What would revive the UT franchise?

[1x.]

The only good UI was the UT2k3 one, IMO.

ITTA, UT2KX was virtually perfect, if it's not broke don't fix it!

I'm reasonably satisfied with the UT3 UI now though.


I'm not even going to get into the shock of the initial release. (let me just say it was a shame and i'm sure it had a price in the form of the loss of a good amount of followers, between that; poor voice acting ((the demo dude constantly ranting about nonsense)) steep performance requirements, weak online integration and such i feel those factors turned many away who never bothered to look back - thankfully much of this has been addressed in patching, unfortunately a little late though and leaving other existing issues unaddressed) - You know i'm not a UT3 basher, just say'n.

It'd be nice if they would release another or a final patch. - Not holding my breath though.

 

[xMurphyx]

The menu of the old UT was the most convenient up to now. It just didn't look like much.

 

[DeusIX]

The menu of the old UT was the most convenient up to now. It just didn't look like much.

+1

 

[Northrawn]

The only good UI was the UT2k3 one, IMO.

Of course. It had the least functionality of all games before UT3.

 

[xMurphyx]

To give it a little credit, it looked pretty slick. Better than UT2004's menu, even if it had less functionality.

 

[JohnDoe641]

What would revive the UT franchise? Nothing.

It's dead.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Of course. It had the least functionality of all games before UT3.

Least functionality what?? At least UT2003 followed basic UI fundamentals. It takes exactly one click to get to the server browser.

 

[pine]

What would revive the UT franchise? Nothing.

It's dead.

 

[Godfrey.Payans]

Clan-friendly features might help, but I guess that's part of the whole multiplayer experience ball of wax that has already been mentioned. It's not uncommon to see people in clans saying that the rest of their group has dropped the game.

 

[Grobut]

Least functionality what?? At least UT2003 followed basic UI fundamentals. It takes exactly one click to get to the server browser.

2K3's release version lacked a fair few UT options, and it wasen't really till its final patch (or the one before it, i don't recall) that they where added back in (well, most of them), the final version was quite ok, but by then, 2K4 was right around the corner.
Most of the oversights had to do with Instant Action though, and i know you've never used that much, but thouse of us who did definately noticed the lacking features, and wheren't too pleased about it either..

So yeah, Northrawn is correct, the 2K3 release version was the UI with the least options untill UT3 came along.


But the 2K3 UI design wasen't bad, i'd rather have the 2K4 UI because it had more options, and even more so a modernized version of Uwindows, but the 2K3 UI was very clean, i'll have to give it that.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

2k4 had a really bad UI.

 

[Grobut]

2k4 had a really bad UI.

Rubbish, it didn't have a perfect UI, the main menu looked too cluttered with visuals, and it took more than one click to get to the server browser, but thouse are minor complaints compared to the UI's of most games (especially thease days).

It did far more well than it did poorly, it was responsive, it had a good server browser, most things where only 2, max 3 clicks away, it was rich in options and features, it used tabs, you had good individual control over features and options (often using numerical values instead of just sliders), and it stored lots of information per page, and there was barely any need to do .ini diving.
It was not perfection, but it worked, and did so with a minimum of annoyance.


If you want a "really bad UI", then look no further than UT3, now that's a really bad UI, and changing it's colour sheme from red to black, plus adding back in a bit more control over video options has not changed the fact that it's rubbish at it's core, and fails to offer the user much control over the game (you'll still have to do a lot of .ini diving to change many things), and still it needs 3'rd party mods like Map-Mixer and other mutators to offer basic features that previous UT's had (and lots of thease mutators wont be running on the servers).
It's limited, it's unresponsive in it's feedback, it has terrible flow, the server browser sucks, and it stores way too little info per page, it's a bad UI, and there's no way 2K4's UI deserves to be lumped into the same catagory as it, just because you had to click more than once to get to the server browser

 

[Northrawn]

2k4 had a really bad UI.

UT2k3'S looked better (and I liked the menu-music much more than the overrated UT-music).
2k4's looked horrible (and had the boring original UT-music again).
But the functionality was better slightly better than 2k3's.

Of course UT's usability was best.


UT3's UI doesn't even need to be discussed.
Change a setting while spectating a match? Well, at first this wasn't needed in UT3 because they forgot a spectate feature. But even after it got added you couldn't spec a match while having the server-browser, mapvoting or settings on.
THis and many other flaws made it the crappiest UT3 UI ever.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

zzz. Sounds like you have some nice bias in there

UT2004 UI is horrid because it is the epitome of bad design, failure to execute basic UI fundamentals properly, messy and confusing design... can I make the list go on?

The UT3 UI is an extension of the crappiness of the UT2004 UI.

Frankly, none of the UT games have had what I'd call nice UIs. UWindows tries to be too many things and is clunky and slow, UT2003 executed fundamental principles properly but was incomplete, UT2004 had plenty of options but not much else, UT3 had a mixture of all three.

Most of the games I consider having good UI design don't have or need as many options as any UT game. I can get into a game in MW/MW2, for example, in two clicks. In Source-based games I don't even have to open the game to join a server BY DESIGN. I could go into other games that have better UIs than any UT game, but it would be pointless because there is no other game in creation that needs the kind of menu usability and options that UT should have.

I said before that Map Mixer proves that good design IS possible in UT, Epic simply doesn't give it much credence or thought. They admitted that the UI in UT3 had been an afterthought. The Gears menu is better but, again, you just don't need the kind of options in Gears that you do in UT.

We'll see what, if anything, Epic does next. But I hope they've figured out that: 1) the UI is a highly important facet of the game, and 2) community features are an absolute requirement for UT.

 

[1x.]

We'll see what, if anything, Epic does next. But I hope they've figured out that: 1) the UI is a highly important facet of the game, and 2) community features are an absolute requirement for UT.

While i don't share your sentiments entirely, i do agree with the section I quoted, especially the bold.

In other news, I remember one some very good things about the UT series, such as 1 click exit, (with out superfluous confirmation requests) CD not required, no securerom or other BS headaches, etc. We'll have to see what happens next, hopefully the console shenanigans aren't part any future plans.

 

[WHIPperSNAPper]

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.

Do you really think so? I like the UT 2004 user interface. I think it's easy to use and fast. I guess my biggest gripes about it are that the built-in IRC server browser disconnects at every map change, the server browser needs better filtering options and the filters need to work better, and the server browser should provide an option to list servers that have bots on them but to only count the number of human players (like the UT99 server browser did).

 

[WHIPperSNAPper]

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.

I was very disappointed too and I spent $57 for the Collector's Edition after taxes to pick up UT3 two days after its release. However, I can't say that I didn't know that the retail release would be the same as the beta demo (though I didn't think the server browser would be so awful). After all, I had read the posts about the retail version from German players and knew what I was getting into. I had wanted to pump out a remake of my best UT99 CTF map in the hopes that by getting it out early it might become a standard map.

I played Warfare for a couple months and was even a member of a startup clan for the game. However, when I picked up Sins of a Solar Empire in late March 2008, that pretty much put the kabbash on my interest in UT3 and then I ended up being drawn back in to UT99 and UT 2004.

I don't feel badly about my UT3 purchase. After all I did play it for a couple months and I had only spent $10 each for UT99 and UT 2004, so I guess it was time to give back to Epic. What really disappointed me, aside from all of UT3's problems, was that I had been hoping that UT3 would lead to a rebirth of UT and make UT a top game again in terms of popularity and with that I was severely disappointed; before we knew what UT3 would be like, I had hoped that UT3 would prove to be the best UT.

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.

It's affected my attitude too and made me very cynical. Unless it's $5, I do not want to purchase any game without having read and watched reviews and without talking to other people who already have the game. I have no confidence at all that a sequel will be as good as the original game and I am very skeptical about them.

Sadly, what we are seeing is that sequels are becoming increasingly consolized, shipping without features that PC players took for granted. Modern Warfare 2 is a good example of this (no dedicated servers). Dragon Age--a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights supposedly--does not allow for custom content and does not have an online multiplayer component (which was great in Neverwinter Nights). I wouldn't trust Blizzard and Starcraft-2 either.

Perhaps I would trust Ironclad Games and Stardock to deliver a first rate Sins of a Solar Empire-2 since that is a PC-only title and those are PC-only companies. I might even purchase Sins-2 ahead of time so that I can be part of the beta testing, assuming that there will be a Sins-2.

 

[WHIPperSNAPper]

Do people actually play Onslaught 2.0? This is the first I've ever heard of it.

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.

My theory as to what happened is that UT3 on the PC is basically a console port; UT3 was designed for consoles or at least the PC version was highly compromised to accommodate them. Perhaps Epic did want to improve UT3 for the PC. I suspect that they were fully aware that UT3 for the PC was going to feel like a buggy beta but that the almost-bankrupt Midway was breathing down their necks, wondering where the hell the game was. Perhaps Midway even threatened legal action or perhaps the contract imposed stiff penalties for failing to deliver UT3 in time for Christmas. Ironically, at least Epic would have been far better off waiting to release UT3 at a more strategic time when other big name FPS titles weren't being released and with much more polishing. If Midway had given them another 6 months it wouldn't have become a Duke Nukem Forever disaster and they could have put out a much more polished UT3 at a better time.

What would revive the UT franchise? Nothing.

It's dead.

I don't buy it. I don't see why UT could not be revived if it were done properly and to a high degree of excellence. I do think that they would need to approach it as though they were introducing a brand new series to the gaming world (ala Crysis). First produce a first-rate, high quality single player adventure-style FPS and give it marketing and generate hype for it. Include an online Deathmatch game with it. Sell the game as a single player campaign-style FPS--a sequel or remake of the original Unreal. Give it another name perhaps and reboot the series with a new name. Then, one year later, release the new Unreal Tournament (or whatever name it would have).

 

[Fuzz]

For me, it takes 7 clicks to join a match in QL. It takes 8 clicks to join a match in UT3. I have counted in the double-click of the desktop icon as well. Not a big deal.

Behindview 0 is broken for spectators, weapon fire model and instant hit effects are screwed. Spectator demos with UTCompIIIv4 doesn't have pickup sounds and some explosions are way too silent. Player demos are locked to the player and have a double countdown unless you turn the announcer off. 1st person weapon models are screwed in all demos, more or less, since they tend to go out of sync.

If Epic fixed spectators and demos, even thou only a mere handful use those features, thousands of viewers could follow anything from trick jumps to high profile duels on Ustream and YouTube. I have had this channel going for a week and I got hundreds of channel views and well over a thousand video views. UT3 is by no means a dead game.

If Epic included features like custom Brightskins, hitsounds and crosshairs, just like UTComp, in the main UI there would be less demo compatibility issues and needless bugs.

RypelCam is another great feature that is very hard to use, since it require the mutator to be in place when the match is recorded, afaik. If they made those features built in, there would be no compatibility issues on that front either. That was used in the trailers of the game, so why not have it in the game? Stock features are ever compatible, optional mutators are always tit for tat.

We nagged long enough to get a new UI. Just because a feature was cut in order to please the publishers doesn't mean it can't be included in a patch later on. Don't worry about breaking compatibility with something that doesn't work in it's current state.

We are all here and the interest in UT is still huge. GoW doesn't please our multiplayer needs. Find something UT we are willing to pay for and you got yourself a deal.

Let me promote this new portal, UT3 TV.

Fuzz vanishes into thin air.

 

[DeusIX]

U1 was a great singleplayer game, UT1 was a multiplayer-addon-botpack for U1.

U2 was neglegted by atari.

UT2 featured some ill features witch noone likes (Holy **** -kills, seriously... & mr.crow)
Also, to take U1 & U2 mythology away and to replace it WRESTLING STYLE!! is not good.
and the unforgivable raep of changing U-logo from U-skaarj into U-batman.
UT2 was closer to quake than it was to Unreal. bad!

With UT3 it's quite clear that it's mythology is from Gears. UT3 is a techdemo, nothing more. It's ok game, dont get me wrong, but it has no roots. That and Reaper is a Skaarj name!

*Tournament should always be considered as an addon for the current SP-game.

So to resurrect:
1. Make "Unreal 3" (no GoW crap)
2. Release botpack for U3.
3. ...
4. Win

(5. personal autobuy if: ..more pretty ladies and less "IMMA MACHO MAN!" -crap.)