor is that in the throw away society we're stuck in, where mindless fluff and 'of the moment' factor often outweight quality and fun, is that the developers and more likely, the publishers get swept away with this kind of thinking too... it happened to a large extent in the music and movie biz hopefully the developers will ride thier marketing depts and publishers hard and not allow this to happen. Epic (i believe) has a chance to do that. the developers after all, are us, except they are now making the games hopefully they dont let us down...

 

[MARVO]

wisdom wisdom wisdom

all of that is very true

 

[Armagon917]

UT3 doesnt need anything more than to be fixed, polished, have content added and be rereleased properly to be more of the success it could have been. all this talk about UE4 has nothing to do with UT3, and get over the menu ppl, yes it sucks, Epic knows it too, but that didnt ruin the game, it just annoyed us.

hopefully Epic will do something along the lines of the UT2004 ECE release except instead of it being linked to the MSU this time, they will get the game fixed and polished to the point it should have been at release. Add a BUNCH of new content, maps, models, a couple vehicles (there i said it) and have the problems with making mods ironed out so there can actually be a good amount of modding done (besides just maps) to help keep the game going for the next few years... that = happy UT players & community (except of course for the "im complaining cause I can" whiners who have no life).

Wow, YOU... are absolutly right! To hopefully add to this gracefully I think that as you mentioned the ECE of UT2004 we need the PS3 mod tools packaged as well. (yes you can get them online but it would be nice to have it already incorperated to promote that) EPIC also needs to add the new features of Unreal Engine 3 shown at GDC to a release of this kind. Soft Body Physics... that capability needs to be in the hands of modders/mappers instead of people just licensing the engine.

While mods help games and people mainly look at that as more entertainment or more value for the game I see EPIC's engine as being even more important. DOOM was extremely important allowing people to make their own WADs. I remember the ones that came out for multiplayer only. It was the first instance I know of that got people in the gaming industry. Tim Willits lead level designer made it to id Software that way. EPIC definitly needs to realize that a sucessful game using their engine with great tools to add to their game is more then just increasing the entertainment value of their game.

It creates future game developers. Rocket Arena 3, CounterStrike all had solid retail games to build off of. This is one area they need to focus on considering they are part of the PC Gaming Alliance. What better way to help PC gaming then to keep PC mappers/modders up to date with the latest tech to create great things and become future developers.

 

[Wail of Suicide]

Just chiming in to agree with DGUnreal's perception of the situation.

I'm primarily a PC gamer, and I can count the number of games I've played (excluding LAN parties) on two hands. UT. UT2004. Warcraft 3. I've played the hell out of these games, and I've also made all kinds of things for them. When I was a console gamer, I would buy a game every few weeks, usually beat it within a day and most likely never play it again.

Also, elmuerte, your idea for an Unreal Zero sounded excellent.