True. I really like how many of the maps look (CarbonFire, Fearless, Islander, the Na Pali Warfare map, etc...). I wanted this artistic style in a UT game.
What sucks balls is having overbrightened bloom everywhere. It wasn't necessary.
Will there be another UT?
- Thread starter Fife8
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
True. I really like how many of the maps look (CarbonFire, Fearless, Islander, the Na Pali Warfare map, etc...). I wanted this artistic style in a UT game.
What sucks balls is having overbrightened bloom everywhere. It wasn't necessary.
Yeah have to agree, too many games are experiencing white-out. I got no problems with bright areas but you lose detail in those areas because of it. I guess an issue there is you cant make everything dark, Im guessin some light tweaks could be put into place so the detail on the normals isnt lost completely when things get too bright this way surfaces would still have a level of depth to them instead of being half lighting only mode.
One of the things Ive noticed with UT3 is the particle effects are very solid, much as they were in 2k4. From memory UT's particles had a nice level of alpha transparency, with the white-out I mentioned the particles end up the same way so instead of fading the alpha channel they end up lookin solid.
I actually dont mind the bloom myself, its just a shame the emissives dont emit light. Instead the pickup factories light is baked into the map. Dynamic lighting certainly works but it still carries a performance hit on the CPU as far as I can tell and is patchy at best with the support.
I guess a good thing is the dynamic shadowing, particle performance and decal enhancements.
I already did that, but there is a serious problem with their initial design decision if that's what everyone has to do just to play the game and not go blind.
Have to agree there, turning off such values grants you a great advantage when seeing large distances, and for such a game it's quite a design flaw
if you ever played on a bta public you will notice the following behaviour: people spawn and do one of the following things:
-get out bio and charge up. the server i play on most has it limited to 10 ammo which means one fully charged shot so its not THAT bad, but there are otehr servers where this isnt the case
-get out stinger and start shooting full health people with it from the other end of the map
-get rockets, load 3 up and jump down on someone/behind one/round the corner in the face
Flak isnt even used that much.
So... they play the game, you're saying?
And why the bio ammo limit? That's retarded.
I don't think it's a matter of IF there will be another UT, it wont be any time soon (it'll be several years from now atleast, UE4 engine at the earliest), but eventually GoW will suffer frachise fatigue and i bet Epic will respond with another UT.
The real question is: What kind of UT will it be?
The real question is: What kind of UT will it be?
phx bta server is usually 12/12 in the evenings.
and limiting the bio makes it more tactical as you only have a single shot.
What the hell? I thought Unreal 3 was in development already, I'm pretty sure I remember reading about this some time ago. Is this correct or is my memory playing tricks on me (again) ?!
Seriously. It sounds like some arbitrary decision made by someone who doesn't like the fact that it can be used against them in a pinch. It DOES take some time to charge up, though, and it isn't a surefire kill. Limiting ammo is just stupid.
Oh well. To each their own, though, I guess!
Oh please dear god don't let them make a sequel to the utter abomination that was Unreal 2
(Although if Legend isn't allowed anywhere near it, it might possibly not suck, maybe)
Last edited:
Yeah, finally I think what I meant was that its in fact over-detailed. The problem with the game is that overall, it's very hard for the eyes to distinguish one thing from the other. No wonder Quake Live feels good for the eyes. Characters have few details and colors, and maps too. A game like UT shouldn't focus on detail, since we don't have time while playing to really notice the details. This is why the game is so flawed for me, and probably for a lot of people too.
Simple architecture and colors just makes you feel inconciously better because it's easier for the eyes. Just think about maps like Under_Le for UT2004, or Structured, which has gained a lot of popularity lately on TAM servers.
Simple architecture and colors just makes you feel inconciously better because it's easier for the eyes. Just think about maps like Under_Le for UT2004, or Structured, which has gained a lot of popularity lately on TAM servers.
Cant say Id agree with you on simple architecture but I do agree on fine details, they do get lost in the heat of battle. Some of the most impressive architecture in my eyes is on a larger scale not a small one, I do appreciate the finer things in life, its not really why I play UT though.
I just wanna blow **** up, when invisible things get in my way I get frustrated. Guess in quake you dont notice it cause of the simple architecture!
There is certainly some fun maps that arnt flowing with complexities, theres also complex maps which are fun also. It comes down to strategies and gameflow more than visuals, I guess thats because atchitecture is a small part of level design. A good architect cant always make a good level and a good level designer might not be a good architect. I prefer a blend of both, when things get too simple things become highly predictable and boring but some people do prefer it when its all about map knowledge.
There are somethings which might remain a bit of a constant, like a bottleneck or high volume killzone in a map. Those are ofcoarse a good part of any map but when its the only part of the map that gets alot of playtime Id say thats poor level design.
I just wanna blow **** up, when invisible things get in my way I get frustrated. Guess in quake you dont notice it cause of the simple architecture!
There is certainly some fun maps that arnt flowing with complexities, theres also complex maps which are fun also. It comes down to strategies and gameflow more than visuals, I guess thats because atchitecture is a small part of level design. A good architect cant always make a good level and a good level designer might not be a good architect. I prefer a blend of both, when things get too simple things become highly predictable and boring but some people do prefer it when its all about map knowledge.
There are somethings which might remain a bit of a constant, like a bottleneck or high volume killzone in a map. Those are ofcoarse a good part of any map but when its the only part of the map that gets alot of playtime Id say thats poor level design.