Lyphen said:
I'll miss DDOM, I don't play loads of it but at LANs it's a good laugh and i enjoy playing it. They'd also better drop the 2003,2004, 200X type stuff it's annoying.
First Details on Next-Gen UT
- Thread starter RaptoR
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
I'll miss DDOM, I don't play loads of it but at LANs it's a good laugh and i enjoy playing it. They'd also better drop the 2003,2004, 200X type stuff it's annoying.
L0cky said:
Hmm, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. I see new things all the time. When you combine the more advanced movement system, adrenaline combos, and the good 'ol ShieldGun, you'd be surprised at what can be pulled off.
A few more thoughts:
The thought of having an Unreal war-like gametype in Conquest is absolutely intriguing. Especially if they play up only the best of the Unreal/Tournament series characters... Skaarj, Necris, Mercenaries, Metal Guard, Robots, etc. Egyptians wearing loincloths or clowns need not apply.
LordHypnos said:Looks like another EPIC failure in the making
This is what a Ubisoft fan looks like.
@thread
This is next-gen stuff here and you guys are complaining about gametypes and how much you like them...wow comeon guys think big here..Its going to be the best UT ever made. Especially if they use that new microsoft thing where u put the CD in and just play.
You guys must be thinking with UT200x brains cuz ctf or vctf or assault are going to be just as freakin awesome as the character u see in that pic. Modded gametype or not it will still have the same physics, graphics, w.e.
hal, you have to watch thishal said:
http://www.own-age.com/vids/video.aspx?id=1950
Bear in mind I'm a UT player, I'm not being biased. The stuff in that vid is actually employed in gameplay.
I've seen that one before.
Frankly, I wasn't surprised by it. I've seen all kinds of trick videos for Quake3, even ones in actual gameplay, and they are all pretty much the same (same video different tricks).
The thing is that I've seen people in 2k3/2k4 using trick jumps and things IN ACTUAL GAMEPLAY that you only really see in videos that are admitted setups. I've seen a guy with nothing but the ShieldGun run the flag in Citadel in under 10 seconds from one side to the other. I've seen caps in Orbital2 that blow my mind thanks to the speed at which they take place. It's hard to say that one game's trick days are numbered when the game has only been out a little more than a year, and then compare it to a game that has been out for almost six.
Frankly, I wasn't surprised by it. I've seen all kinds of trick videos for Quake3, even ones in actual gameplay, and they are all pretty much the same (same video different tricks).
The thing is that I've seen people in 2k3/2k4 using trick jumps and things IN ACTUAL GAMEPLAY that you only really see in videos that are admitted setups. I've seen a guy with nothing but the ShieldGun run the flag in Citadel in under 10 seconds from one side to the other. I've seen caps in Orbital2 that blow my mind thanks to the speed at which they take place. It's hard to say that one game's trick days are numbered when the game has only been out a little more than a year, and then compare it to a game that has been out for almost six.
This is the first time I've used in about a year...
Er, you do know who FT is right?
I don't trust CSports.net as far as I could throw it. There's been an uncomfirmed rumour going around that it only counts a proportion of UT2004 servers rather than the true number, so I'd be hesitant to believe their stats.
in about a year...placebo said:
Er, you do know who FT is right?
Israphel said:
I don't trust CSports.net as far as I could throw it. There's been an uncomfirmed rumour going around that it only counts a proportion of UT2004 servers rather than the true number, so I'd be hesitant to believe their stats.
Last edited:
Sounds cool to me. I was taken aback by Assault being left out. My fav in UT and so happy to see it in 2k4 but so neglected it hurts. I guess it's because it's apparently hard to make maps for. New gametype sounds interesting too! Anyone know of where I can get 'technical' info about the new engine? Like how many polys the average model can have Or is it too soon to ask?
Or is it too soon to ask?
T
Tournament0
Guest
W0RF said:I think it's interesting how so many people in this thread seem to judge the success or failure of a certain gametype on whether they personally like it or not.
I love Assault but it's no secret to me that there are like 20 regular servers up 24/7. Hopefully Conquest will still allow us to do what we always WANTED to do in Assault.
Strangely, add classes to the players and it's rather creepily similar to XMP
The more they make it like U2XMP, the better it is, in my opinion.
klasnic said:Like how many polys the average model can have
Polys aren't limited by the engine. If you want specs, go to the official site http://www.unrealtechnology.com/html/technology/ue30.shtml
Now, where's the scans fs?
L0cky said:
i agree, i hope we see something like large scale assault/xmp with conquest. in fact, i pray they really break away from UT tradition with this new game.
as for quake/learning curves and all the stuff the competitive community obsesses about...
look, quake/ut/tribes combined are a small and shrinking slice of the online pie. about 20 million active online fps players and less than 400k play old school ctf among these games.
heck, ctf itself has gone the route of tactical warfare. you have more people playing tactical warfare versions of ctf than quake, tribes and ut games combined. we need to get real about this.
Non-sporty, tactical CTF(i may have missed some games & mods in this classification)
SoF II CTF - 314,568
Call of Duty CTF - 202,041
BF42 CTF - 139,648
Halo CTF - 84,919
MoH CTF - 47,197
JA2 CTF- 13,685
Q3 UT CTF - 12,366
TOTAL: over 800,000 alliases seen in past 31 days
Sporty, old-school CTF
UT CTF - 138,289
Q3 CTF (combined base, osp) - ~80,000
UT2k4 CTF - 57,216 <-------------- new game
T1 CTF (base, renegades, etc) - 40,000
T2 CTF (base, classic, etc) - 20,000
Q2 CTF - 14,581
T:V CTF - 14,091 <-------------- new game
UT2k3 CTF - 10,072 <-------------- new game
TOTAL: under 400,000 aliases seen in the past 31 days
Of those 400,000 about 300,000 are playing games from 2001 or earlier.
i dont think it's a learning curve issue at all. i think folks in quake/ut/tribes keep talking about this design matter but kid themselves just like when they try to suggest bad marketing explains the sequels being flops.
5-10 million unreal/ut fans... and the vast majority KNOW how to and can play just fine... yet decide not to.
meanwhile, most gamers are perfectly happy playing the same 5 or so maps of counterstrike and enjoying the EMERGENT gameplay. repetition is the heart of video game enjoyment. the most popular games do not dramatically break from repetition in pubbing or comp play. the real fun isnt in the learning curve but in the nuances of emergent gameplay.
let's not exagerate the "new" gameplay dynamics in quake, tribes or UT. the new tribes game just brought a ton of amazing new physics and tricks... with a steep learning curve... but i think it has nothing to do with why folks do/dont play... or why folks continue to play.
a small # of people might CLAIM they continue to play quake cuz of this tiny new twists, but let's be mature & realistic about this.
that said, i totally agree with you in terms of the 'experience' dimension on another level. but remember what seems to be keeping games popular is being able to get onto your fav server (pub or not) and play a SIMPLE game that has lots of fun nuances.
even the most basic CS map and gameplay is slightly different every night. it BEING simple and full of humans... is the root of the emergent gameplay.
you cant force fun with neato design tricks...
similarly, i dont think ut2k4 is any different. to me, the reason folks mostly bailed on ut2k4 (after it broke all the online records excluding CS)... imo, is cuz they just simply got BORED even with onslaught.
why do they get bored?
as a game design matter i have some gut instincts, and i think it has to do with the utter lack of RISK in the gameplay and the fact that it's so unrealistic in physics (UT generally).
i think your average gamer (including millions of former ut fans) likes running/crouching as the primary player movement. i think they like the feel of being grounded and having every inch count. i think they do NOT like peter pan physics. i think they do NOT like splash damage being the primary source of death.
i think they do NOT like high respawn rates where suicide cowboy runs dominate gameplay mechanisms. i think they like NOT dying more than they like KILLING.
i think they increasingly like large scale battles, with limited use of vehicles.
i think they like objectives and/or rounds.
i think they knowing they can load the game and have fun, easily, without stress about cheaters, finding a decent server, and generally being completely outclassed by other players.
the peter pan physics, splash damage, high respawning rates, sporty gameplay we know and love as old-school quake/ut/tribes just doesnt resonate anymore.
ONS revived the brand name. hopefully conquest will run with those dynamics and perhaps ut can evolve into a defining warfare game.
id rather play a UT warfare game than Battlefield or whatever.
Last edited:
Somebody call Doc_Edo.klasnic said:Sounds cool to me. I was taken aback by Assault being left out. My fav in UT and so happy to see it in 2k4 but so neglected it hurts. I guess it's because it's apparently hard to make maps for. New gametype sounds interesting too! Anyone know of where I can get 'technical' info about the new engine? Like how many polys the average model can have
I'd really like to see the new UT have a much more "dirty" feel. For example, stuff like the ripper firing razor blades at people's heads, and smearing people with a piston rather than killing someone with some boring techy shield gun.
And I'd like to see less "generic tech" maps with random shiney surfaces and flashing things. tbh, it's the only thing worse than the 1000 warehouse/factory maps we had for ut
ffs it's a sport where you kill or be killed. I don't want shiney happy stuff everywhere (menu interface included)
And I'd like to see less "generic tech" maps with random shiney surfaces and flashing things. tbh, it's the only thing worse than the 1000 warehouse/factory maps we had for ut
ffs it's a sport where you kill or be killed. I don't want shiney happy stuff everywhere (menu interface included)
Last edited:
That's exactly what I hate about ut 2k3/k4. The overall feeling of ut was way better.
About next-gen ut...im looking forward to it, everything sounds very promising.
Tse, I think you underlined how little choice people have
If you want 'Sporty' and new, you've got a choice between UT2004 and... T:V. My opinion is UT2004 didn't get it right, but I play it anyway because it's the best thing available. T:V gave it a try but the game has a million other problems, and doesn't even have any support (the first patch got cancelled). So pretty much the only choice you have is UT2004, or 5 'non sporty' games.
Ever since Counter-Strike, first person shooters are far more likely to be tactical; publishers are smart. Popularity has a snowball effect, people go where the people go. If tactical shooters outnumber sporty shooters 5-1, then that's generally where the people will be.
Just look at Red Orchestra; it's apprantly a great tactical shooter, yet nobody plays it. The problem isn't that it's a bad game, it's inertia. UT2004 got over that inertia fairly easily, but as you pointed out, people got bored of it.
This tells me, it lacks longevity.
If you want 'Sporty' and new, you've got a choice between UT2004 and... T:V. My opinion is UT2004 didn't get it right, but I play it anyway because it's the best thing available. T:V gave it a try but the game has a million other problems, and doesn't even have any support (the first patch got cancelled). So pretty much the only choice you have is UT2004, or 5 'non sporty' games.
Ever since Counter-Strike, first person shooters are far more likely to be tactical; publishers are smart. Popularity has a snowball effect, people go where the people go. If tactical shooters outnumber sporty shooters 5-1, then that's generally where the people will be.
Just look at Red Orchestra; it's apprantly a great tactical shooter, yet nobody plays it. The problem isn't that it's a bad game, it's inertia. UT2004 got over that inertia fairly easily, but as you pointed out, people got bored of it.
This tells me, it lacks longevity.
This is totally damaging. Your argument is that these games are NOT played mostly because of how unrealistic they are.TseTse said:
That is the problem with the Video Game industry as a whole right now!
This is the prevalent situation in the industry right now. Replace Game X with game of your choice, and WW2 with time period of your choice. It works for RTSs, FPSs, Platformers, 3PSs, basically any type of game you can come up with. This is against everything the industry was FOUNDED upon!
How many games do you see by relatively big name developers taking risks? One of my favorite things about Epic's games up to now is that THEY TAKE AT LEAST ONE RISK IN EVERY SINGLE GAME. At the time Unreal 1 came out, there wasn't a game so demanding on the market. It had FUN AND RISKY multiplayer and SINGLE PLAYER INCLUDING CO-OP. No games of that time had it, and scary few have it today. When UT came out, they expanded on the mutliplayer element of Unreal, livened up the gameplay a bit, and made the weapons tougher. In UT2k3, they significantly changed the movement, added the shield gun, the lightning gun ALL OF WHICH WAS RISKY TO ADD. In 2k4, they added Onslaught, which, contrary to popular belief, I think was a VERY risky move to make. Consider that vehicle combat has been done in some extremely popular games for a while now. Considering the player base that Onslaught has managed to KEEP, I think it was a good risk to take.
The problem is that "popular" rarely equates with "good". Counter Strike is one of the worst gameplay experiences I have ever had. However, you could consider it the most insanely popular game ever. Why? You're probably right, it's probably because there is relatively no learning curve. Does that make it GOOD? I say no. My definition of good is a game that was willing to take a HUGE risk and succeeds at it, which I feel UT2k4 has actually done.
If it was me people were listening to, I would consider Counter-Strike's success it's biggest failure. It means that it has enough EXPLOITABLE problems for people to notice and make poeple want to play. Let's not even get into it's shoddy ballistics and terrible movement.
L0cky said:Tse, I think you underlined how little choice people have
If you want 'Sporty' and new, you've got a choice between UT2004 and... T:V. My opinion is UT2004 didn't get it right, but I play it anyway because it's the best thing available. T:V gave it a try but the game has a million other problems, and doesn't even have any support (the first patch got cancelled). So pretty much the only choice you have is UT2004, or 5 'non sporty' games.
this type of gameplay was the ONLY gameplay in town for years. i understand your point, but i just dont buy it's a lack of choice within this framework.
i will say that simple "sport" stuff itself may be an element folks would enjoy, but not in the context of old-school gameplay (physics, projectiles, spawn rates, and such)
gamers dont really need a lot of choices...
and keep in mind, these were the top choices 5 years ago.. and havent MAINTAINED the fan base. if you think they'd come back for another variation/choice within this framework, i think you are kidding yourself.
ut2k3, T:V and ut2k4 tried many new spins on the sports concept. they all flopped... with the exception of ONS (which broke 10,000 players online the first day of the demo and stayed that way for quite some time...)
L0cky said:
i think that's true... and explains why a RO or a RvS isnt that popular.
dont forget Team Fortress...
however, i dont think we are giving Counter Strike it's full credit as a design.
it's ROUND base, simple and very intuitive.
folks have been playing the same 3 damn CS maps for years now and still get a massive kick from the nuances of the repetition.
many more tactical shooters have failed online than have succeeded.
BF42 was the big breakthrough, and imo sorta indicated the new direction we're all going in.
larger, bigger warfare (vehicles included)
to me, the question has just been what cool scifi variations on this warfare direction would we see.
natural selection, tfc, battlefront, platnetside, tribes2 (siege, etc)... these were the big moments in scifi in the past yeasr since the original 98/99 wave of games.
ut2k3/4 only really garnered mainstream interest with onslaught... based on planetside/tribes2.
L0cky said:
i agree on the "people go where the action is" aspect relating to RO. there are countless tactical shooter games/mods and it takes some luck and work to get the buzz big enough to carry huge numbers. besides, "ut" itself as a concept was in the way...
as for ut2k4 inertia and longevity "issues," i think it's cuz ONS was uber-popular as a fresh design and gameplay, but still included a lot of things even most of the 5+ million UT fans are tired of... like total reliance on splash damage, slow projectiles and ultra-high frag rates.
i truly believe folks are sick of that type of gameplay. period.
likewise, i truly believe a lot more gamers didnt give UT2k4 a compete chance due to their perceptions of UT and UT2k3 as old-school, same-old, deathmatch spam fests.
to me... UT has to break that image to ever really garner the success it can... even IF it evolves with the mainstream.
Last edited: