What would revive the UT franchise?

[Benfica]

My comments have absolutely nothing to do with player skill gaps. I have always, and continue to maintain, that skill gaps are only a problem with small player bases. Once you're over 4-6 thousand players at any given time it ceases to be an issue.

I see. But let me ask you a question then: what kind of 4-6 thousand players would you want for UT4?

Which crowd do you want to attract and which elements would you like to see then? UT99 v2.0; tactical shooters; horror games; Quakers; UT2004 people; 3D games fans like Mirror's Edge or Portal; MMO's; evolution from UC2; fps-rts fans, etc...

Would the kind matter or not?

 

[Grobut]

It's not fast though. The gameplay progression is SLOW. How else do you define a fast paced game? The classes limit you in nearly every aspect, so unless you're claiming it is "fast paced" compared to, say, Counter Strike (which almost all games are), how are you determining that it is fast paced at all?

Combat style and movement speed, that's what determines the speed feel of a game, and thus far, you are the only person i have ever met that feels TF2 plays at a slow pace.

We can agree that UT and Quake playes even faster, sure, but not that TF2 is a slow paced game, you move fast enough for most classes, the combat is generally very straight forward, arcady if you will, and quite spammy, there's allways lots of things happening on screen (unless you camp, but people can do that in UT aswell), and you can allways get to some combat very quickly if you want to.

The game moves plenty fast if you want it to, keeping in mind that it is a CTF gametype and not a DM free for all, which isen't so supricing, it did start its life as a Quake CTF mod, Team Fortress goes back a long ways, it's older than UT, probably even older than Unreal.

To me, "fast paced shooters" is a sub-genre of shooters that Quake and UT fall into. TF2 isn't something I would put into that genre. To me, it's like comparing a Honda Civic hatchback to a Corvette. No matter what you do, you can't make them equals.

No, that genre is called "Arena shooters", not "fast paced shooters", that's not a genre, but a label you put on games that has speed and twitchy gameplay, all shooters of all genres can be fast or slow, it's not a genre thing, it's a speed thing.

Even CS can be considdered a fast paced shooter in it's genre, it certainly moves 50x faster than Red Orchestra does, and they are both MP "tactical shooters".

I'm not quite sure what genre we should say TF2 belongs to though, it's not really an Arena shooter, nor is it a Tactical shooter, it falls somewhat awkwardly between the two, the best i can describe it with is "Arcady MP CTF game", and as such i'd have to compare it to the CTF modes of other games, and as such, it moves plenty fast, not UT fast but fast.

 

[iounas]

Well team fortress was in quake but for any quake player TF2 is slow..
Just moving around is slow..
Well default movement speed in quake live also feels slow but with movement techniques that even mediocre players use you never go slower than 1.5x default speed even when turning and can get to 2X in few jumps and then while doing that you have to aim fast and accurate..like split second 180 twitch rail and stuff..
Fast paced games are great fun and only thing I dont like about them is that I cant just jump into a game after few days of not playing them..
Its like I have to speed up my brain first to keep up..
That doesnt matter in games like css, mw2, tf2.. I can just jump in after a month of not playing and do the same as before..

 

[Bi()ha2arD]

Is not dead because we play the game very often, i do this every day with my friends, so for us is NOT DEAD!

+1

 

[Benfica]

For me as an UT fan it's not even a matter of very fast pace, what I don't like are generic restrictions. Either what holds back, brings a negative state of mind or forcing to something that quite often defeats the point of gaming.

Those restrictions can be of multiple kinds, be it slow pace, slow progress, limiting to classes and hierarchies, relying too much on unlocking features, slow weapon switch, reduced number of weapons, team members too dependent of each other, dark and desaturated maps, seriousness and fatalism, stereotypes, unwritten rules, lack of innovation or afraid to innovate. And generically having real world dictating that someting should or should not be added to the game.

Of course you could also consider restrictions things like low performance, lack of customization, crappy UI, p2p based online, no (console) command line, etc.... I can still barely swallow some consolization, bugs, rushed release. What I can't stand are restrictions and **** ups by design.

 

[WHIPperSNAPper]

That, and also Epic was trying to go back to the roots with UT3 by combining UT99 with UT2k4. I'm saying that's the wrong way to do it. They should have done something completely different with UT3. They should have targeted a completely different audience with something brand new rather than trying to bring back the old community by trying to refine the old games. The old community is never going to be satisfied with refined gameplay. So if Epic wants to keep that community alive (AKA get money from it), they should copy what Quake Live did, in one way or another.

It's hard to say that UT3 failed because it was a rehash of UT99 and UT 2004 when it suffered from a horde of non-game play issues such as the consolization of the server browser and user interface (which turned many players off) and the game's release as a buggy beta with a barely functional server browser. (You couldn't even add server favorites!) The game also seemed to have difficulty dealing with custom maps and hosting a server was a big pain in the arse if I remember correctly. Many UT99 fans liked the game play of the Beta Demo and looked forward to the full game but completely lost interest when they learned the truth about the retail release.

Basically, going from the slick user interfaces of UT99 and UT 2004 to the slow and clunky consolized UT3 was like having to step down from a loaded Lexus to a stripped down Yugo. I really think that the people who say that UT3 failed because it had UT99's game play and feel (which it did not IMHO) are barking upt he wrong tree because so many non-game play things were wrong with it.

 

[WHIPperSNAPper]

Benfica is right. UT3 was nothing for UT2K4 players. Is.

Warfare is an inaccessible version of Onslaught. Also with the orb, hoverboard and all the weapons & vehicles that don't act at all like in 2K4, there is little reason for the UT2K4 -players to play UT3.

A .txt-file with all differences listed in for every weapon & verhicle & core gameplay from 2K4 would be a kByte big.
Not that it matters. </whine>

Warfare wasn't all that bad but I found Onslaught to be more fun. The addition of the hoverboard was a good idea and the Orb isn't so horrible though I could see why people would want to turn it off. One huge area where UT3 Warfare failed was with the vehicles. They feel awful compared to the UT 2004 vehicles and they lack first person view, which is very important for flying vehicles. The addition of the Nightshade and its deployable mine pod that cannot be destroyed was also a huge mistake.

When you add it all up--far superior and slick user interface in UT 2004, more visual clarity IMHO, and better vehicles--it's a no-brainer--Onslaught fans stuck with UT 2004. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if more people play Onslaught today than play Warfare.

 

[WHIPperSNAPper]

That, and also Epic was trying to go back to the roots with UT3 by combining UT99 with UT2k4. I'm saying that's the wrong way to do it. They should have done something completely different with UT3. They should have targeted a completely different audience with something brand new rather than trying to bring back the old community by trying to refine the old games. The old community is never going to be satisfied with refined gameplay. So if Epic wants to keep that community alive (AKA get money from it), they should copy what Quake Live did, in one way or another.

What Epic needed to do was to examine and study why UT99 was so successful and beloved to the point that people still want to play it today. Epic needed to:

• Replicate the UT99 gameplay and feel faithfully, fixing whatever parts were broken (minigun/pulse secondary lockdown, etc.), releasing a new UT99 with modern graphics, the newer game types (Bombing Run, Onslaught, Invasion, UT 2004 style Assault, Assault Racing).
  
• Include a superior, slick, and fast user interface, an innovative server browser with many filtering options, built-in type-chat rooms, and private and voice comm chat rooms that would allow for voice-activation chat.
  
• Include a mutator for UT 2004 style movement.
  
• Include a Map Vote that's better than what is currently available in UT 2004.
  
• Maintain an easy to use and to understand file structure so that the management of custom maps and mods is easier.

Epic really discounted just how important polish and quality is to PC gamers and instead released a game that felt like a conslized buggy beta with a barely functional server browser. If Epic had done as I suggested we probably wouldn't be reading this thread right now. Perhaps my version of UT3 wouldn't have been a smash hit like Team Fortress 2 or Call of Duty 4 absent an Unreal 3 and marketing but it would have at least made a much better showing than it did.

Drastically changing a franchise to broaden it's appeal allmost never works, it usually just cheeses off the game's origional fanbase, and fails to create a new one as the games usually feel hamfisted in their design, trying to change something into something else rarely makes for a good and consistant univers. They would be much better off just starting a new franchise instead.

If UT3 is ever turned into a case study in computer gaming failure, that would probably be the take-home message.

My comments have absolutely nothing to do with player skill gaps. I have always, and continue to maintain, that skill gaps are only a problem with small player bases. Once you're over 4-6 thousand players at any given time it ceases to be an issue.

Speaking of case studies, you make an excellent point. My primary game is currently Sins of a Solar Empire, an excellent 4x-RTS for online multiplayer which for whatever reason has few people who play it online (perhaps 150 at peak times). Anyway, it's very difficult for new players to break into the game because they find few other new players to play against and they get steamrolled by more experienced players, many of who often smurf to hide their actual player records. Sins is an excellent game and it has been successful, but for whatever reason 99.5% of all the players only do single player. Perhaps it didn't sell to the types who play online multiplayer and sold primarily to single player types.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

It's hard to say that UT3 failed because it was a rehash of UT99 and UT 2004 when it suffered from a horde of non-game play issues such as the consolization of the server browser and user interface (which turned many players off) and the game's release as a buggy beta with a barely functional server browser. (You couldn't even add server favorites!) The game also seemed to have difficulty dealing with custom maps and hosting a server was a big pain in the arse if I remember correctly. Many UT99 fans liked the game play of the Beta Demo and looked forward to the full game but completely lost interest when they learned the truth about the retail release.

Basically, going from the slick user interfaces of UT99 and UT 2004 to the slow and clunky consolized UT3 was like having to step down from a loaded Lexus to a stripped down Yugo. I really think that the people who say that UT3 failed because it had UT99's game play and feel (which it did not IMHO) are barking upt he wrong tree because so many non-game play things were wrong with it.

It's true, however I'd say that UT interface have been on the slippery slope since UT came out. UT2004's interface is nothing but a shadow of a console user interface and only really has more options because consoles weren't targeted. It still used the same basic principles as UT2003, but broke all the basic rules a UI should follow, such as:

• Taking more than 3 clicks to get into a game
• Hiding useful functionality from the front menu (like IRC and whatever they could have done on the community tab)
• Favoring looks over functionality. Just look at the opening menu page.

UT3 fails at several of these, too... and mostly more gravely than UT2004 did. It's unfortunate that Epic put so little effort into the parts of the game necessary to facilitate its primary role as an online multiplayer game.

I think it's poignant how well MapMixer does with these things comparatively, proving that it's not only possible to have a functional UI in this day and age, but also more practical.

 

[Bi()ha2arD]

Warfare wasn't all that bad but I found Onslaught to be more fun. The addition of the hoverboard was a good idea and the Orb isn't so horrible though I could see why people would want to turn it off. One huge area where UT3 Warfare failed was with the vehicles. They feel awful compared to the UT 2004 vehicles and they lack first person view, which is very important for flying vehicles. The addition of the Nightshade and its deployable mine pod that cannot be destroyed was also a huge mistake.

When you add it all up--far superior and slick user interface in UT 2004, more visual clarity IMHO, and better vehicles--it's a no-brainer--Onslaught fans stuck with UT 2004. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if more people play Onslaught today than play Warfare.

Somehow only americans seem to not like warfare and play ons2.0

It's not Conquest, but it is IMHO way better than ONS. It adds so much more dimensions to the game compared to who links up nodes faster and rushes enemy prime first.

Vehicles is probably a matter of taste. Missing 1st person might be an issue for some (isnt really one for me), but the handling is way better. When I tried ONS again after playing warfare for a long time I realized how **** 2k4 vehicles handled. I mean, fly a manta in a rock and it loses 50 HP. Ontop of that the manta is way less agile and the AVRiL is useless.

Nightshade might be a bit annoying on publics, but even there its not a big deal imo. Its slow and can easily be taken out. It sucks that you cannot destroy the minetrap but seriously, on a 32 player server, even if placed on spawn, how long will it last? A skilled player has no difficulties avoiding them. On pickup games we don't use it at all because it's a waste of a player that could do other important things.

 

[Grobut]

It's hard to say that UT3 failed because it was a rehash of UT99 and UT 2004 when it suffered from a horde of non-game play issues such as the consolization of the server browser and user interface (which turned many players off) and the game's release as a buggy beta with a barely functional server browser. (You couldn't even add server favorites!) The game also seemed to have difficulty dealing with custom maps and hosting a server was a big pain in the arse if I remember correctly. Many UT99 fans liked the game play of the Beta Demo and looked forward to the full game but completely lost interest when they learned the truth about the retail release.

Basically, going from the slick user interfaces of UT99 and UT 2004 to the slow and clunky consolized UT3 was like having to step down from a loaded Lexus to a stripped down Yugo. I really think that the people who say that UT3 failed because it had UT99's game play and feel (which it did not IMHO) are barking upt he wrong tree because so many non-game play things were wrong with it.

I know this is very true for me, when i played the demo i wasen't really concearned, the gameplay was fun, and i was certain that all the things i wasen't seeing, that where missing, where just the result of it beeing a demo (and a "Beta demo" at that), Epic has stripped down their demo's in the past to make them a smaller download, so i didn't think much of it, i was confident that what i was seeing was just a sneak preview of the full game, and that the full game would offer much much more (in options, visual styles, everything).. what can i say, i had faith in Epic, they have treated us very well in the past.

Well, needless to say, i was very far from happy when i got the full game, and discovered it was pretty much just the Demo with more maps, i was probably too naive for my own good, but i never once imagined that the demo was all there was to this game, i booted up UT3 expecting to be greeted with menu's booming with the stuff i had come to expect of UT games, and found just the demo all over again.. to say that i was dissapointed would be quite the understatement.


Ohh well, i have learned my lesson, UT3 is the last Epic game i have bought blindly on faith alone, from now on, i'm not touching anything they make till i know exactly what i'm getting myself into.

 

[Benfica]

Somehow only americans seem to not like warfare and play ons2.0

It's not Conquest, but it is IMHO way better than ONS. It adds so much more dimensions to the game compared to who links up nodes faster and rushes enemy prime first.

ons2 has everything you can find in war, and some more. So, I don't see your point

 

[UBerserker]

Somehow only americans seem to not like warfare and play ons2.0

It's not Conquest, but it is IMHO way better than ONS. It adds so much more dimensions to the game compared to who links up nodes faster and rushes enemy prime first.

What is ons2.0?

 

[Benfica]

http://utforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=677759

 

[Bi()ha2arD]

ons2 has everything you can find in war, and some more. So, I don't see your point

It's trying to immitate ONS when warfare plays perfectly fine.

 

[UBerserker]

Sounded nice when I read stuff like dodge-jump and Lighting Gun. I'll stick to Warfare without UT2k4 features, it's kind of decent enough for me when I get tired of DM.

 

[q_mi_4_3]

It's true, however I'd say that UT interface have been on the slippery slope since UT came out. UT2004's interface is nothing but a shadow of a console user interface and only really has more options because consoles weren't targeted. It still used the same basic principles as UT2003, but broke all the basic rules a UI should follow, such as:

• Taking more than 3 clicks to get into a game
• Hiding useful functionality from the front menu (like IRC and whatever they could have done on the community tab)
• Favoring looks over functionality. Just look at the opening menu page.

UT3 fails at several of these, too... and mostly more gravely than UT2004 did. It's unfortunate that Epic put so little effort into the parts of the game necessary to facilitate its primary role as an online multiplayer game.

I think it's poignant how well MapMixer does with these things comparatively, proving that it's not only possible to have a functional UI in this day and age, but also more practical.

Why Epic never puts in more effort after UT99's UWindows confuses me to no end. Do they really think that the next interation of a series should have less capable menu system than the previously release? I knew I had hoped that UT3's menus would be more capable than UT2kX's, and I was most certainly disappointed. And the support for custom content... sigh.

At the least, couldn't they have just remade the same thing? It seems to be better than what was used to replace it.

 

[q_mi_4_3]

Drastically changing a franchise to broaden it's appeal allmost never works, it usually just cheeses off the game's origional fanbase, and fails to create a new one as the games usually feel hamfisted in their design, trying to change something into something else rarely makes for a good and consistant univers. They would be much better off just starting a new franchise instead.

If UT3 is ever turned into a case study in computer gaming failure, that would probably be the take-home message.

Take note EA.

*Cough*C&C4*Cough*

 

[UBerserker]

The only good UI was the UT2k3 one, IMO.

 

[Benfica]

It's trying to immitate ONS when warfare plays perfectly fine.

Someone could also say that WAR is pointless when ONS played perfectly fine.