How exactly should the next Unreal look like.

[pine]

UT3 is gorgeous, but I've seen so many Unreal engine 3 games now that when I look at one all I see is Unreal Engine 3 and not the game world that it is portraying. It has kind of a plastic-y look or something, hard to describe. Light tends to shine off of people a little too much.

The only U3 engine game I really liked the look of was Borderlands.

For solid code though, there's none better. I go play TF2 after a session of UT3 and everything feels like it's made out of cardboard and none of my shots are going where I put them.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Mirror's Edge?

 

[Grobut]

I don't know that I'd agree that that is what the style was. I think the main problem is just that there was no "skinny" characters in UT3, but to be fair, the skinny characters in 2kX where the one people whined about most (smaller hitboxes blah blah blah).

The lack of human looking humans certainly is a problem for many, not everyone likes the "Hulk Hogan wearing half an M1 Abrams" look, but it's far from the only thing people didn't like about UT3's visual theme, colour desaturation, too dark, too much bloom, only set on one planet, too much like GoW not enough like UT, all thease things and more have been critisised often.

As for fat versus skinny, it wasen't so much that people where too skinny, but that they existed alongside the Jugg's which where polar opposites in girth.
Adding such opposites, without offering some kind of stat tradeoff to picking one or the other was pretty daft, people who played as a Jugg did so at a disadvantage, no doubt about that.
Either stay away from the extremes, or offer some kind of playstyle incentive to picking one or the other, thats how it should be done.

I still think the majority of problem people had with UT3 ended up having little to do with the visual style or the gameplay and more to do with everything else that was utterly wrong. And all the things that are STILL utterly wrong. Changing the visual style and gameplay wouldn't have made me care about playing it any more than I currently do, and I know plenty of people that would agree with that.

Nobody ever said UT3's visual style was the one thing that killed it, it's just one of many things UT3 got wrong, but the topic here is visual styles, so thats what i have commented on.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

The lack of human looking humans certainly is a problem for many, not everyone likes the "Hulk Hogan wearing half an M1 Abrams" look, but it's far from the only thing people didn't like about UT3's visual theme, colour desaturation, too dark, too much bloom, only set on one planet, too much like GoW not enough like UT, all thease things and more have been critisised often.

Okay, but I promise you people were making complaints about similar things in 2kX. That is my point. We're never going to get a game that is universally loved for it's visual style. I don't think such a game exists.

As for fat versus skinny, it wasen't so much that people where too skinny, but that they existed alongside the Jugg's which where polar opposites in girth.
Adding such opposites, without offering some kind of stat tradeoff to picking one or the other was pretty daft, people who played as a Jugg did so at a disadvantage, no doubt about that.
Either stay away from the extremes, or offer some kind of playstyle incentive to picking one or the other, thats how it should be done.

I agree, but it was also just the range. For example, the female mercs were skinnier than any other character, hence why practically everyone used them.

Nobody ever said UT3's visual style was the one thing that killed it, it's just one of many things UT3 got wrong, but the topic here is visual styles, so thats what i have commented on.

I disagree that it had any effect whatsoever in the grand scheme of things. Lots of people put up with 2kX's visual style despite the fact that they hated it. If a game is good, you'll put up with a lot of things.

 

[pine]

Mirror's Edge?

Good call, forgot about that one. A lot of the big UE3 titles have had the problem I described though: UT3, GoW, Bioshock, Arkham Asylum, and Mass Effect to name some off the top of my head.

 

[Grobut]

Okay, but I promise you people were making complaints about similar things in 2kX. That is my point. We're never going to get a game that is universally loved for it's visual style. I don't think such a game exists.

It's obviously not the same people that complained in case Y and X, just different people within the same community, you can't please everyone.

But aside from UT2k4's cartoony look and badly placed 1st person camera, atleast it did a good job offering some variety, so there was a good chance that different players would find something they liked in the mix, it just wasent exicuted as well as it could have been, they where on the right track with offering lots of stuff, it just needed a little more balance and some more thought put into how it should coexist and interact in the same univers, like i said, good idea, flawed exicution.

UT3 went in the opposite direction though, one look, one atmosphere, love it or hate it.

I agree, but it was also just the range. For example, the female mercs were skinnier than any other character, hence why practically everyone used them.

Ofcourse, they did bugger all to balance it so it was unbalanced.

Apparently, they did balance it in UC2, people say it had propper species stats, and that it worked and added something good to the game, so i guess that's the answer right there, propper species stats, and honestly, after all thease years of UT, it might just be the shot in the arm the game needs, adding some tactical depth to different playstyles, i think it has potential (but it would have to done right, get it wrong and it would ruin the game).

I disagree that it had any effect whatsoever in the grand scheme of things. Lots of people put up with 2kX's visual style despite the fact that they hated it. If a game is good, you'll put up with a lot of things.

You think too much in segments then, by itself it was no game breaker, but it did have an additive effect.

There have been lots of games i didn't like, not because there was any one thing that was seriously wrong with them, but because there where a whole bunch of little things here and there that all added up, and created an overall bad experiance for me.

UT3 is such a game, there is no one thing i can point to and say "THIS is why i'm not playing it", no one thing about UT3 is so broken that it by itself ruined it for me, instead, there is a very long list of smaller things, ranging from trivial annoyances, to a few serious deal breakers, that all add up and spoil the meal.

UT2k4 had some of thouse for me aswell, but not enough to tip the scale for me, and besides, since it was so flexible options wise, i could easilly avoid the things i didn't like and concentrate on thouse i did.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

It's obviously not the same people that complained in case Y and X, just different people within the same community, you can't please everyone.

That's precisely my point. There were people, probably in the same numbers, who complained about the visual style of UT2004, so pointing to that as a cause-for-failure seems pretty silly to me. Obviously people will play a game with a less than perfect visual style.

You think too much in segments then, by itself it was no game breaker, but it did have an additive effect.

There have been lots of games i didn't like, not because there was any one thing that was seriously wrong with them, but because there where a whole bunch of little things here and there that all added up, and created an overall bad experiance for me.

UT3 is such a game, there is no one thing i can point to and say "THIS is why i'm not playing it", no one thing about UT3 is so broken that it by itself ruined it for me, instead, there is a very long list of smaller things, ranging from trivial annoyances, to a few serious deal breakers, that all add up and spoil the meal.

UT2k4 had some of thouse for me aswell, but not enough to tip the scale for me, and besides, since it was so flexible options wise, i could easilly avoid the things i didn't like and concentrate on thouse i did.

It's not the same thing. You seem to think that all problems weigh equally into how awful a game experience is for you. But consider this:

Will you play a game with a broken server browser if you love the visual style?

Will you play a game with a bland visual style if you love the server browser?

It's obvious other factors weigh in to whether people will play a game or not, and surely some people care a lot about the visual style just like they did with UT2004. But the fact that UT3 has a certain visual style doesn't really change anything from UT2004 at all. How do you validate this statement based on what you just said, and given the fact that nobody will ever like the visual style of a specific game universally?

If by "origional" you mean Unreal, not UT, then hell yes! Unreal had the best visual style of them all.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Do you know why I made that argument? When you say "A lot of UT fans hated the cartoony look of UT2003/4", that seems to imply that their personal preference is more valuable than someone else's. I rather have something that works, and while OTT, UT2004 did work.

It is. If you abandon your fan base and don't have anyone to replace them, guess how large your fan base is: The same size as UT3's.

And, sorry, but UT2004 did not work.

Oh, and why do you keep bashing UT2004 at every opportunity? Why do you need to attack UT2004 to defend UT3? Do you complain that TF2 is cartoony, or about the L4D characters?

Is defending UT3 saying "UT3 is awful and UT2004 is awful"? I'm sorry, but if you think I'm saying UT2004 is horrible to try and make UT3 look better, you are simply not reading any of my posts. I'm pointing out the futility of claiming that UT2004 was a better game than UT3. It wasn't.

Also, bringing up the games you brought up was pointless. First, this forum isn't about TF2 or L4D. Second, L4D isn't a sequel and, technically, TF2 is only a sequel in the barest sense as in saying something like UT is a sequel to Unreal or Quake 3 is a sequel to Quake 2.

 

[Grobut]

It's not the same thing. You seem to think that all problems weigh equally into how awful a game experience is for you. But consider this:

Will you play a game with a broken server browser if you love the visual style?

Will you play a game with a bland visual style if you love the server browser?

It's obvious other factors weigh in to whether people will play a game or not, and surely some people care a lot about the visual style just like they did with UT2004. But the fact that UT3 has a certain visual style doesn't really change anything from UT2004 at all. How do you validate this statement based on what you just said, and given the fact that nobody will ever like the visual style of a specific game universally?

Uhm, no? i have never said they weigh in equally, infact i specified that some things where just minor annoyances whilst others where serious deal breakers, that definately states i do see a difference of scale between things.

All i did say is that things you don't like about a game adds up in your opinion of the game, sure i'd play a game with a bad server browser if i really like the game, it's annoying but i'd deal with it, but i wont deal with a bad server browser if, besides that, there are another 35 things about the game that annoys me.

It all adds up, some things will weigh in heavier than others, but even little things will ultimately add up if there's enough of them.


Do yourself a favour and stop looking for "that one thing that killed UT3", it's a total myth, there is no one thing, it's many many things, and if you asked a bunch of different people, and had them all make a list sorted by what they see as the biggest problems at the top, and the smallest things at the bottom, they will probably all have a different list.
Hell, the things you find most wrong with the game could very well be on the very bottom of my list, or might not even be on my list at all, individualism at work!

 

[Benfica]

But the fact that UT3 has a certain visual style doesn't really change anything from UT2004 at all. How do you validate this statement based on what you just said, and given the fact that nobody will ever like the visual style of a specific game universally?

I honestly doubt that people would hate that visual style.

It is. If you abandon your fan base and don't have anyone to replace them,

Epic didn't abandon the fanbase, they decided to release for PC what they got back then. It just happened to be UC1/UT2003

guess how large your fan base is: The same size as UT3's.

I don't understand what you mean, sorry. Are you implying that UT2004 fanbase is the same size as UT3?

I'm pointing out the futility of claiming that UT2004 was a better game than UT3. It wasn't.

It's not futility, and those are not facts. They are just personal preference.

Also, bringing up the games you brought up was pointless. First, this forum isn't about TF2 or L4D.

It wasn't pointless. What I'm saying is that the same people that make such a big deal on how UT2004 looks like, don't mind the absolute cartoon fest that TF2 is. UT2004 is still so much better, but only gets undeserved crap. I wasn't even thinking about sequels here.

 

[Fuzzle]

I don't care much about tech. What I like about the "unreal look" is the over-the-top and colorful scifi. I like the shoulder lights, "blue is for shock rifle", and chia-pet-on-a-refridgerator characters.

Honestly I think I liked the overall look of ut2k4 more than UT3. UT3 has some awesome and epic looking maps, but in general I feel they just look too busy. I've used this comparison before, but I think this map is a good example of how I feel detail and fidelity seems to have come before readability.

I want a little more red alert 3 and team fortress 2, and a little less gears of war.

 

[ambershee]

Funnily enough, you used my favourite stock map as the example, and I'll agree. Even though it uses the single most cluttered and detail heavy art assets, it has a distinct, clear layout and a fantastic sense of atmosphere, all rolled into one.

 

[UBerserker]

I love how Epic pulled out the Necris theme in their maps (and as a general theme too). Fearless, Sentinel and Necropolis are incredible.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Do yourself a favour and stop looking for "that one thing that killed UT3",

Is there some kind of massive language barrier here or something? I never said anything about there being one reason UT3 failed, I never have despite the fact you constantly bring it up whenever we argue about something like this. Your apparent opinion is that everything you don't like about UT3 is a major problem with the game and explains why the game failed, despite the fact that many of those things are things that people hate about other, more successful games. It doesn't make sense.

This right here is exactly my point:

Hell, the things you find most wrong with the game could very well be on the very bottom of my list, or might not even be on my list at all, individualism at work!

How can you blame things that, in the grand scheme of things, actually DON'T affect your opinion of the game, you'd just prefer them to be different?

The way you talk about it, it doesn't even make sense to identify the problems with UT3 at all, because someone out there would have hated ANY aspect of it, therefore everything in the game is a problem that must be identified so it can be fixed for those people the next time. It's senseless.

 

[SlipStreams_65]

I'm still trying to work out how we got from this:

[SCREENSHOT]http://playstation3.files.wordpress.com/2005/12/Unreal-tournament-2007-screenshot2.jpg[/SCREENSHOT]

To this:

[SCREENSHOT]http://pnmedia.gamespy.com/planetunreal.gamespy.com/newsimages/ut3hq/large/war/downtown1.jpg[/SCREENSHOT]

 

[Hideinlight]

Wish there was a way I could post screenshots with digial vibrance enabled...

It's just about color palettes though, it's also about animations and movement. Something that set a UC2 apart from the rest. UC2 had in my opinion the best style of all the Unreal games combined.

UT3 didn't inherit anything from it...

 

[UBerserker]

Agreeing in a way.

UC2 had in my opinion the best style of all the Unreal games combined.

That's why I'd want a UC3 over any other future Unreal title.

 

[Leo(T.C.K.)]

The maps are nice in UC2 from what I saw and the details and textures, but that's it. The effects and characters are so-so to me.
And yes I meant original Unreal and to extent UT too, the more unique maps.

 

[xMurphyx]

That's why I'd want a UC3 over any other future Unreal title.

Same here. And it would be worth making a true sequel to it too, instead of just basically rehashing older games!
There is still a lot of untapped potential in the melee aspect, for example and I honestly can see a cover system similar to the one in Gears work in a future UC title, if it's balanced right.
Not only would it make the game a jack of all trades then, that people who like fast-shooters (i.e. UT fans), people who like dumbed down pseudo tactical shooters (i.e. Gears fans - no disrespect! I love the Gears games!) and people who like action-adventure games (i.e. Ninja Gaiden fans) can enjoy, it would also reinvent the idea that the Tournament is fought by any means necessary, by a very diverse set of characters!
E.g. Gorge and Sapphire shouldn't fight 100% alike!

The game could play out a teeny tiny but like the intro video of UT2004. Malcolm, the military man using cover and to take out a group of opponents with his dual assault rifles, Gorge just ramming into some poor sod before peppering him with bullets, ... Just less staged. And faster.

Not only would it make the game even more diverse for everyone playing it, it would also probably draw a larger crowd into it!
I have two brothers, for example, and one isn't too much into shooters at all, but he still plays UC2 with me because he can often use melee. My other brother likes shooters, but he's not a UT guy. He prefers slower shooters. If UC3 could be played like a slower game, like it can be played like a melee game, he would play it too.

Now obviously it's rather primitive of me to say "they should make a game that's like UT, Ninja Gaiden, Gears, free icecream and cheap gas all rolled into one", but I think the general direction would be worth exploring. I trust Epic could come up with their own ideas of how it should play out and they don't need some internet guy telling them what games to mix, but yeah...
In short: I'd like to see a UC3.

 

[GreatEmerald]

I'm still trying to work out how we got from this:

To this:

It's called "grungification" I think.

Honestly I think I liked the overall look of ut2k4 more than UT3. UT3 has some awesome and epic looking maps, but in general I feel they just look too busy. I've used this comparison before, but I think this map is a good example of how I feel detail and fidelity seems to have come before readability.

I want a little more red alert 3 and team fortress 2, and a little less gears of war.

True, that's why HOLP maps are popular.

What does RA3 have to do with this?

Okay, but I promise you people were making complaints about similar things in 2kX. That is my point. We're never going to get a game that is universally loved for it's visual style. I don't think such a game exists.

I haven't heard much complaints about U2, U1 or UC2.