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.
Remember the first 'feature-lists' for UC / UT2k3 ?RegularX said:
They also mentioned 'unique' armor per character ...
In the end the only thing that sort of survived was the broken species-mutator.
Perhaps they realised they couldn't get it done or balanced for UT2kx/UC, but UE3 might give them the processing-power, finesse and time needed to make this work.
//
'arcade' / unrealistic games aren't "dead" as a genre.
They never have been given a realistic chance to mature by the fans that claim to like them.
Look at any 'realistic' game and you see lots of people complaining about features needing to be 'faster' and more 'unrealistic' (from complaints about the 'slow' reload of a bolt-action rifle to 'hurry up and kill'-chants in 1-life/round-based games to the complaints about the 'slow' movement-speed). The problem is that they aren't always getting what they really want (as a result of the industry following the trends). So they're left with playing semi-Quake-style games in 'realistic' settings as there's no fps available for the style they really want to play. Sometimes the game is 'good enough' and they stick to it.
Example ? "Brothers in Arms" ... the developers thought they wanted to be original and converted the single-player-experience into something similar for on-line games. Result ? Despite the fact that it is a 'realistic' fps the players still complain about 'needing' old-fashioned DM.
So it isn't just the publishers that 'punish' developers for trying to be 'different'. It's the consumers that do the same. Always whining about wanting to have 'new' games and less sequels, but subsequently complaining that it's not the same as everything else ...
As for gaining larger player-bases ... that simply is not going to happen, because few players are dedicated/mad enough about a single game to want to stick to it at any cost. The few games that manage to maintain 'large' player-bases do so because of the insane amount of hype that's being generated. You realistically can't expect any new game/sequel to suddenly pop-up no matter how 'good' the developers are. One rarely sees the old flame-wars of which fps is 'good', unless a few of the people involved plays either any of the 'classic' games.
jafo, you talk about "folks complaining" about brothers in arms. whta folks? lemme guess, ut and quake fans?
i do NOT see people in mass making the complaints you are talking about.
again, be objective... look at what people play.
and again, i do not think the issue is realism vs unrealism.
i do NOT see people in mass making the complaints you are talking about.
again, be objective... look at what people play.
and again, i do not think the issue is realism vs unrealism.
Last edited:
Tse's right, it's not realism vs unrealism. It's old style deathmatch vs everything else.
That makes me think of something interesting. Instagib is pretty popular, there's no splash damage weapons. Last Man Standings always been a minority game though, that's your round based.
Where does deathmatch stop being old style and becomes something else. Objectives? Assault 2004 was a flop.
Teamwork? ONS is the most popular gametype.
If you made a server with instagib, no dodging, slower jumping, team based and round based. Would it be popular? Would it be Counter-Strike? It'd certainly be a lot easier to score points.
Is the bottom line of all this 'As gaming becomes a more popular form of entertainment it needs to become simpler to please the majority?'
Unfortunately I think there might be a lot of truth in that.
That makes me think of something interesting. Instagib is pretty popular, there's no splash damage weapons. Last Man Standings always been a minority game though, that's your round based.
Where does deathmatch stop being old style and becomes something else. Objectives? Assault 2004 was a flop.
Teamwork? ONS is the most popular gametype.
If you made a server with instagib, no dodging, slower jumping, team based and round based. Would it be popular? Would it be Counter-Strike? It'd certainly be a lot easier to score points.
Is the bottom line of all this 'As gaming becomes a more popular form of entertainment it needs to become simpler to please the majority?'
Unfortunately I think there might be a lot of truth in that.
Seconded! ... or thirded! or whatever! I liked the dingy feel and environments of the first UT aswell - like you're in this tournament to survive or because you're forced to, rather than a big flashy sport.
perhaps.
gaming is entertainment and online gaming appears to be primarily a matter of simple, repetitive gameplay with emergent aspects (i.e. folks enjoy playing the same CS map over and over cuz it's slightly different each time and that simplicity is the core fun and addiction... like minesweeper, tetris, etc).
i think some have gotten into this lalaland about comp gameplay and uberhardcorewhatever, but online pc gaming is driven by pubbing and simple fun.
there are always gonna be "wow, this is cool!" flashes online... where something new and amazing comes along. usually, however, i think those flashes will be short lived.
im actually optomistic about the future, at least for online PC gaming.
i just think some devs need to snap out of... 1998
gaming is entertainment and online gaming appears to be primarily a matter of simple, repetitive gameplay with emergent aspects (i.e. folks enjoy playing the same CS map over and over cuz it's slightly different each time and that simplicity is the core fun and addiction... like minesweeper, tetris, etc).
i think some have gotten into this lalaland about comp gameplay and uberhardcorewhatever, but online pc gaming is driven by pubbing and simple fun.
there are always gonna be "wow, this is cool!" flashes online... where something new and amazing comes along. usually, however, i think those flashes will be short lived.
im actually optomistic about the future, at least for online PC gaming.
i just think some devs need to snap out of... 1998
Last edited:
Then we get to the point I suppose...
If it does become simpler, I won't like it. Am I really such a minority? Or are there enough people with the same gaming interests as me to sustain a genre? Or are there simply too many games?
Competitive gaming is still a growing force, and I'm not even a competition player; I just prefer to play with their rules.
Check out www.esreality.com, www.worldcybergames.com, www.ggl.com, www.quakecon.org, www.thecpl.com... (the list goes on and on). There must be somebody interested in competitive play to constitute the growing, organised industry that has emerged, and Counter-Strike is one of the main games that's played.
Old style DM doesn't equate to 'lalaland uberhardcorewhatever'
If it does become simpler, I won't like it. Am I really such a minority? Or are there enough people with the same gaming interests as me to sustain a genre? Or are there simply too many games?
Competitive gaming is still a growing force, and I'm not even a competition player; I just prefer to play with their rules.
There's really no need to be so disparaging Tse. The couple of kids at the back of the class who call themselves 1337 are not really a reflection of anyone other than themselves. I'm not even sure they exist, except in jest.TseTse said:
Check out www.esreality.com, www.worldcybergames.com, www.ggl.com, www.quakecon.org, www.thecpl.com... (the list goes on and on). There must be somebody interested in competitive play to constitute the growing, organised industry that has emerged, and Counter-Strike is one of the main games that's played.
Old style DM doesn't equate to 'lalaland uberhardcorewhatever'
L0cky said:
honestly...
most gamers think ut/quake/tribes is mindless fragging and too simple. it's sorta funny how differen fanbases think each other are playing the n00b games... (heck, just ask quakers about ut and tribes, tribers about ut and quake, etc)
anyways, where are the scans?
This post tells me you are absolutely fine with the abherrent onslaught of poop infested "realistic" shooters for the sake of fun.TseTse said:perhaps.
gaming is entertainment and online gaming appears to be primarily a matter of simple, repetitive gameplay with emergent aspects (i.e. folks enjoy playing the same CS map over and over cuz it's slightly different each time and that simplicity is the core fun and addiction... like minesweeper, tetris, etc).
i think some have gotten into this lalaland about comp gameplay and uberhardcorewhatever, but online pc gaming is driven by pubbing and simple fun.
there are always gonna be "wow, this is cool!" flashes online... where something new and amazing comes along. usually, however, i think those flashes will be short lived.
im actually optomistic about the future, at least for online PC gaming.
i just think some devs need to snap out of... 1998
The problem isn't that fun game can't come out outside of what is "in demand" but that developers are rarely ABLE to create such an experience!
My interpretation of what you are saying is that the future of gaming is one cookie-cutter game after another. My question to you is, WHY THE HECK MAKE NEW GAMES/ENGINES if fun has ALREADY BEEN PERFECTED?
This is exactly the ideology that the industry is following right now. A new engine comes out and it is immediately sold to someone for the sole purpose of creating the next cookie-cutter game in a world of cookie-cutter games. Where is there room FOR INNOVATION in a world like that??
Sir_Brizz said:
well, that sounds hardcore and inflamatory but i think you are totally being dramatic, dead wrong in how you read not only what im saying... but what's possible.
(your comments about tactical shooters show lack of objectivity and any real ability to accept change in the franchise, so im not sure why im continuing this).
the ideology of the industry is to make cookie-cutter stuff based on brand names and what's historically been popular.
NEWSFLASH... that's why we have ut2k3 and ut2k4. get it?
they were cookie cutter games and didnt add anything new... except for onslaught (gasp, which surprise surprise was the most popular thing so far)
you can twist what im sayign all around, even suggest making a "popular" game implies necessarily making a cookie-cutter game. i STRONGLY disagree with your concept of game dev there and making that leap of logic.
all im saying is that old-school gameplay and especially old school ctf are NOT gonna be popular again.
you can dance around that fact and the implications all you want... but there is no need to get inflamatory.
you ask about perfected "fun"... but go re-read that question and then try to take a step back from your presumptions.
epic is taking this brand into new directions which might even be popular with old ut fans (most of which apparently are tired of ut/ut2k3/4). deal with it.
Last edited:
I don't want to get in on you guys' argument because I don't care to. All I wanna say is I hope they do something with the link gun if they decide to keep it in. It may be nice for linking up, but when you're by yourself with it, the primary fire is absolutely useless against people on foot. Sure, they made the projectiles slow due to that linking property because they didn't want complete undodgeable ownage, but having the non-linked projectiles just as slow makes them useless. The solution is to have the projectiles be smaller and go faster the less linked you are, so no linking equals small, fast projectiles with a high rate of fire, while a long chain of people means large but slow ones and a slow rate of fire. Also, they need to do something with the rocket launcher if they're not going to do something with the movement. As it stands now, outside a ten-foot radius it's hardly lethal because it's so easy to dodge. Pretty much the only times I kill people at any sort of distance is because they aren't paying attention or dodge into it out of a bad reaction. I'd also like to see the next UT be less hitscan dominant. If you suck at hitscan, you're screwed because projectiles are so easy to dodge. By the time you're actually close enough to be able to use them effectively, you're dead. The lightning gun I don't mind so much, but the shock needs to be nerfed quite a bit, IMO. Something on the order of 30 damage per shot and a slower rate of fire, as well as shock cores that can be shot through, at least with the lightning gun. Having them block everything is ridiculous.
Anyway, just needed to get that off my chest after playing a match against Godlike bots. Carry on, fellows.
Anyway, just needed to get that off my chest after playing a match against Godlike bots. Carry on, fellows.
It's not inflammatory, that is exactly how your statements sound. The industry shouldn't try to do anything new because "fun" has alredy been defined so well.TseTse said:
It's not a lack of objectivity. I can admit that there are tactical shooters which I enjoy playing. THAT ISN'T WHAT MATTERS. Even the ones I enjoy ARE COOKIE CUTTER GAMES. They don't add anything new, they have "realistic" weapons, move forward, strafe, jump, backpedal, shoot. What is so great about that formula that it has been repeated countless times to the point that there is no possible way to innovate in that genre any more?
This is a DAMAGING IDEOLOGY. The industry was founded on INNOVATION, RISK, DIFFERENTIALITY. This is almost NON-EXISTANT in the industry today.
No risk?...no innovation?...didn't they add wall dodging, dodge jumping, actually sci-fi weapons, high-detailed character models, an unrivaled lighting system, or a fully moddable engine provided with the game? Is none of that stuff is breaking from the "norm" whatsoever?
UT, UT2k3, UT2k4 ALL ARE INNOVATIVE AND RISKY GAMES. Epic took a huge gamble with 2k3, and it paid off relatively well. Then they took what they learned from 2k3 and made 2k4 EVEN BETTER. I don't care what the "theme" of the game is, it is filled with innovative and risky things. It isn't deniable, it doesn't follow the convention of ANY OTHER GAME.
I'm not, the retailers have already proven that cookie-cutter games are the most popular. Look at how many player Counter-Strike, Counter-Strike: Source, America's Army, Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory and Call of Duty have on Gamespy stats. Whether or not the numbers are inflated makes no difference. All of these games are pretty much "cookie-cutter" in terms of weapons/gameplay/maps, and they are the most played games on the Internet right now (aside from UT2004). What do you think a publisher takes from statistics like that? I'm not talking about DEVELOPERS, they rarely choose what thy are going to develop next. I'm talking about PUBLISHERS. They are going to do some market reseach and see that these games are the most successful and that is what they are going to have their developers focus on. Why do you think there really isn't any competition for UT2004 within it's style? It's because it's not considered successful.
But then, as stated by others above, most people complain that newer games are as good as older games. Why is that?
I'm not trying to be inflammatory, so please do not interpret that way. I'm telling you what my interpretation is of what you are saying.
My point is if gameplay cannot be extended any further, then what is the point of making new games?
I never said anything about Epic's direction. As far as I'm concerned (and anyone knows) it could be closer to what we were EXPECTING the sequels to be. That's fine with me. All I'm saying is that if it turns out they don't take any risks in their next game, then the industry is doing alot worse than even I thought.
Last edited by a moderator:
brizz, ive said enough.
id advise re-reading what i actually said some day down the road... and not trying to exagerate what im saying or twist it around.
if you thought ut2k3/ut2k4 were innovative in any way beyond technology and onslaught, then there's really no use reviewing it all.
meanwhile, old school ctf/dm is dying and not coming back. period.
id advise re-reading what i actually said some day down the road... and not trying to exagerate what im saying or twist it around.
if you thought ut2k3/ut2k4 were innovative in any way beyond technology and onslaught, then there's really no use reviewing it all.
meanwhile, old school ctf/dm is dying and not coming back. period.
I'll buy that. No more egyptian thematics please. They've been pretty well worn out.....hal said:
....and Conquest does sound intersting. What really made ONS was the large battles format.....
Daedalus said:this article makes me so very happy that I have a subscription to CGW anyway
psssst, nudge nudge. your going to hook us up, right?
Actually, yeah, I'm kind of wondering if FMI got the rights to future XMP releases for UT, or if Epic was going to reserve future XMP release to themselves for inclusion with UT. It would definitely get more attention if it was included as a gametype on the next UT DVD.Nemephosis said: