What would revive the UT franchise?

[p3rplex3d]

^^^ wow memories of playing CTF-Football in the early 99 days good times

UT3 is fun. I am used to the menu's, does not bother me. it's so hard to explain or even try and figure out what happened to the UT community. Personally, like I said, downloadable content easily cashed and played. plus back then it was so new and me as a computer novice could crank out a map and in days people were online playing it.

the UT world feel different too, more like gears of war or something. prodding, slower. I miss the 20 player frag fests with blood freaking everywhere.

closest thing I have gotten to those days with UT3 is on Epic Greed server one, always packed with intense, serious gameplay and regulars. fun!

 

[q_mi_4_3]

What difference does that make? A good game is a good game.

Mass Effect looks just like the console versions, even in the menus, yet it works perfectly fine on the PC.

Batman is one of the better PC games to come out this decade and it's a "console port".

I could keep the list going on and on, but gaming is mostly what you make of it. There is no sense being a diehard ANYTHING fan right now. There are great games on all of the available platforms, even games that start on one platform and move to another.

Most console games are only good for one playthrough, since they don't have mod support. It will be sad to see PC gaming go down this route, where people have to buy a new title every month just to play something new. For the last 3 console ports that I bought, they were all fairly short and all without mod support (that includes Batman AA). If PC games continues like this, PC gamers are only going to be paying more money for less quality, functionality wise.

The biggest thing is, publishers and developers are doing on PC only just exactly what they think people will buy. The reasons for which and the repercussions of which are neither here nor there, but I for one just enjoy the fact that some really fun, really great console games do make their way to PC eventually.

Unfortunately, it is more about politics in this sense. Just because a game might be fun for a short while, doesn't make it worth the purchase. If console ports continues to sell, the dev's will just keep on making console ports because they know the extra effort isn't needed. If PC gaming loses the advantages of PC gaming, then it won't be long until console ports start becoming like crap. The might be some exceptions worth pointing out, but those are the exceptions and not the norm.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Most console games are only good for one playthrough, since they don't have mod support. It will be sad to see PC gaming go down this route, where people have to buy a new title every month just to play something new. For the last 3 console ports that I bought, they were all fairly short and all without mod support (that includes Batman AA). If PC games continues like this, PC gamers are only going to be paying more money for less quality, functionality wise.

The problem with this is that most PC games already couldn't be modded a decade ago. Most of the time when games WERE modded, it was because the content files were hacked and third parties created something to mod with.

And it's been the same during the last decade as well. Most games cannot be modded. That's just a reality you have to face unless you stick to a few games from a few developers who always make their games moddable.

Unfortunately, it is more about politics in this sense. Just because a game might be fun for a short while, doesn't make it worth the purchase. If console ports continues to sell, the dev's will just keep on making console ports because they know the extra effort isn't needed. If PC gaming loses the advantages of PC gaming, then it won't be long until console ports start becoming like crap. The might be some exceptions worth pointing out, but those are the exceptions and not the norm.

Frankly, then, in your scenario, it is a lose-lose situation. If you don't buy PC ports they will abandon the platform. If you do then you don't get games the way you want them.

I pay $8+ to go see a two hour movie. I don't feel bad buying a game for $50 that I end up playing for 10 hours. In film terms, I should have paid $80+ for the game.

The reality is that the longer that PC gamers act like this elite group that only wants highly moddable games and only wants to buy games every 5 years, the more likely developers will keep abandoning the platform. Most developers don't make much, if any, money off of their PC ports. They do it as a service to their fanbase (or potential fanbase) and because they appreciate the platform. All the money is in consoles, and if I can get a few high quality console games on my PC, I'm game.

 

[1x.]

^^^ wow memories of playing CTF-Football in the early 99 days good times

Nice!

UT3 is fun. I am used to the menu's, does not bother me. it's so hard to explain or even try and figure out what happened to the UT community. Personally, like I said, downloadable content easily cashed and played. plus back then it was so new and me as a computer novice could crank out a map and in days people were online playing it.

Well the menu's are fine now they weren't at the initial release.

the UT world feel different too, more like gears of war or something. prodding, slower. I miss the 20 player frag fests with blood freaking everywhere.

Yeah it has changed, but UT3 feels more like 99 to me than 2004 ever could have, except on steroids.

closest thing I have gotten to those days with UT3 is on Epic Greed server one, always packed with intense, serious gameplay and regulars. fun!

Ladders are all dead too, i have a good feeling of why but its not worth getting into.

 

[q_mi_4_3]

The problem with this is that most PC games already couldn't be modded a decade ago. Most of the time when games WERE modded, it was because the content files were hacked and third parties created something to mod with.

And it's been the same during the last decade as well. Most games cannot be modded. That's just a reality you have to face unless you stick to a few games from a few developers who always make their games moddable.

A lot of the early modding did came from hacking the game. I haven't said the developers had help foster modding for their games. But this is still an advantage thats over looked by most developers. In fact, a lot of the developers are probably adding more protection to lock down game modding, on purposely. Instead of encouraging something good for PC gaming, they are actively against the idea of people making the game more fun.

Just because most games can't be modded, doesn't mean that is the best direction for gaming to take. People should champion the idea of making more games moddable. You might not bother to care about this at all, but that doesn't that mean something can't be done about it.

Frankly, then, in your scenario, it is a lose-lose situation. If you don't buy PC ports they will abandon the platform. If you do then you don't get games the way you want them.

I pay $8+ to go see a two hour movie. I don't feel bad buying a game for $50 that I end up playing for 10 hours. In film terms, I should have paid $80+ for the game.

Why does the hour-based movie value system always get brought up? A movie is a movie, and a game is a game. They are not the same thing. If everything is measure in worth by hour-values, then a bag of chips would only be worthwhile if it can be enjoyed for around 2 hours, and a laptop would only be worthwhile if people can use it for 3 years.

The worth of a game should not be determine by how long it takes to play it, but for how much quality there is in playing it. Even if I spent 12 hours playing an AAA title, and still went away feeling I haven't done much at all, then I should be able to say that I felt the game is lacking. Even for game review sites, they do not give out points for the length of a game, but for the quality and enjoyment of a game.

The reality is that the longer that PC gamers act like this elite group that only wants highly moddable games and only wants to buy games every 5 years, the more likely developers will keep abandoning the platform. Most developers don't make much, if any, money off of their PC ports. They do it as a service to their fanbase (or potential fanbase) and because they appreciate the platform. All the money is in consoles, and if I can get a few high quality console games on my PC, I'm game.

Developers weren't being ask to give what they could not deliver. They had done all of this in the past, it shouldn't be unreasonable for them to maintain the same kind of productivity. But what they are doing is stripping away features that had become a part of PC gaming, and in that sense had made PC gaming less than what it was. How would PC benefit from playing more console games, if PC is made into nothing more than a console without a controller? (I'm sorry, I had all but forgetten the new crowd of "PC gamers" that enjoys playing with controllers more than kb/m.) How would developers do a service to the PC platform, if the games utilizes none of its advantages? There is no elitism here, PC gamers are not asking to be treated better than before, but be treat the same as they had been before.

In any case, PC gaming will not be PC gaming, at least not with the same identity. In a world where we can have games like MW2 with its features of text chat, mouse look, and graphics option sell as well as it does on the PC, PC gaming is just going to degrade into a shadow of itself. The sad thing is there are people that game on the PC that don't even bother to do anything about it, they just take whatever scraps they get and be happy with it. Even if the game is a late port, with only matchmaking for MP, and bad mouse control, there will still be those that are willing to buy it for the PC even if it is painfully obvious that the game is nothing more than a cash in.

I used to think that PC gaming will be good as long as games kept on coming out for it, thats why I had bought a few console ports myself. But lately, all I see is delay ports and PC games that play like a console game, bad mouse control included. Buying late console ports doesn't help PC gaming, all it does is give more money to console-based developers, to allow them to justify delay ports, and to show them its alright to treat PC gamers as an afterthought. More and more preference is given to an console user complaining a PC game not going to consoles, then it is for a PC user to complaining console game is not going to the PC.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

A lot of the early modding did came from hacking the game. I haven't said the developers had help foster modding for their games. But this is still an advantage thats over looked by most developers. In fact, a lot of the developers are probably adding more protection to lock down game modding, on purposely. Instead of encouraging something good for PC gaming, they are actively against the idea of people making the game more fun.

I don't think developers are actively preventing modding of their games, I think they simply don't have the time or money to stabilize their editors and content for public consumption. People who wanted to could still write editors and do what they did in the old days for that, but they don't typically do that anymore. You can hardly blame a change in the way consumers act on the developers of games that people consume.

Just because most games can't be modded, doesn't mean that is the best direction for gaming to take. People should champion the idea of making more games moddable. You might not bother to care about this at all, but that doesn't that mean something can't be done about it.

I do care about it, and I agree that it's probably not the right direction to go. I'm simply pointing out the reality of the situation, which is that nothin has been the way you want it. Ever.

Why does the hour-based movie value system always get brought up? A movie is a movie, and a game is a game. They are not the same thing. If everything is measure in worth by hour-values, then a bag of chips would only be worthwhile if it can be enjoyed for around 2 hours, and a laptop would only be worthwhile if people can use it for 3 years.

I only compared hour values because that is the easiest thing to compare. The fact is, I would get MORE value out of a game that lasted 2 hours than I do out of a movie that lasts two hours. So really, your nitpicking on this only further clarifies that a game is worth more "dollars-per-hour" than a movie is.

The worth of a game should not be determine by how long it takes to play it, but for how much quality there is in playing it. Even if I spent 12 hours playing an AAA title, and still went away feeling I haven't done much at all, then I should be able to say that I felt the game is lacking. Even for game review sites, they do not give out points for the length of a game, but for the quality and enjoyment of a game.

Again, hours is the only thing you can really compare. Movie experiences are short, non-interactive, and typically all about presentation. Game experiences are far more enriching, even when the story and game experiences are lacking they are STILL far more enriching than any movie could ever hope to be. Look at a game like Gears of War, for example. I don't care if you love or hate the game, you can't replicate the Gears of War experience in a movie theater. (On a side note, movies and games are compared because they are similar types of experiences)

Developers weren't being ask to give what they could not deliver. They had done all of this in the past, it shouldn't be unreasonable for them to maintain the same kind of productivity. But what they are doing is stripping away features that had become a part of PC gaming, and in that sense had made PC gaming less than what it was.

You'll have to mention specific things here for me, because if you're talking about the aspects of PC gaming that make it unique (i.e. being moddable), I already pointed out that they WEREN'T already doing that. For me, looking back at the late 90s with fondness, I remember that many games were moddable out of the box... however, almost all games were NOT moddable out of the box. On PC. Not console ports. Not multiplatform (except with Mac and Linux).

How would PC benefit from playing more console games, if PC is made into nothing more than a console without a controller?

How does the PC benefit by having LESS games on it??

(I'm sorry, I had all but forgetten the new crowd of "PC gamers" that enjoys playing with controllers more than kb/m.)

I guess you can count me among these "crazy" people that find some games better with a controller... Little known fact, did you know that PCs had game controllers PRIOR to consoles having them??????

How would developers do a service to the PC platform, if the games utilizes none of its advantages?

Even some of the worst PC versions of multiplatform games STILL take advantage of the PC (in general). Which specific advantages are you referring to? I have yet to find one so bad that you simply can't change your resolution, set some video options, enable AA and AF (even if within Windows), and all kinds of other things you can't even dream of doing on a console...

There is no elitism here, PC gamers are not asking to be treated better than before, but be treat the same as they had been before.

Ultimately, this is where you are wrong.

First of all, PC gamers voted unanimously for the gimpiness of Modern Warfare 2. Heck, more than half of the people who claimed to be boycotting the game bought it and played it!

Second of all, lots of PC gamers ARE asking for things they never had before because their platform can do them. As I said before, most games didn't come with a level editor in years past. Now PC gamers think it should be a requirement of being on the platform that you can make levels for a game. I could go into a list miles long of things that lots of PC gamers act like they are entitled to simply because they are on the "best" platform, but the deal is that this group of elitist PC gamers acts like they speak for all PC gamers and act exactly like console fanboys protecting their console of choice to the bitter end. How does THAT win the PC any points?

More and more preference is given to an console user complaining a PC game not going to consoles, then it is for a PC user to complaining console game is not going to the PC.

Well, I have a wake up call for you.

The top selling PC games might sell a million units over their entire lifetime.

The top selling console games WILL sell 5+ million units over a few months.

So from a business perspective, there is no reason to make a PC only game. In fact, if MW2 numbers can be trusted, PC gaming makes up only a small fraction of multiplatform sales.

 

[Northrawn]

It is not always modding that is needed. Mapping would IMHO be enough if the core-gamplay is fine.

Let's hope Shootmania from Nadeo is really good (An FPS with Vehicles and as easy mappable as Trackmania. Unfortunately Trackmania 2 has pushed Shootmania further back).

 

[Grobut]

How does the PC benefit by having LESS games on it??

Personally, i'd rather see fewer but better PC titles, if i could make that choice that is.

Most people seem to ignore a simple point in thease discussions, people are quick to state "the PC is dead", but they neglect to ask why it seems that way? it wasen't allways like that, so what has changed?

It's not the hardware nor the prices, on that front the situation is the same as in the 90's, you find pretty much the exact same power versus cost tradeoffs for both platforms today as you did then, the PC costs more to buy, but is more powerfull and has cheaper games, Consoles are cheaper now, but less powerfull and the games cost more.


Well, there's one thing that definately has changed, and that's the games, PC exclusives have withered away and allmost died compleately now, it's been happening steadilly since the Xbox and PS2 hit the market, and today the film has allmost compleately broken, and we're lucky if there's just one such title a year, and usually there isen't even that much.
Did the PC all of a sudden become less profitable out of nowhere? or was it pushed in that direction because nobody was making games for it anymore?


I would considder myself a die-hard PC gamer, i don't own any of the current gen consoles, they don't really float my boat when considdering all the additional things my PC offers me, and thus i haven't wished to spend money on them.. but here i am sitting, bored sensless of all my PC games as i have played them all a million times now, i'm desperate for a new, good PC game, but there's not one damned thing on the shelves i wish to buy, it's all Console ports, and every single one of them i could just as easilly play on a Console (where it would probably enoy a better game balance, and there would be no DRM to deal with).

I haven't upgraded my box in 3 years now, and hell knows many of it's components are pushing 5 years of age by now, but nothing has made me upgrade, it's still plenty capable of playing all thease Xbox360 ports that are flooding the market, and i find myself wondering if i should ever bother to upgrade it? when there are no games on the PC that i coulden't just as well play on a Console, why keep going? seem to me i'm just fighting the current, waiting to drown.


Did the PC die? or was it murdered? when nobody makes games for it anymore, and don't even bother to tell us in TV ads that the game is also avalible for the PC, is it really any wonder that the rats have fled the sinking vessel? honestly, how could the PC be doing well in todays market? they are giving us zero incentive to stick with the platform, they are giving us nothing to play that we coulden't just as well play on a Console, and the ports are just getting more and more lazy.
When allmost nobody is giving the PC a fair chance, how can it really suprice anyone that it's not doing very well? unless you're into MMO's, what is there really to look forward to? Call of Pripyat and HL2 EP3? that seems to be about it, and EP3 will undoubtedly aslo be on Consoles anyway.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

There are more PC games now than there ever were before. There are less exclusives like you mention.

However, the thing is that even the best selling PC games of the late 90s didn't move any more units than top selling PC games do now.

 

[1x.]

Personally, i'd rather see fewer but better PC titles, if i could make that choice that is.

Most people seem to ignore a simple point in thease discussions, people are quick to state "the PC is dead", but they neglect to ask why it seems that way? it wasen't allways like that, so what has changed?

It's not the hardware nor the prices, on that front the situation is the same as in the 90's, you find pretty much the exact same power versus cost tradeoffs for both platforms today as you did then, the PC costs more to buy, but is more powerfull and has cheaper games, Consoles are cheaper now, but less powerfull and the games cost more.


Well, there's one thing that definately has changed, and that's the games, PC exclusives have withered away and allmost died compleately now, it's been happening steadilly since the Xbox and PS2 hit the market, and today the film has allmost compleately broken, and we're lucky if there's just one such title a year, and usually there isen't even that much.
Did the PC all of a sudden become less profitable out of nowhere? or was it pushed in that direction because nobody was making games for it anymore?


I would considder myself a die-hard PC gamer, i don't own any of the current gen consoles, they don't really float my boat when considdering all the additional things my PC offers me, and thus i haven't wished to spend money on them.. but here i am sitting, bored sensless of all my PC games as i have played them all a million times now, i'm desperate for a new, good PC game, but there's not one damned thing on the shelves i wish to buy, it's all Console ports, and every single one of them i could just as easilly play on a Console (where it would probably enoy a better game balance, and there would be no DRM to deal with).

I haven't upgraded my box in 3 years now, and hell knows many of it's components are pushing 5 years of age by now, but nothing has made me upgrade, it's still plenty capable of playing all thease Xbox360 ports that are flooding the market, and i find myself wondering if i should ever bother to upgrade it? when there are no games on the PC that i coulden't just as well play on a Console, why keep going? seem to me i'm just fighting the current, waiting to drown.


Did the PC die? or was it murdered? when nobody makes games for it anymore, and don't even bother to tell us in TV ads that the game is also avalible for the PC, is it really any wonder that the rats have fled the sinking vessel? honestly, how could the PC be doing well in todays market? they are giving us zero incentive to stick with the platform, they are giving us nothing to play that we coulden't just as well play on a Console, and the ports are just getting more and more lazy.
When allmost nobody is giving the PC a fair chance, how can it really suprice anyone that it's not doing very well? unless you're into MMO's, what is there really to look forward to? Call of Pripyat and HL2 EP3? that seems to be about it, and EP3 will undoubtedly aslo be on Consoles anyway.

This is an awfully long post with serious undertones of console envy from someone who is a hardcore PC gamer.

There are plenty of good PC titles where i live.

Check out Borderlands sometime, (L4D 1 & 2) or perhaps Torchlight. - or maybe the C & C universe. Anyone ever hook up 3 or 4 consoles and have a regular lan bash on weekends? - i'm going to safely guesstimate not many if any at all .. We do it all the time with our PC's people even bring extra PCs over and plug them in to our switch on our network.

 

[q_mi_4_3]

I don't think developers are actively preventing modding of their games, I think they simply don't have the time or money to stabilize their editors and content for public consumption. People who wanted to could still write editors and do what they did in the old days for that, but they don't typically do that anymore. You can hardly blame a change in the way consumers act on the developers of games that people consume.

I am not putting any blame on the developers for the actions of the consumers. But when things like DRM locks out editors included in the game executable, thats something I take note of.

I do care about it, and I agree that it's probably not the right direction to go. I'm simply pointing out the reality of the situation, which is that nothin has been the way you want it. Ever.

I never denide what was going on in reality, I simply think it should be improved.You can point at it as much as you want, but I don't think I should lose any resolve because of that.

I only compared hour values because that is the easiest thing to compare. The fact is, I would get MORE value out of a game that lasted 2 hours than I do out of a movie that lasts two hours. So really, your nitpicking on this only further clarifies that a game is worth more "dollars-per-hour" than a movie is.

Again, hours is the only thing you can really compare. Movie experiences are short, non-interactive, and typically all about presentation. Game experiences are far more enriching, even when the story and game experiences are lacking they are STILL far more enriching than any movie could ever hope to be. Look at a game like Gears of War, for example. I don't care if you love or hate the game, you can't replicate the Gears of War experience in a movie theater. (On a side note, movies and games are compared because they are similar types of experiences)

All I'm saying it is that this measurement system should not have been brought up in the first place. Like you said, a movie is passive while a game is active, so how and why should the two be related by a common system? If one is interactive and the other non-inteactive, then I don't believe they offer a similar expereince at all. If you get more out of a good 2 hour game than a good 2 hour movie, then the basis for the 2 hour value is already different for each format.

You'll have to mention specific things here for me, because if you're talking about the aspects of PC gaming that make it unique (i.e. being moddable), I already pointed out that they WEREN'T already doing that. For me, looking back at the late 90s with fondness, I remember that many games were moddable out of the box... however, almost all games were NOT moddable out of the box. On PC. Not console ports. Not multiplatform (except with Mac and Linux).

Well I can say a lot of the titles I had were moddable. I have had Duke3D, RA1, TA, and FS1 to name a few, that are all moddable. Those games are different genres and different engines, yet they are all flexible. Not all the game I had supports mods, but a large number of them do, and I like them all the more for it. I will not bored you anymore, since you probably have a different collection of games than I do.

However, the important point here is that there are less percentage of games released on the PC per year that are moddable then there were in previous years. It is understandable if not all games were moddable, but to have less games moddable, and in the future (compared to the late 90s), is just disappointing.

I guess you can count me among these "crazy" people that find some games better with a controller... Little known fact, did you know that PCs had game controllers PRIOR to consoles having them??????

Of course I do, since the PC is the supporter of options. I don't get the controllers, but I've seen controllers as old as PS1 gamepads for the PC and thats not even mentioning pure PC based driving wheels and flight sticks. But for people that uses controllers for things that kb/m exceeds at, like aiming, I would tell those people they probably wouldn't mind or care if they are playing on a console.

Even some of the worst PC versions of multiplatform games STILL take advantage of the PC (in general). Which specific advantages are you referring to? I have yet to find one so bad that you simply can't change your resolution, set some video options, enable AA and AF (even if within Windows), and all kinds of other things you can't even dream of doing on a console...

Better controls, better mod support, better multiplayer. Graphics for me would be at the end of the list, though it is still important. Usually, multiplatform games performs badly on those 3 accounts. Of course on a per titles basis, some specific ones might be overcomed. If it was Batman AA, the auto aim sure help. But usually, multiplatform games don't do as well as PC games on these issues.

Ultimately, this is where you are wrong.

First of all, PC gamers voted unanimously for the gimpiness of Modern Warfare 2. Heck, more than half of the people who claimed to be boycotting the game bought it and played it!

I do know of the failure of the MW2 boycott, which is why I am sad the those "PC gamers" will let such actions go without contest.

Second of all, lots of PC gamers ARE asking for things they never had before because their platform can do them. As I said before, most games didn't come with a level editor in years past. Now PC gamers think it should be a requirement of being on the platform that you can make levels for a game. I could go into a list miles long of things that lots of PC gamers act like they are entitled to simply because they are on the "best" platform, but the deal is that this group of elitist PC gamers acts like they speak for all PC gamers and act exactly like console fanboys protecting their console of choice to the bitter end. How does THAT win the PC any points?

Level editors and mod appear as long as ~12 years ago the PC, so it is hardly a recent trend. Maybe not every game shipped with level editors or mods, but a good number of them do have official support for them. Maybe games are more complex now, but in recent times a lot of middleware is used for the creation of games as well. If a game were to use an engine like UE3, it should be able to support some sort of UE3 editor since that is probably what the developers used themselves. They could have just release what they used, provide no documentation, and still have a thriving mod community. It should be doable, from a techincal perspective. However, I will admit that there are going to be other issues that factor into this, such as IP protection and DLC profitablility.

The word "best" had never been used before now, and I won't use it either. I know PC can't do some things consoles can do well at, but those are things I don't care about. But when things I don't care for replaces things I do care, I will object. This might annoy or anger developers, simply because they have to put in more effort, but it still wouldn't be preaching the PC is somehow superior to consoles.

Well, I have a wake up call for you.

The top selling PC games might sell a million units over their entire lifetime.

The top selling console games WILL sell 5+ million units over a few months.

So from a business perspective, there is no reason to make a PC only game. In fact, if MW2 numbers can be trusted, PC gaming makes up only a small fraction of multiplatform sales.

I have never said console didn't sell. I can see why the emphasis is put on there instead. But I don't have to enjoy that now, nor should I go and accept it as unchangeable. There is still a massive market for the PC, and people need to let them know what is good for the PC. Those that can do right for PC gaming should have good sales, and those that do nothing but put on ports after ports should not. If that means less developers in total, but more developers that design games for the PC with the advantages and the respect it should have, then I think it is worth the cost of not have whatever consoles ports that could have gone our way.

How does the PC benefit by having LESS games on it??

The PC should have more games design on the PC for the PC. While having less number of title will hurt, PC gaming is hurting just as much by having a large amount of straight console ports. The solution will be to make more games that cater specifically to the PC. This will show new players the strengths of the PC, and demonstrate that it is not just an other box that will play console games.

 

[Interbellum]

Yeah it has changed, but UT3 feels more like 99 to me than 2004 ever could have, except on steroids.

UT2K4 is superior to UT3 in almost every way. At least in every way that really matters; superior mod support, superior UI, superior maps, superior soundtrack, superior characters. UT2K4 was its own game, and it was epic. UT3 is neither fish nor fowl; it has potential but feels off and unfinished. It's the franchise killer, 'nuff said.

 

[Leo(T.C.K.)]

UT2K4 is superior to UT3 in almost every way. At least in every way that really matters; superior mod support, superior UI, superior maps, superior soundtrack, superior characters. UT2K4 was its own game, and it was epic. UT3 is neither fish nor fowl; it has potential but feels off and unfinished. It's the franchise killer, 'nuff said.

KHAAANN!!!

(sorry that was the only response I could came up in this time)

 

[1x.]

UT2K4 is superior to UT3 in almost every way. At least in every way that really matters; superior mod support, superior UI, superior maps, superior soundtrack, superior characters. UT2K4 was its own game, and it was epic. UT3 is neither fish nor fowl; it has potential but feels off and unfinished. It's the franchise killer, 'nuff said.

Yeah keep telling yourself that.

You quoted me referring to the "feel" as in the physics; including speed, movement, dodge, etc.

UT2004 Superior mod support for sure, superior menu's i'd agree with that too (especially the initial UT3 menu's) As far as superior soundtrack your grasping at straws with that one. Franchise killer .... not hardly more like a diamond in the rough.

It sucks that Epic wants everyone to do their testing, work out the bugs and discover creative ways to implement custom content, why omit BR? why change the console key to F10? aside from all of its faults; as i've said before when i load UT 2004 after UT3 i feel like i've stepped back into a timewarp, i should post some shots of some maps that have been brought forward through the different engines. The other thing that really cracks me up is these people who claim they are die-hard PC gamers but haven't upgraded their hardware in several years, UT3 isn't what its meant to be on dated hardware.. 'nuff said.

Oh BTW do me a favor don't come back here and get crazy with me, (lets just head that off at the pass now) because i responded intelligently to your post, you started off their like your ready to start an argument and pick a fight and your opinion is the expert law of the land. Your entitled to your opinion as much as everyone else is entitled to their opinions.

 

[Northrawn]

I personally think that the problems began when Unreal Championship was outsourced to DE... ...and then EPIC got it back to make UT2003 out of it.

It was too different from the original to be a UT game for many people (and too much of a showcase of how many polygons you can squeeze into one map with randomly placed static-meshes).
And let's face it. UT2004 only fixed the things that were easy to fix from UT2003 (eyeheight, weapon-damage, switchtimes, less polygons in new maps, meshes removed from Curse, etc..).

So the fanbase was already divided into those who like the original UT and those who liked the new look and feel and gameplay of UT2kx. An there was no chance to unite the whole fanbases in UT3 from the beginning.
So UT3 had this problem from the start (even before it was released).

Then the following mistakes were made:

- Graphically UT3 has yet another look and feel to it (it is not UT nor UT 2kx).
- Again it was a showcase of how many polys and how much bloom and other posprocessingeffect you can squeeze into one level.
- It was unfinished (or at least very unpolished) at initial release
- Multiplatform development (no point argueing here: EPIC themselves admitted that this took time away from polishing the game and even finishing certain aspects of the game)
- Combining ONS (from UT2k4) and Conquest (from the drawing board) into WAR. It was too different from ONS for the fans of that. Most hoped for fixes improvemnts of ONS (maps and features from ONSPlus) but got something too different.
- A typo in the code of the Flak-secondary shooting angle.




The reactions for another UT would go like this (I am simplifying to get my point across). In- or exclude the words in brackets depending which version of the UT franchise you like best. ANd chose the word before/after the slash for your personal preference:
- There is (no) Dodge-Jump
- There is (no) double-jump
- There is not enough/too much floatiness.
- Graphis are too cartoonish/drak and gritty.
- There is an/no Orb in War.
- etc...


And with that said I see no chance for a new UT that could unite the fans of any of the previous 4 UTs into under the hood of another UT.


I tried to keep my post as neutral as possible and to not bring personal opinion into it. And of course there are people who like UT3 best and find it perfect. The same goes for other people liking UT or UT2k3 or Ut2k4 best.
I tried to point out where the problems began with too many differences between the versions that it will be impossible to reunite them for the next installemet of UT.

 

[Benfica]

why change the console key to F10?

I suspect it's due to internacional keyboards. It was kinda messy on UT2004. While people always talked about the "~" in the U.S., some have Tab. For me on a PT keyboard, the console key is "ç"

 

[Northrawn]

For me on a PT keyboard, the console key is "ç"

You are right. It is ö for me.

 

[Benfica]

The PC should have more games design on the PC for the PC. While having less number of title will hurt, PC gaming is hurting just as much by having a large amount of straight console ports.

The PC was not hurt by the Wipeout and Pandemonium ports 10 years ago

 

[Grobut]

This is an awfully long post with serious undertones of console envy from someone who is a hardcore PC gamer.

There are plenty of good PC titles where i live.

Check out Borderlands sometime, (L4D 1 & 2) or perhaps Torchlight. - or maybe the C & C universe.

Console envy? if i wanted to, i could go pick up all 3 current gen Consoles first thing tomorrow morning, and a barrel full of games for them, i'm not a kid living on dole from my parents, i'm pushing 30 and i have money in the bank, so no, i am not envious, if i was i'd just go buy one, end of storry.

I just don't care for Consoles, or the majority of their games, i find them limiting, i can't play one without thinking "they could have done more with this had they designed it for the PC", and that's a huge bring-down for me, i feel thease platforms have too many limitations, and that the games suffer for it.

In the past i just didn't pay Consoles any attention, there was no need to, and i'm not some rabid "Console hater" who has some strange urge to go out of his way to rag on others choice of gaming platform, what's the point in that?
But sadly, since "multi-platform" is all the rage right now, i find myself getting dragged into thease debates, as now, i am seeing the same limitations i don't like about Console games become the norm in the vast majority of games that gets released for the PC, even long standing PC franchises that i used to love are going that way, and i find i just don't enjoy them anymore because of it, sure they are still playable, but i can never shake that nagging voice in the back of my head that says "you know this used to be better, you know it used to have lean/an inventory system/more commands, and you know the mouse support could be better than this, that the menu's could be better, that the game could feature more options, have bigger textures, larger levels, that it could have had mod support", and that just ruins it for me.

Yes i am a fickle bastard, i'll gladly admitt it, i like my games a certain way and what the hell is wrong with that? the games i play should be fun for me, else, what's the point of gaming?


There used to be a lot of games out there for a guy like me, but they have grinded to a halt now, games like "Borderlands" just don't cut the mustard for me, leaving only the rare releases like L4D and Call of Pripyat that i can look forward to, and they are becoming ever rarer, more so as more and more franchises jump on the "multi-platform" bandwagon, gone are the franchises like Rainbow6 and Opperation Flashpoint, they have changed shape and style, into something i don't really care for.

The other thing that really cracks me up is these people who claim they are die-hard PC gamers but haven't upgraded their hardware in several years, UT3 isn't what its meant to be on dated hardware.. 'nuff said.

Uhu, and what exactly would make us upgrade?

When i build this rig, it was an absolute monster, back then it was top of the line, and i'm supriced to say it's still capable of playing anything i have installed on it at max settings, including new releases like L4D2, and i was even getting good frames in UT3 at full graphics settings (but with some strange RAM relates crashes), and with most games thease days beeing designed multi-platform, it eats all thouse games alive, they where designed around less beefy hardware anyway (it's only when bad optimization, see GTA4, comes up that i would have a problem with thouse, but then, i never did care for GTA4 and stayed well clear of that mess).

There have been very few games that could have made me upgrade thease past few years, Crysis might have been the one, but it's not my kind of game, UT3 i though would be the one, but as anyone on this forum can probably attest to, i don't really like UT3, Stalker CS could have been it, but it just wasen't as fun as SoC, so for the moment, i'm left with games that all run just fine at full settings on my current rig, and nothing on the horizon that makes me want to upgrade.

The PC was not hurt by the Wipeout and Pandemonium ports 10 years ago

Nope, but back then such Console ports where not the only game in town, the PC had lots of exclusive tiles, today, allmost everything that hits the market is muti-platform, which means, why buy a costly gaming rig when you could just buy an Xbox360 or a PS3? for the average gamer out there, that huge casual market, that's what it comes down to.

So no, the sitiation is hardly the same, and it's no wonder the PC is loosing out, the Consoles are sold at a loss to make them very attractive price wise, they market the hell out of them, and allmost all games made today are released on the Consoles, but who's championing the PC? where are all it's exclusive titles? who's doing any marketing for that platform?

It is a very different situation now than it was a decade ago.

 

[UBerserker]

KHAAANN!!!

(sorry that was the only response I could came up in this time)

Instead of reading this thread I'm still having fun with the UT3 HOLP maps. Best thing in the Unreal series after Unreal itself.