So... New Features?

[Arnox]

Right now, everyone (very understandably) is focused on just getting the base gameplay in order.

I was just wondering though what we want to add to the game that's new? For example, UT2003/4 added double jumping, wall dodging, and adrenaline just to start. UT3 added... uh... Warfare?

Anyway, anyone been thinking about features they would love to see in the new UT game? Personally, I was thinking about somehow integrating UC2's melee system into this game. Not exactly a NEW feature, I know, but it would be awesome to have for UT.

 

[DeusIX]

I would welcome anything from UC2.

 

[d3tox]

Tbh, I don't think new features are actually necessary (at least for the core systems). Part of the appeal is the gameplay is fast & simple, yet because of the dodge mechanic (and wall dodge) is wonderfully deep. Having the mindset that new features must be implemented is fail IMO, as thats how we ended up with those adrenaline pills and the jump dodge, and to a lesser extent, the double jump.

 

[Raynor.Z]

Tbh, I don't think new features are actually necessary (at least for the core systems). Part of the appeal is the gameplay is fast & simple, yet because of the dodge mechanic (and wall dodge) is wonderfully deep. Having the mindset that new features must be implemented is fail IMO, as thats how we ended up with those adrenaline pills and the jump dodge, and to a lesser extent, the double jump.

I second that. Just implementing new features for the sake of it isn't always best approach and can have negative impact for previously working mechanics.

 

[Arnox]

I second that. Just implementing new features for the sake of it isn't always best approach and can have negative impact for previously working mechanics.

But with that kind of thinking, we shouldn't be putting in any new features at all in ANY game.

Look, people already have UT99, UT2004, and UT3. We don't need another one of those. The point of any sequel is to expand on its predecessor in some way. The question is, how do we want to expand on any of the past games? What reason do we have for creating another UT if we're just gonna do the same things everyone's already seen in past UT's?

Now obviously, adding stuff blindly isn't the way to go. That's why we're discussing it now.

 

[ambershee]

The sake of sequels isn't to expand on the predecessor - that's bad thinking.

If you're going to make a sequel, you want to refine the formula. This doesn't mean adding things, it means improving then. Sometimes an improvement can be made by adding things, but this is not usually the case, it's usually better to remove the derogatory features or otherwise change them if removing them has a more negative impact than leaving them intact.

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

@Arnox
UT3 also added hoverboards, different armor segments, and character customization...

But anyway, we already have something very new and to my knowledge never done before by a triple A title game. Open source, open development and totally free.

As far as gameplay goes? I would also like to see besides DM and TDM the gamemodes CTF, VCTF, WAR, ONS, INV, AS, LMS, DOM, BR and anything else that I may have missed (like Greed come to think of it, I loved that game mode)that has ever been stock... IMO a completely new approach to WAR is needed and ONS needs some balance issues addressed.

The sake of sequels isn't to expand on the predecessor - that's bad thinking.

If you're going to make a sequel, you want to refine the formula. This doesn't mean adding things, it means improving then. Sometimes an improvement can be made by adding things, but this is not usually the case, it's usually better to remove the derogatory features or otherwise change them if removing them has a more negative impact than leaving them intact.

I'm sure it is not what you mean because that would be properly daft, but the way you stated it, if when UT2k3 came out they had said:

'It is just UT but we removed the crap bits nothing else. Now please pay us 29.99 for less of the same game you already have.' People wouldn't have bought it.

 

[ambershee]

I'm sure it is not what you mean because that would be properly daft, but the way you stated it, if when UT2k3 came out they had said:

'It is just UT but we removed the crap bits nothing else. Now please pay us 29.99 for less of the same game you already have.' People wouldn't have bought it.

FYI, people who had UT2k3 could send in their disks to get a rebate on UT2k4.

Consider the core mechanics - they didn't add much. The new additions were the vehicles and the associated game modes (and Invasion). Whilst they were popular and polished, you can't argue that they didn't feel like tacked-on mods and not a part of the core experience. The rest was additional content and refinement; changing the movement slightly, fixing the weapon switch issues, and most importantly, making big changes the netcode.

 

[-AEnubis-]

The sake of sequels isn't to expand on the predecessor - that's bad thinking.

If you're going to make a sequel, you want to refine the formula. This doesn't mean adding things, it means improving then. Sometimes an improvement can be made by adding things, but this is not usually the case, it's usually better to remove the derogatory features or otherwise change them if removing them has a more negative impact than leaving them intact.

This is where I'm at.

It's good to try to add things, and good things have come of each sequel, but a lot of bad has too, and it felt like a lot of that bad came from a feeling of obligation to provide more content.

I'd be fine with new maps, graphic updates, and balance improvements. If they can add some stuff as well, cool, but all in all, the focus should be on quality over quantity.

 

[Arnox]

So you guys are telling me that you don't want to see any new additions whatsoever to UT?

 

[Al]

I think everyone wants UT99 2.0.

 

[-AEnubis-]

That's not what I said at all.

It shouldn't be out of obligation. New things should come from good ideas. Not "we have to because we are releasing a sequel."

This is actually what I'm looking forward to most about this possibly being the "last UT." It will hopefully stay on the same engine, the same core game play, and evolve progressively, and iteratively, giving new ideas proper time to be tested, and come to fruition without the pressure of publishing deadlines, and release dates.

 

[JohnDoe641]

Right now, everyone (very understandably) is focused on just getting the base gameplay in order.

I was just wondering though what we want to add to the game that's new? For example, UT2003/4 added double jumping, wall dodging, and adrenaline just to start. UT3 added... uh... Warfare?

Anyway, anyone been thinking about features they would love to see in the new UT game? Personally, I was thinking about somehow integrating UC2's melee system into this game. Not exactly a NEW feature, I know, but it would be awesome to have for UT.

Double jumping is stupid, magic floating power pills are idiotic but wall dodging was a natural progression in movement which added to what is already there.

I'm in agreement with everyone else, don't add crap just to add it, whatever is added needs to be a proper evolution of game mechanics, not a workaround or lazy way to bypass terrible scaling/mechanics.

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

FYI, people who had UT2k3 could send in their disks to get a rebate on UT2k4.

Consider the core mechanics - they didn't add much. The new additions were the vehicles and the associated game modes (and Invasion). Whilst they were popular and polished, you can't argue that they didn't feel like tacked-on mods and not a part of the core experience. The rest was additional content and refinement; changing the movement slightly, fixing the weapon switch issues, and most importantly, making big changes the netcode.

Considering that is a matter of opinion, whether I agree or disagree, arguing about your feelings would be a rather silly thing to do.

This is where I'm at.

It's good to try to add things, and good things have come of each sequel, but a lot of bad has too, and it felt like a lot of that bad came from a feeling of obligation to provide more content.

I'd be fine with new maps, graphic updates, and balance improvements. If they can add some stuff as well, cool, but all in all, the focus should be on quality over quantity.

'Quality over quantity' is generally a 1 or the other argument (linguistically at least, it may not be how you meant it). Even if you mean Quality has priority over quantity that is a bad strategy given the diversity of the games fan base when you consider that no 2 peoples opinions on quality are likely to be exactly the same. For epics part they need to build a quality base judging quality as being what is satisfactory to the largest group of fans (hmmm maybe they already realize this given their current approach) and then add a 'quantity' of ways to customize and alter said base experience to try and account for as many of the other people as possible. So it is not a 1 or the other scenario. It isn't even a 1 over the other scenario. It is a 1 facilitates the other scenario.

Quantity vs quality is the heart of why UT2k4 was so popular and yet still was so loathed by so many.

Double jumping is stupid, magic floating power pills are idiotic but wall dodging was a natural progression in movement which added to what is already there.

I'm in agreement with everyone else, don't add crap just to add it, whatever is added needs to be a proper evolution of game mechanics, not a workaround or lazy way to bypass terrible scaling/mechanics.

Every single pickup except ammo 'magically' floats. They are pills because uhm... drugs? Though as far as I know adrenaline is administered via injection, so it should of been 'magic floating syringes'. Though that would have looked even more like epic was promoting doping in sports.

I still think epic should add adrenaline, albeit as a mutator, but a stock one.

 

[-AEnubis-]

Even if you mean Quality has priority over quantity that is a bad strategy given the diversity of the games fan base when you consider that no 2 peoples opinions on quality are likely to be exactly the same.

That's the thing, I don't believe quality to be a matter of opinion. People may like things that are not of quality, and dislike things that are of quality, but that doesn't negate what quality is.

For epics part they need to build a quality base judging quality as being what is satisfactory to the largest group of fans (hmmm maybe they already realize this given their current approach) and then add a 'quantity' of ways to customize and alter said base experience to try and account for as many of the other people as possible. So it is not a 1 or the other scenario. It isn't even a 1 over the other scenario. It is a 1 facilitates the other scenario.

Exactly. Quantity will happen over time. These games typically live for 3 solid years or more. The core focus should be quality.

I also think Arnox is asking this question under the normal perception of a published title release. I don't think this is by any means going to be a normal, published title release. Open development is usually a very iterative process, and we'll all be playing a live beta that is the "RC" long before we know it's the RC.

There is a tremendous amount of freedom allotted by not having publishing deadlines. I'm looking forward to it.

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

That's the thing, I don't believe quality to be a matter of opinion. People may like things that are not of quality, and dislike things that are of quality, but that doesn't negate what quality is...

So please define these quality standards and let us see if there is any disagreement with your outline.

 

[-AEnubis-]

Balance, challenge, continuity, and counter play.

There's nothing to disagree with, as it's not a matter of opinion. Just good game design tenets.

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

Balance, challenge, continuity, and counter play.

There's nothing to disagree with, as it's not a matter of opinion. Just good game design tenets.

-.- Broad terms, do not a definition of quality make.

Balance is subject to an individuals play style.
Challenge is subject to individual skill levels.
Continuity is subject to perception.
Counterplay is only 1 facet of competition.

 

[Arnox]

That's not what I said at all.

It shouldn't be out of obligation. New things should come from good ideas. Not "we have to because we are releasing a sequel.".

Yes. Good.

Now, shoving that aside, what new features would you personally like to see in UT?

 

[leilei]

upaint so i can make skarj's and warcow's with my personel unique color's