How exactly should the next Unreal look like.
- Thread starter Hideinlight
- 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.
That doesn't mean they don't existAlso, UC2 was a console game
Yeap, but you have to admit that they got a lot less complaints, so that should be the style to follow. And UC2 is a console game until someone ports it to PC
Well, I'm sure a lot of people hated it. Also, UC2 had a much more consistent design from earlier Unreal games and was the design basis for UT3. Plus, everyone would have hated the Egyptian theme just as much as when they hated it in 2k3 and 2k4.Yeap, but you have to admit that they got a lot less complaints, so that should be the style to follow. And UC2 is a console game until someone ports it to PC
if ya don't know what this pic is you shouldnt even be allowed to post about UT...
UT3 will always be a better game in all ways than UT2004/3
Ok, I'm busy, bitter and not playing any UT atm cause RL is too freakin busy, Happy new year 'n pass the Midol
Last edited:
I see you doing it all the time, whenever someone brings up some flaw with UT3, you dismiss it as having zero importance because "that's not why UT3 failed", what you don't seem to grasp is that it all has an effect, even if it's a small one, if there's enough little flaws the game suffers for it.
You have to look at the big picture, games can and do survive having flaws, i can't think of any game that was 100% perfect, so a games popularity does not rely on perfection, but on it beeing good enough, of the good outweighing the bad.
But every flaw a game has helps tip the scale, and if there are enough of them, or they are griveous enough, people will start feeling the bad outweighs the good, and thus, they wont wish to play it.
And for that reason, even small flaws do carry some weight, they don't have zero importance, they may not be AS important as huge gamecrushing bugs, but they dont help the game.
Now you aren't even reading my posts..
No Brizz, i explicitly stated, and have several times, that i do not see every problem as equal, some problems are bigger than others.
All i have said is that all flaws will help create a negative impression of the game, lets take an example:
Females making male grunting sounds in UT3.
Thats a small problem, not a big one, i don't think a single person in the entire world would quit the game just because of this.
However, how does it make people reflect on the game? does it make them like the game more? or does it make them feel the game was not finished and like it a bit less?
I'll bet you it's the latter, and thus, is it not correct that it has hurt the game a little bit?
Now add a lot more little things to the list, like no custom crosshairs, no option to turn off bright skins, no 1st person view in vehicals, no voicepack support, no re-skin support, the use of Gamespy, the bad story in SP, etc etc etc, all of them things that most players didn't like, how do you think all thease little problems make people view the game? better? or worse?
It does have something to say, little flaws like this does drag down peoples opinion of a game, and if there's enough of them, it drags it down a lot, all thease things, whilst on their own pretty harmless, helped bring down the game because there's so many of them..
But it DOES affect peoples opinion of the game, all the people out there that didn't like UT2004's cartoon look have been whining about it for 6 years now! clearly, it did matter to them and still does.
Listen, this is all i'm saying: Having just one theme (dark and desaturated), set on one planet (samey maps), with all player models all having the same kind of look (all pro wrestlers wearing tanks), how did that help? does it not just upset the players who don't like that one style?
But if instead you have several themes (maps can range from dark and gloomy to very colourfull and beutifull), on several planets (much more diversity in themes), and a diverse set of player models to choose from (so allmost anyone can find something they like), would that not mean the game could be better appreciated by a wider audiance?
UT is a game in an excellent position to offer this kind of diversity, that is an asset afforded to it by its flexible backstory, an asset most games could only dream of having, why wank it all away and place the whole game on just one planet and creating just one look for all players? and all to accomodate an SP storry mode that pratically nobody liked.. i think it was a mistake, and a big one at that, and i don't think it helped the games popularity one little bit, all the players out there that do not like this one look WILL be less inclined to appreciate the game becuse of it.
The UT community, as we all know, is quite small to begin with, and i don't think any UT game does itself any favours by putting arbitrary limits on itself and what it can look and feel like, quite the opposite, and since the Tournament does such a great job opening the doors of posibillity, it is stupid to not take advantage of it..
What does RA3 have to do with this?
yeah I suppose it's a bit of a stretch, but I feel RA3 has a very good "gamey" visual style to it. It's easy to read, there's never any doubt over which team a given unit is on, what it's doing, let alone whether it's dead or alive, and so on. I just tend to value that stuff more than ambient occlusion and parallax mapping.
I'm fine with grunge and realism, but for competitive multiplayer games I feel that readability should have a higher priority, and is something I feel ut99 and 2k4 did better than ut3.
I still enjoy ut3 the most though. I have all 3 of them installed, and the only reason I boot up the others is if there's no playable servers for ut3.
I've already pointed out lots of real problems with UT3. Things you can look at and say "Nobody appreciated that". Those are the problems you identify when looking retrospectively at a game. You won't find a single aspect of the game that every person liked. It's senseless to blame every single aspect of the game for causing the game to fail, it accomplishes NOTHING. Actually, saying it accomplishes nothing gives it more credit than it deserves.
I didn't say equal. However, your posts about issues, like the above about the visual style, make it look like you see every problem, no matter how major or minor, IN YOUR OPINION, as a major game crushing flaw. My point is that there are issues that really ruin the game and there are issues that people would prefer to be different. It makes sense to identify the former. It does not make sense to identify the latter, since that encompasses every single aspect of the game.
For some people, I'm sure it did. However, this is again the same issue. Which is, it doesn't make sense to blame everything in the game for causing UT3 to fail because everyone would have hated some aspect of it. This particular thing doesn't matter to me at all, yet you're giving it weight. It's senseless.
So your response to me saying that we should nitpick out every single tiny thing that some people disliked in the game is to point out a number of things that actually mattered? Again, senseless.
It affects SOME people's opinions of the game. This was, and still is, my point. Negative things that affect everyone ARE REAL PROBLEMS. The lack of custom crosshair support isn't something that some people were apathetic about. They saw it as a flaw. Using Gamespy isn't something that people were apathetic about. They complained about it months before the game ever came out. The visual theme is something people WERE apathetic about. This is the dichotomy of the point you are making. Some issues are important issues to be discussed. Others are so individual that they can't even be identified as real problems, in general. Whether or not it was a problem to you doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things if you are the only person that dislikes it. There are lots of things I hate about UT3 that I'm sure nobody else even cares about, so I see them as non-issues when it comes to discussing what UT3 did wrong.
To be honest, you've described UC2 more than UT3 (other than the characters, which is also wrong
).The thing is, UT3 doesn't suffer from having samey style unless you only look at a specific set of maps. Additionally, what does it limit to have similarly themed maps? In every UT, everyone has hated the vast majority of vanilla maps and settled down with custom maps. And there are lots of UT3 custom maps that don't fit into any of the styles of the stock maps.
I guess ultimately, though, the answer is that it doesn't hurt to have variety, just as it doesn't hurt to have a consistent theme among the maps. I don't get the purpose of pointing out every single problem YOU had with the game, when we can easily identify problems that large segments of the UT3 market had with the game.
To answer the topic of the thread, too, the next Unreal should have it's own visual style. I don't want them to go back to any previous UT game to steal the visual style from. I want them to make something new and unique and fun.
And as a sidenote, the maps in UT3 aren't that bad. Look at the restyled maps in UDK, for example.
What was that even about ..
Yeah, really... I'm agreeing that UT3 may have better graphics, better physics, and more challenging offline bot play, I'm not knocking that. However, outside of what I mentioned, UT3 feels more like a downgrade than an upgrade to UT2004 in terms of gameplay modes, number of stock arenas/maps, and UnrealEd in UT3's not nearly as easy to use as UT200x's is. If I wanted an additive engine, I'd build a map for CS:Source, for an Unreal-based game, I prefer the old fashioned subtractive mapping routine, and quite frankly, UT3's subtractive mode's not nearly as easy as UT2004's. I mean, I do occasionally play UT3, but in terms of mapping for it, heh...
You should have compared it to UT2k3 or UT for your first two reasons, since UT2k4 is like two games combined.
As for the editor... it seemed easy to use; no problems with that.
The only thing that's different is that the materials method and the fact you need to learn the new structure of directory.
Plus there are various additions which make map making much more simple. People complain, because they can't learn when something is changed. Not only that but even the structure of the old Unreal games was completelly optional as well, you could make lots of different paths yourself and set it up.
Plus there are various additions which make map making much more simple. People complain, because they can't learn when something is changed. Not only that but even the structure of the old Unreal games was completelly optional as well, you could make lots of different paths yourself and set it up.
Last edited:
Well, you can thank the 3D Buzz team for getting me into UT2004 Mapping. However, if you think that UT3 is really that much easier, guess I'll have to see what Jason and Logan have to say about that (the guys behind the video tuts). Can't believe it's a 3.25GB D/L, tho (getting the package off of FilePlanet). Why did I miss out on the UT3 Collector's Edition over the Standard? At least I have an old Atari-label UT2004 DVD Edition, which they actually included the VTMs, unlike Midway's DVD Edition of UT2K4.
EDIT: All right, after seeing the first few videos, it was Jeff Busby and Zak Parrish, NOT Jeff and Logan, as was the case in the UT2K4 videos, but I'm convinced. The subtractive method is actually still somewhat in use for UT3, and does seem to be almost as good as the UT2K4 UnrealED. Although...I'm wondering if the additive method is better than Hammer/Source at all.
EDIT: All right, after seeing the first few videos, it was Jeff Busby and Zak Parrish, NOT Jeff and Logan, as was the case in the UT2K4 videos, but I'm convinced. The subtractive method is actually still somewhat in use for UT3, and does seem to be almost as good as the UT2K4 UnrealED. Although...I'm wondering if the additive method is better than Hammer/Source at all.
Last edited:
Count me as one that does agree with you. The visual style & core game-play elements in UT3 were OK with me. It was the lack of the finishing touches that nailed the coffin shut for many regarding UT3. Such a pity, as UT3 deserved a better fate than that.
