Why the low UT3 adoption?

[MeStinkBAD]

While UT3 was good, it still felt and played too much like UT99 and UT2003/04. Really the original is the standout game, but since then most of the refinements we're on graphics, appearance, rather than reinventing game play. So it was very much a "been there done that" feeling. You can not sell a game on graphics alone. I honestly don't think the dev team played it nearly as much as they should have during development.

 

[1x.]

While UT3 was good, it still felt and played too much like UT99 and UT2003/04. Really the original is the standout game, but since then most of the refinements we're on graphics, appearance, rather than reinventing game play. So it was very much a "been there done that" feeling. You can not sell a game on graphics alone. I honestly don't think the dev team played it nearly as much as they should have during development.

Well i don't think the game was tested and released in a complete state (where it is now with the current patch)

I have to say its great that they kept the feel of UT3 similar to UT99, UT2004 was too shaky and cartoon like - IMO.

Here's the thing Epic had a good thing going, and if its not broke don't fix it.

 

[MeStinkBAD]

Well i don't think the game was tested and released in a complete state (where it is now with the current patch)

No I mean play it not test it for bugs...

I have to say its great that they kept the feel of UT3 similar to UT99, UT2004 was too shaky and cartoon like - IMO.

Here's the thing Epic had a good thing going, and if its not broke don't fix it.

UT99 is a decade old. It feels outdated. The original isn't broken. So why release a new installment at all? That's what I read what you are saying.

Remember that UT was originally planned as a bot package for the original Unreal. It kept many of the same weapons but vastly overhauled the gameplay.

 

[q_mi_4_3]

UT99 is a decade old. It feels outdated. The original isn't broken. So why release a new installment at all? That's what I read what you are saying.

Remember that UT was originally planned as a bot package for the original Unreal. It kept many of the same weapons but vastly overhauled the gameplay.

UT99 could use the update because it is old. It is ten years old by now, so if Epic simply release a revised version of it I don't think it would have be outrageous at all. What they could have done is add a refined engine and new graphics, but keep the same style so that it'll invite new players and keep previous players. But right now UT3 still doesn't feel like it had what made UT99 great, but instead had a lot of baggage with keeping the UT2k4 content and whatever else Epic decided to add to it.

If UT3 had been just an improved bot package of UT99 with better graphics and engine, I think both MP and SP players could be satisfied.

 

[1x.]

No I mean play it not test it for bugs...
UT99 is a decade old. It feels outdated. The original isn't broken. So why release a new installment at all? That's what I read what you are saying.

Remember that UT was originally planned as a bot package for the original Unreal. It kept many of the same weapons but vastly overhauled the gameplay.

Where did i say that?

To clarify; i'm saying that I preferred the movement, physics and speed of UT99 over 2004, even though UT2004 grew on me and i had gotten used to it and adjusted to it.

As far as UT99 looking outdated, - Sure does, if i load UT99 or 2004 they both feel dated, however the mechanics of the series are still better than anything else IMO, the physics and dodge feature make this series better than anything else i've played, i think every FPS game should have a dodge, its constantly substituted / imitated with things like nano-suit, sprint, take cover, etc.


UT3 its UT99 on steroids like a big dog.

Like i always say my .02 only, to each is own.

This is a blanket statement and isn't directed toward anyone specific.
Somewhere someone wrote on a Wikipedia page that UT2003 was based on the console development code that was scrapped, what they failed to mention is that the console code was based on the PC code. lol (like it or not its absolutely true)

 

[Sir_Brizz]

UT2003 was based on Unreal Championship. The code was not scrapped.

 

[1x.]

UT2003 was based on Unreal Championship. The code was not scrapped.

That is correct it was actually Dark Sector which was canceled, a portion of that subsequent code and the original UT99 code would become Unreal Championship. Bottom line is the reviews at gamespot.com claiming: this, that, and everything is either a poor port, good port, or the greatest thing ever (heavily dependent on sponsor endorsements) are by reviewers who simply haven't a real clue or they have an agenda. Everything isn't reduced to a port, if they want it that way then they had better start to get a clue that everything is developed in DX via a Windows based environment then ported to the console.

Microsoft got into the console business for a reason, they'd like to have us all brainwashed that everything is all about the console gaming-wise, and their Windows PC based O/S business-wise, there is a certain amount of antitrust pressure going on behind the scenes.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Dark Sector was never canceled.

 

[1x.]

Dark Sector was never canceled.

Technically the version that Epic was developing was, the 2008 version uses the Evolution Engine and has nothing to do with unreal code supposedly (except what ever was reverse engineered and rebranded). The version that they had originally intended to develop was scrapped.

I think we're both correct on this depending on the context.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Epic didn't develop Unreal Championship or Dark Sector. That was Digital Extremes. And they branched the UT2003 code off of the Unreal Championship code, that's why people say it was a console game.

 

[1x.]

Epic didn't develop Unreal Championship or Dark Sector. That was Digital Extremes. And they branched the UT2003 code off of the Unreal Championship code, that's why people say it was a console game.

Actually they did, you better double check that, they (Epic) co-developed it with Digital Extremes and it was published by Infogrames, exactly like UT99.

As far as Dark Sector i agree that Epic did not develop that, originally they were designated to but gave the rights to Digital Extremes when they parted company.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Epic's name was on Unreal Championship because they own the Unreal franchise and the game was licensed to Digital Extremes. Same with Unreal 2, they had nothing but cursory involvement in the development of that game, thus why it sucks.

 

[1x.]

Epic's name was on Unreal Championship because they own the Unreal franchise and the game was licensed to Digital Extremes. Same with Unreal 2, they had nothing but cursory involvement in the development of that game, thus why it sucks.

That actually makes sense, conversely in a certain sense one could safely say that Epic did have something to do with it because not only do they own the franchise but their proprietary Unreal Graphics Engine (they solely developed) was also used, i think this is where the confusion comes in sometimes; because their name & technology was all over it unlike for example Mass Effect developed by Bioware but designed using the UT3 engine that correlation is no-brainer for most to understand.

I think you have a point though, and it seems like you have an open mind - i tend to agree with this logic, much more so than the infamous "because it simply was a poor console port." (IMO - that is a stale farce at best)

 

[ArcheryGenious]

I'd say that PC gaming will never die. The fact is that PCs are a lot more customisable and upgradable, so they have a huge advantage over consoles here. The only pro of console games is the player base I guess. And, of course, that consoles are built with games in mind, that is, you buy a console = you get a gaming station out of the box, you buy a PC = you get a work station out of the box. So to get a *good* gaming station out of PC, you pretty much need to assemble it yourself, and many people just don't want to be bothered with such things.

And of course PC gaming can be a lot more expensive. If you think about it, you can get an Xbox 360 for under £200, while a decent Gaming PC cost at least £500, you get a lot more out of it of course but many just find it easier. And of course you can easily hook it up to a big TV, multiplayer is much easier (depending on the game) and it's just the far easier option.
But even after all that, I don't think PC gaming will ever die, it's too good! There's just so much more you can do on a PC. I'm sure you all know what so I won't go into it.

I'm thinking of getting UT3 sometime soon, until now I've only been a UT2004 player (not much online though). Do you think it'll be worth it? Are all these crashes sorted out now?

 

[ambershee]

A decent HDTV to play your £200 360 will set you back another £300. Also, console games, on average, cost £10-15 more than a PC game. It's a long standing, and incorrect argument that the consoles work out cheaper.

A PC that can run games at the same sort of quality as the 360 will cost around £4-500, and a reasonable display is about £100.

So, 360 + HDTV + 20 games (£45) = £1400
PC + Display + 20 games (£35) = £1300

Pretty similar prices. But let's also not forget that the PC is upgradeable, can do a lot more - and that you can pick up older PC games for less than a fiver, easily, whereas the consoles don't tend to have that until they're a generation or two out of date, if at all

 

[brold9999]

PCs may be more expensive initially but many people already have one (for purposes unrelated to gaming) so there's no additional cost to using it as a gaming platform.

HDTVs are expensive but again, many people already have one (for purposes unrelated to gaming) so there's no additional cost.

There are also many PC games that are available for free.

These factors make it hard to do a cost comparison because neither the PC or the HDTV is usually being purchased solely on it's gaming merits.

 

[ArcheryGenious]

A decent HDTV to play your £200 360 will set you back another £300. Also, console games, on average, cost £10-15 more than a PC game. It's a long standing, and incorrect argument that the consoles work out cheaper.

A PC that can run games at the same sort of quality as the 360 will cost around £4-500, and a reasonable display is about £100.

So, 360 + HDTV + 20 games (£45) = £1400
PC + Display + 20 games (£35) = £1300

Pretty similar prices. But let's also not forget that the PC is upgradeable, can do a lot more - and that you can pick up older PC games for less than a fiver, easily, whereas the consoles don't tend to have that until they're a generation or two out of date, if at all

Hmm, I suppose the main thing is the display, if you got an HD for PC it would cost a bit more, but I think the bare minimum for consoles is definitely cheaper, shame about the games costing loads though. But I see what you mean about cheap old games, I've got over 80 games and most of them I got for under £10!

 

[Sir_Brizz]

The $200 Xbox doesn't have a hard drive, which severely limits the functionality of the device.

The last PC upgrade I did cost $200. And I spend about that every 2-4 years. I suspect I'd spend that much or more if I was strictly a console gamer.

 

[1x.]

The $200 Xbox doesn't have a hard drive, which severely limits the functionality of the device.

The last PC upgrade I did cost $200. And I spend about that every 2-4 years. I suspect I'd spend that much or more if I was strictly a console gamer.

That's what i'm talking about!

Not only that but am i the only one who noticed that many console titles are usually $49.00 - $59.00 where as the same exact PC games tend to be around $29.99 - $39.99

I still go back to the fact that when lan parties are thrown how many geeks show up with their consoles for them? hehe....

Bottom line is IMO PC's blow doors on consoles and are superior in every way except fanbase (i've said this before; the obvious console inadequacies lead to the false fanboy bravado, some are fooled into thinking it's actually true, kinda like the sociopath who believes their own lies or a mass hysteria) the biggest thing consoles have over PC's is a larger (mostly kiddie) fan base, in my neck of the woods most of the adults prefer PC gaming on mid-range to upper end rigs, (not necessarily top of the line) while the youngsters crank away on the consoles. Most of the game review sites know this too but they're paid (sponsored endorsements) to keep quiet about the incredible superiority of the PC platform, in case everyone hasn't nailed that one down yet.

In fact the Federal Trade Commission of the USA has actually started to warn consumers that they should be aware of such sponsorships (which typically aren't disclosed) obviously if profits are part of the equation fairness tend to become skewed.

 

[oldkawman]

I'm thinking of getting UT3 sometime soon, until now I've only been a UT2004 player (not much online though). Do you think it'll be worth it? Are all these crashes sorted out now?

Buy it! This game is worth it as long as your computer meets the recommended specs. It's pretty much almost free now anyway. There is so much great custom content available. This is a great online and offline game as well, so much better now with patches than the first months.

I never had crashing or any real problems or issues at all. Most problems peeps had were due to having the vista OS and video drivers for certain cards like the HD1900, most new cards, and SLI setups. Drivers really sucked for newer cards, ati and nvidia totally dropped the ball for at least a year on drivers for vista and all the newer high end cards. Having a fresh install of XP or at least a clean setup is very important due to the mess that is called windoze.