Make People Like UT3

[Peregrine]

I was trying to stay out of this. Part of this thread was interesting.

I just want to say I really like UT3. I totally don't honestly understand why no one likes it. Granted I don't play the game anymore (or any PC game atm since my video card died and I seriously contemplate my options: new build vs. buying a console), but I did play it quite a bit and have some thoughts (and am obviously still interested in it a bit).

The shortcomings are all well known at this point (netcode, visibility, requirements, UI, etc).

Netcode? I don't even know what that is honestly. The game plays perfectly fine on the internet, not slow, not choppy, not crappy.
Visibility?? You want bright skins? I like the vis exactly the way it is.
Req's? My computer with the now defunct video card was nothing special. Played well enough.

And this one just kills me:
UI? Not great but I can't say I have ever in my life (and I have been gaming since Doom over a modem vs my best friends) ever not bought a game or not played a game because the UI sucked. That, IMO, is about the lamest reason ever to not play a game. I have never in my life, and I promise you never will) said to a gaming buddy "Yea, I love GAME #x but man, the UI is awful.... Are you f****** serious?!?!
Bunch of GD whiners.
Do I agree that I should not have to edit the .ini to do simple things? Abso-f******lutley. Hated it in 2k4. Hated it in 2K3. Hated it in 99. I don't think any game should ever require anyone to edit an ini file to adjust anything... but to summarily dismiss a game because the UI sucks?!? Are you kidding me?!? Bunch of whiners! My god....

My freaking GOD!!!!
_____________________________

Don't diss the RL games....

Why I started playing Battlefield2: How many of you actuallly played it? I am JUST LIKE most of you. HATE Real Life type games. Or so I thought. From the opening movie (which is awesome) I could tell this was one well made game. Then I played it. WOW! That games rocks hard. Ask me what's so awesome about it?!? Go ahead. The Multi-player aspect.
You join a game. You pick a side. You notice the 10 members of your team are divided into 3 squads. You join a squad. The squad is 4 guys one of whom is a Squad Leader. You are automatically on the same voice channel as your squad. If you die, you get to respawn ON YOUR SQUAD LEADER.
Talk about adding a TEAM aspect to a game?!? If you haven't experienced it, you are missing out.

 

[FuLLBLeeD]

Bolded and underlined for ****ing emphasis. Finally, someone else has figured out the "problem" with UT3, if it were.

Doesn't stop me from playing it.

I agree completely. I loved UT3's gameplay, but I can only take so much of Epic's bull**** before I give up on a game.

 

[-AEnubis-]

And this one just kills me:
UI? Not great but I can't say I have ever in my life (and I have been gaming since Doom over a modem vs my best friends) ever not bought a game or not played a game because the UI sucked. That, IMO, is about the lamest reason ever to not play a game. I have never in my life, and I promise you never will) said to a gaming buddy "Yea, I love GAME #x but man, the UI is awful.... Are you f****** serious?!?!

This I completely agree with. I usually tried to use numbers to express this same idea, time spent in game, vs time spent in UI, etc, etc, but it really is lame. Why would you limit your self from playing a good game just because the UI isn't that great. Like, maybe it's because I'm pretty critical of UI's, that they seriously never are set up like they should be IMO, but, I never use them as to rate a game's quality.

I mean, in bf2, you had to use the console, or hack an ini to use something silly like ctrl to crouch, or shift to sprint... That game probably still has better numbers than UT3 online. It had the most obnoxious control configuration setup I've ever seen, and was one of the more popular online FPS games I've played.

BF2 didn't even have some complicated buy system like some other more popular FPS's, which had people scripting novels to simplify. There isn't really much you can do in any of the older sci-fi shooters that you can't do in UT3.

You can't even really say it's moved towards the console scheme, because it's scalable at all. Even if the slider bar is more simple than we are used to, or more simple than we'd like, it's not more like console, because they can't adjust graphics at all.

 

[UndeadRoadkill]

Many small annoyances and problems add up, and folks just get tired of dealing with them. I think it shows that you really need to deliver the whole package.

Personally, if they had actually added at least a new gametype or something, and not cut so many, I might be interested enough to wade through the crap UI and server browser to play more often. Then again, I guess it's ALL new to most of the console players, who cares about those PC losers? I think they expected the PC players to be fellating them so hard that they would make mods for all the stuff they were missing, and then Epic could go, "hey, PS3 players! Look at all these wonderful mods the PC community made that we are making available to you! Don't you love us?"

 

[T2A`]

I usually tried to use numbers to express this same idea, time spent in game, vs time spent in UI, etc, etc, but it really is lame. Why would you limit your self from playing a good game just because the UI isn't that great.

It's lame and it doesn't make a lot of sense, which tells me the UI was not the reason the game failed miserably and had nearly no players a month in.

The only place the UI really hurt (and still hurts) anyone is those who like to play offline, because it can't remember anything after you exit. Setting up mutators and bots every time you want to play is probably extremely annoying to those who stick solely to offline play. Epic claimed they knew 50% of UT players didn't go online, yet they still dropped the ball (in lots of ways) for offline players.

For me, though, the UI was only one of many things that turned me off. I found the gameplay to be as sloppily done as the UI, and given that no one in their right mind would really not play a game because of the UI (offliners aside), there are probably a lot more people like me than anyone wants to admit.

 

[Benfica]

It's lame and it doesn't make a lot of sense, which tells me the UI was not the reason the game failed miserably and had nearly no players a month in.

It was. The bitching about the UI made the game "fail".

Still, I never have a problem to find great players, games and servers. I'm yet to see someone having serious problems doing so. The exceptions I can remember is maybe CTF and players from Australia.


Game "failure" only matters if someone prefers ranting to playing.

 

[zynthetic]

imo gameplay failure was a product of Epic listening to 2k4 players whining about the pew-pew. I personally feel much more comfortable in UT3 and I think it oftentimes shows. Then I was never really a hitscan dependent 2k4 player.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

For me, though, the UI was only one of many things that turned me off. I found the gameplay to be as sloppily done as the UI, and given that no one in their right mind would really not play a game because of the UI (offliners aside), there are probably a lot more people like me than anyone wants to admit.

I don't think enough people spent as much time with the game as you did to make that decision. That's the problem.

For me, the server browser and mid-game UI are probably the most annoying and messy experiences in the UI. While other areas of it don't make sense, they are perfectly usable.

 

[FuLLBLeeD]

Huxley comes out in December guys.

Lets all play that. UT3 is dead, but deathmatch gaming will live on forever.

IF YOU JUST BELIEVE. :*)

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Hucxley looks interesting but I'm sure it will be subscription based which means I will never get it.

 

[JohnDoe641]

Hucxley looks interesting but I'm sure it will be subscription based which means I will never get it.

Indeed.

I'll pay for the initial purchase of a game, but I won't shell out a single cent more for the ability to play online. Sorry, that just doesn't work for me.

 

[Dark Pulse]

Hucxley looks interesting but I'm sure it will be subscription based which means I will never get it.

Indeed.

I'll pay for the initial purchase of a game, but I won't shell out a single cent more for the ability to play online. Sorry, that just doesn't work for me.

Thirded. I don't play most MMOs for this very reason. (Some of you know I occasionally play Ragnarok Online, but this is due to the abundance of free servers for it.)

If it IS free to play (Or they have a free to play mode that isn't horribly gimped like most MMOs) I will DEFINITELY pick it up though.

Looking on the internet I see that most people seem to think that the Single Player and Match aspects of it will be free to play, but not the MMO portion.

Still, this is all speculation... we will see.

That said, the Guild Wars method of "Free to play, but pay for updates" might be better, provided the updates aren't FORCED to allow you to play online.

 

[FuLLBLeeD]

Thirded. I don't play most MMOs for this very reason. (Some of you know I occasionally play Ragnarok Online, but this is due to the abundance of free servers for it.)

If it IS free to play (Or they have a free to play mode that isn't horribly gimped like most MMOs) I will DEFINITELY pick it up though.

Looking on the internet I see that most people seem to think that the Single Player and Match aspects of it will be free to play, but not the MMO portion.

Still, this is all speculation... we will see.

That said, the Guild Wars method of "Free to play, but pay for updates" might be better, provided the updates aren't FORCED to allow you to play online.

You guys honestly expect them to run 5,000 man servers with individual 100 v 100 man servers and tons of other PVP servers off a free to play game?

Keep dreaming fellas.

 

[UndeadRoadkill]

That said, the Guild Wars method of "Free to play, but pay for updates" might be better, provided the updates aren't FORCED to allow you to play online.

I would so love to see a MMO sci-fi FPS/RPG set up the way Guild Wars is. Just buy the episodic content and play in it for free.

I won't pay a subscription for a game, but aside from that, I hate how sub-based games tend to artificially lengthen play time because of it. Make people grind, grind, grind for an eternity to get anywhere in order to keep the subscription money rolling in. Screw that.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

You guys honestly expect them to run 5,000 man servers with individual 100 v 100 man servers and tons of other PVP servers off a free to play game?

Keep dreaming fellas.

They can do whatever they want to do, but that doesn't mean I'll buy it or pay for it or play it.

I don't give a crap about social interactions in MMOs, so I don't need massive amounts of people in the game to have fun. I can get my social fix in lots of free places.

And with that said, don't you think that Facebook/MySpace/YouTube/etc. have just as many server costs as they do, except they are free?

 

[Peregrine]

Not to mention QuakeLive.

 

[FuLLBLeeD]

They can do whatever they want to do, but that doesn't mean I'll buy it or pay for it or play it.

I don't give a crap about social interactions in MMOs, so I don't need massive amounts of people in the game to have fun. I can get my social fix in lots of free places.

And with that said, don't you think that Facebook/MySpace/YouTube/etc. have just as many server costs as they do, except they are free?

You know, paying a monthly fee for MMOs guarantees support and content, something we really haven't gotten from Epic.

I'm all for a monthly fee.

EDIT: But its actually looking like it will be free to play, but you can use real money to do stuff in game like start a clan. This is exactly what I don't want. I'd rather there be a monthly fee. Of course, you can't buy in game weapons/armor with real money, so at least there's that.

 

[Sys-X]

I like pie !

 

[Sir_Brizz]

You know, paying a monthly fee for MMOs guarantees support and content, something we really haven't gotten from Epic.

I'm all for a monthly fee.

EDIT: But its actually looking like it will be free to play, but you can use real money to do stuff in game like start a clan. This is exactly what I don't want. I'd rather there be a monthly fee. Of course, you can't buy in game weapons/armor with real money, so at least there's that.

We've gotten as much or more support from Epic on UT3 than most companies give their games.

I don't like MMOs. I don't like how they play, I don't like how they encourage you to stay logged in for dozens of hours at a time, I just have a real moral problem with the techniques and methods they use to get people to subscribe and stays subscribed.

I also don't like games where you don't get the full experience unless you spend hundreds of dollars over it's lifetime to pick up little additional things. Support is something that should be given free of charge. If I have to pay $2 for a new level, that is retarded. I'll make my own level or play a different game.

It just shocks me that, with all the competition out there, people feel like they can just waste all their money on something. I've tried WoW and I can live without it, and I can definitely live with the money I'm not wasting on it. Same with any other MMO.

 

[UndeadRoadkill]

EDIT: But its actually looking like it will be free to play, but you can use real money to do stuff in game like start a clan. This is exactly what I don't want. I'd rather there be a monthly fee. Of course, you can't buy in game weapons/armor with real money, so at least there's that.

That sounds good to me, depending on how they do it. Of course it could go horribly wrong, but if it's free to play, they at least have my attention now.