zerocool84
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 36,041
- 472
- 126
AstroManLuca
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2004
- 15,628
- 5
- 81
I like the mechanics of it but it's disappointing that they didn't keep Assault. That was always tons of fun at LAN parties. Set the bot level correctly and it was fun and challenging even when playing vs. computers, a great and rare quality in LAN party games.
richierich1212
Platinum Member
- Jul 5, 2002
- 2,741
- 360
- 126
The one thing that I don't like with sequels, is that they always take out good maps and good modes for no reason at all. Every single map from UT, UT2003, and UT2004 should have been remade in some fashion or another and shipped with UT3. They should have definitely had Double Domination, Bombing Run, UT's Domination mode, and of course Assault. What harm is there in offering a huge selection of maps and modes? UT is not the only game series guilty of taking stuff out and adding in some new stuff though. I just wonder why can't they keep all of the old content and just build on it? Ahhhhhhhh /mini rant
It's so funny hearing people wonder if $12 is worth. Seriously, try the demo, maybe not on Steam, but just the regular UT3 demo if the Steam servers are slow. Even if you miss the Steam sale, it's $20 regular price, and I'm sure you can find it for $10-$15 online somewhere. It's totally worth it, skip buying a pack of beer and cigs for the weekend, and your set. 
Personally, coming from a player that loved the previous series, I hated UT3 at first (which I bought when it first came out). It's all the damn spam weapons!!!! Like the goo! I play only deathmatch, so you can see my annoyance when it comes to all the noobs that vote on the tight confined maps and just spam away with the goo. I love the scan hit type weapons, it's much more fun for me on open maps, which in my opinion requires a little more skill. So I didn't play it very much, and played even less when the servers were getting thin with players. So it's nice to see the servers get filled with people again.
After the patch, Betrayal is what is keeping me playing this game. It's so much fun. I'm sure there's a gametype you'll like if you like fast paced FPS.
Personally, coming from a player that loved the previous series, I hated UT3 at first (which I bought when it first came out). It's all the damn spam weapons!!!! Like the goo! I play only deathmatch, so you can see my annoyance when it comes to all the noobs that vote on the tight confined maps and just spam away with the goo. I love the scan hit type weapons, it's much more fun for me on open maps, which in my opinion requires a little more skill. So I didn't play it very much, and played even less when the servers were getting thin with players. So it's nice to see the servers get filled with people again.
After the patch, Betrayal is what is keeping me playing this game. It's so much fun. I'm sure there's a gametype you'll like if you like fast paced FPS.
Man, I don't even know where to start...
This is silly. Do you honestly think such decisions are random and without reason?
Wrong. On a zillion levels. First, many of the maps in UT2k3 SUCKED. In fact, they sucked so much that they shouldered 99.9% of the blame for UT2k3's lackluster reception. They were cluttered, very poorly scaled, and (for the most part) uninspiring.
Second, every minute they spend trying to port an old map (the first version, of which, everyone hated if you're talking about UT2k3 maps) is a minute not spent on a new, fresh arena.
There are a few maps from each generation that are remake-worthy, and in my opinion, they pretty much nailed those. I miss Orbital2. I'll live.
Regardless, your rant is not only without cause, it's without consideration for the vast amount of resources such an undertaking would require.
See above. DD was hardly ever played, even at the game's peak. I enjoyed it, but most did not. The same is true - albeit to a lesser degree - for Bombing Run and Assault. The modes/maps that weren't popular were the ones left on the cutting room floor, and rightfully so.
I think a UT3 BR mode would kick ass, but the game would still be in development if they did everything you're asking.
Fracturing the player base. UT is NOTORIOUS for this. This game does not have a large enough player base to have eleventy billion game modes. This isn't COD4 where there are 20,000 players online at any given moment. We have 500 at any given moment. There are *1.5 players per server* right now, which is the highest it's been in over a year, and 1.5 SUCKS.
This is actually a very large reason behind why you see far fewer servers running mutators than you did in previous installments. Games that are clamoring for players need to streamline existing players, not scatter them about like you're suggesting.
Because the cost-benefit ratio just isn't there. It's too expensive for something of such little demand. On top of that, because of reasons I stated above, some of those decisions are not only too expensive, they would be a detriment to the game.
This is silly. Do you honestly think such decisions are random and without reason?
Wrong. On a zillion levels. First, many of the maps in UT2k3 SUCKED. In fact, they sucked so much that they shouldered 99.9% of the blame for UT2k3's lackluster reception. They were cluttered, very poorly scaled, and (for the most part) uninspiring.
Second, every minute they spend trying to port an old map (the first version, of which, everyone hated if you're talking about UT2k3 maps) is a minute not spent on a new, fresh arena.
There are a few maps from each generation that are remake-worthy, and in my opinion, they pretty much nailed those. I miss Orbital2. I'll live.
Regardless, your rant is not only without cause, it's without consideration for the vast amount of resources such an undertaking would require.
See above. DD was hardly ever played, even at the game's peak. I enjoyed it, but most did not. The same is true - albeit to a lesser degree - for Bombing Run and Assault. The modes/maps that weren't popular were the ones left on the cutting room floor, and rightfully so.
I think a UT3 BR mode would kick ass, but the game would still be in development if they did everything you're asking.
Fracturing the player base. UT is NOTORIOUS for this. This game does not have a large enough player base to have eleventy billion game modes. This isn't COD4 where there are 20,000 players online at any given moment. We have 500 at any given moment. There are *1.5 players per server* right now, which is the highest it's been in over a year, and 1.5 SUCKS.
This is actually a very large reason behind why you see far fewer servers running mutators than you did in previous installments. Games that are clamoring for players need to streamline existing players, not scatter them about like you're suggesting.
Because the cost-benefit ratio just isn't there. It's too expensive for something of such little demand. On top of that, because of reasons I stated above, some of those decisions are not only too expensive, they would be a detriment to the game.
If they had fixed the menu system then there would have been plenty of players to keep all those game modes.
Let's not get into the menu system again. The menu system did not do the game in. It sucked, but it functioned and served its purpose. It is not why the game did not do well.
The decisions are made out of laziness, nothing more.
Your opinion on the maps sucking or not is irrelevant. There are plenty of people who enjoyed the maps. UT2004 has all of the UT2003 maps and many people played/play on most of them.
You are also incorrect in thinking that time has even the tiniest amount of relevance in map making. Maps are extremely quick and easy to make when compared to a game's lengthy development cycle. They could release the same game with ten times as many maps if they wanted to.
At the game's peaks, all of those modes were played quite a bit. I know because I spent tons of weekends playing on fully populated servers of each game mode. Those modes died out simply because UT itself died out and they were the lesser populated modes in the first place so they were the first to go.
The player base wouldn't be a problem if the game wasn't released in such a horrible state in the first place. Since UT3 is mostly the same type of game that they made in 1999, they need to offer huge amounts of new content and gametypes to attract both new players and players who grew tired of the original and 2004. Reducing game modes and maps and options available is not the way to attract old people who grew tired of the game.
Including maps and game modes from previous games is hardly expensive. It would almost certainly be cheaper than making new ones from scratch. I disagree that including numerous game modes and maps and options would in any way at all make the game worse.
I would also argue that the game was done in by a combination of the menu being horrible and by a lack of maps and modes. People want OPTIONS! The gameplay offered in UT3 is better than pretty much every shooter released in the last 2 years, so there can only be a few things that would make the game not sell well. My finger is firmly pointed at presentation.
Maybe this was possible with the original Unreal Engine or even Unreal Engine 2, but maps have become astronomically complex since the last engine. Just look at the detail in each of the UT3 levels. They are built almost totally using static meshes which must be modeled in a program like 3dsmax and then exported. Then all the material work needs to be done with textures and lighting. Epic spent a long time making the maps and it shows in the detail thats gone into them. This isn't like most games where every map is some generic office building or blown up city like COD4. You have space stations, futuristic cities, a ocean floor alien facility. The level design is up there with the best single player games. Good levels take months to finish.
There's certainly no shortage of high quality user made maps right now. Last I read, one of the most touted features of the Unreal Engine 3 is how easy it's supposed to be to make incredibly detailed environments.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
If anyone wants to try their hand at editing feel free, the editor is included with the game.
You might find it isn't as easy as you think.
If you bought the steam version then you need to make a shortcut like below:
"C:\Program Files\Steam\steamapps\common\unreal tournament 3\Binaries\UT3.exe" editor
It might appear like it is hanging when the editor launches, but it just takes a bit to load.
Once it loads , you can load existing maps to get an idea what they look like in the editor.
File , open,
Steam\steamapps\common\unreal tournament 3\UTGame\CookedPC\Maps
Navigation in the viewport is Left mouse - forward/back, right mouse - rotate, L+R mouse up/down.
You might find it isn't as easy as you think.
If you bought the steam version then you need to make a shortcut like below:
"C:\Program Files\Steam\steamapps\common\unreal tournament 3\Binaries\UT3.exe" editor
It might appear like it is hanging when the editor launches, but it just takes a bit to load.
Once it loads , you can load existing maps to get an idea what they look like in the editor.
File , open,
Steam\steamapps\common\unreal tournament 3\UTGame\CookedPC\Maps
Navigation in the viewport is Left mouse - forward/back, right mouse - rotate, L+R mouse up/down.
Well Boss, since you've got it all figured out and you obviously have your finger on the pulse of the gaming industry, I say you call up Epic and tell them how it's done
.Have you actually tried making a map (in UT3)? Do you actually have any experience in software development and production? Are you just spouting off as a disgruntled gamer, or has there been actual thought and experience that have contributed to your (seemingly baseless) opinions?
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
I wish it was easy. I wish we could just draw out a map and bam it's playable.
But that isn't how it works.
I have been making maps ever since wolfenstein
Wolfenstein - tedious but fairly easy. You only had to work with 2d and the textures were all the same. no lighting to worry with and build time of next to zero.
Duke Nukem 3d - easy to edit since you could walk around in the map as you edited. But the catch was that the engine was not true 3d, it was 2.5d. You could never have two floors exposed on the same side, so no windows on top floor with a door below. If you broke that rule you got HOM - Hall of Mirrors effect. I got around it by using sprites marked as impassable rotated 90 degrees and used for a floor. Textures/sounds easy, AI did its own thing.
Quake - First easy to edit 3d engine. first you laid out the map, then added the lights, then ran a program to compile what you could see , then you compiled the lighting, then pakd it all together, then you could load the map and see what it was like. There was no viewing of the map in 3d until you loaded it in game. So it was edit, compile, play. See something you want changed, edit, compile , play. Repeat. If your geometry was off just a fraction you got leaks in the level and you had to hunt them down till you found them. They could be anywhere and it could take hours to correct.
Half life/ source - good engine but the editor is not as good compared to editors like Unreal. It doesn't allow as much freedom in use of objects for the level structure which is why source engine games tend to be blocky using textures to hide problem areas and textures to make up the detail. The engine is more capable but the editor really needs work as it hasn't really been updated to keep up with current hardware.
Unreal 1 - fairly easy to use, had previews in viewport so you could get an idea of the level without compiling it. Textures and sounds were not hard to work with.
The current crop of game engines Unreal, Crytek, etc make it easy to see what the end result will be without having to constantly go into the game. But really that is where the easy part ends.
It would be great to just throw all sorts of detail in a level and make hundreds of detailed buildings, but you can't because the level would perform so poorly that nobody could play it. So another thing the level designer is responsible for is making sure it isn't too complex for the players computers. You have to use things like portals to hide details, clipping planes to block parts of a level off.
Include things like doors, moving platforms, vehicles. Unreal uses kismet and can also use python for the scripting, so you better learn one or the other. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...6/Kismet_Roboblitz.PNG
Add on shaders. Shaders are the things that make the water look pretty and the slime look neon green. They require programming too. The editor helps , but its still something else to learn.
Lighting is way more advanced now, so radiosity is used more and more. Something else to learn though.
That is just the basics of editing for Unreal . Anyone can take a cube , hollow it out, throw some textures on it and say that editing is easy. But make some full size levels and you will find out how long it takes and how many different areas of knowledge you know have to know.
Very very few people actually complete a map, many give up along the way.
But that isn't how it works.
I have been making maps ever since wolfenstein
Wolfenstein - tedious but fairly easy. You only had to work with 2d and the textures were all the same. no lighting to worry with and build time of next to zero.
Duke Nukem 3d - easy to edit since you could walk around in the map as you edited. But the catch was that the engine was not true 3d, it was 2.5d. You could never have two floors exposed on the same side, so no windows on top floor with a door below. If you broke that rule you got HOM - Hall of Mirrors effect. I got around it by using sprites marked as impassable rotated 90 degrees and used for a floor. Textures/sounds easy, AI did its own thing.
Quake - First easy to edit 3d engine. first you laid out the map, then added the lights, then ran a program to compile what you could see , then you compiled the lighting, then pakd it all together, then you could load the map and see what it was like. There was no viewing of the map in 3d until you loaded it in game. So it was edit, compile, play. See something you want changed, edit, compile , play. Repeat. If your geometry was off just a fraction you got leaks in the level and you had to hunt them down till you found them. They could be anywhere and it could take hours to correct.
Half life/ source - good engine but the editor is not as good compared to editors like Unreal. It doesn't allow as much freedom in use of objects for the level structure which is why source engine games tend to be blocky using textures to hide problem areas and textures to make up the detail. The engine is more capable but the editor really needs work as it hasn't really been updated to keep up with current hardware.
Unreal 1 - fairly easy to use, had previews in viewport so you could get an idea of the level without compiling it. Textures and sounds were not hard to work with.
The current crop of game engines Unreal, Crytek, etc make it easy to see what the end result will be without having to constantly go into the game. But really that is where the easy part ends.
It would be great to just throw all sorts of detail in a level and make hundreds of detailed buildings, but you can't because the level would perform so poorly that nobody could play it. So another thing the level designer is responsible for is making sure it isn't too complex for the players computers. You have to use things like portals to hide details, clipping planes to block parts of a level off.
Include things like doors, moving platforms, vehicles. Unreal uses kismet and can also use python for the scripting, so you better learn one or the other. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...6/Kismet_Roboblitz.PNG
Add on shaders. Shaders are the things that make the water look pretty and the slime look neon green. They require programming too. The editor helps , but its still something else to learn.
Lighting is way more advanced now, so radiosity is used more and more. Something else to learn though.
That is just the basics of editing for Unreal . Anyone can take a cube , hollow it out, throw some textures on it and say that editing is easy. But make some full size levels and you will find out how long it takes and how many different areas of knowledge you know have to know.
Very very few people actually complete a map, many give up along the way.
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Well Boss, since you've got it all figured out and you obviously have your finger on the pulse of the gaming industry, I say you call up Epic and tell them how it's done
Have you actually tried making a map (in UT3)? Do you actually have any experience in software development and production? Are you just spouting off as a disgruntled gamer, or has there been actual thought and experience that have contributed to your (seemingly baseless) opinions?
The editor is complex, yes, but it's only an initial learning curve, not much unlike photoshop and other programs. Once you understand how to use the program, making the maps isn't exactly the most difficult thing there is to do. Relatively time consuming yes, but nothing so hard that you can only have thirty or so maps in a several year period. A single person could make more maps than that in that time frame. To answer the question, I've dabbled in the map editor a bit, although I haven't made much beyond extremely basic stuff that takes less than thirty minutes to do. I would compare map making to being an artist, which I am. I'm not saying it's easy, it's not, not by a long shot. But I am also saying they could have significantly more maps than they made in the time it took to make UT3. It is pretty much certain that they didn't spend development time from beginning to end making maps nonstop. They certainly could have included way more maps, they simply didn't.
As far as programming goes, no I don't make games. I haven't said anything that isn't either common knowledge or common sense though.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how having more maps, modes, and features will make a game worse.
That is patently false. It is not "common knowledge" that Epic omitted previous maps and modes because they are "lazy". It's ignorant. I, on the other hand, gave "common knowledge" reasons for why they didn't expend the resources, and where common knowledge could not fill in the gaps, I used my own technical expertise and business experience to flesh out the explanations.
Just because you choose not to accept the actual reasoning behind it does not mean it's not true. These days, I'm convinced the map making is more difficult than the gameplay programming. I've been doing both for years (not professionally, but I am a software developer with experience with shipped product). Map making is, by far, the most tedious task in shipping a game. Testing is a close second.
"Features" is ambiguous, and I'm not arguing that more of them will hurt the game. It depends on what "features" you're referring to. More maps only hurt if they're shit maps like the majority of those from UT2k3. This is not my opinion. The community largely rejected UT2k3's maps IMMEDIATELY, and Epic even acknowledged their maps' failure later on. If the maps are good, more will be better (provided the company has the time and resources to do them without sacrificing polish in other areas).
More modes, on the other hand is BAD, which I already explained. UT3, up until the free play, had 500 players online (give or take 100) at any given time. Given that, I'd rather have 3 or 4 modes instead of 6 or 7 modes. I'm not going to insult your intelligence by explaining why this would be bad, especially since I already did it once.
I'm curious about Kismet. Does it really save time over programming? I haven't tried it yet, but from the looks of it, it doesn't seem much more intuitive/efficient than just learning UnrealScript. Thoughts?
I've always been under the impression that making the actual game and ironing the bugs out was much more difficult and time consuming than the map making process. I don't believe that it is so time consuming or resource intensive that they couldn't have included many of the maps from UT and UT2004 if they wanted to. They may have been able to but decided not to, but I don't think it was the right choice. Epic isn't so perfect that they always make the right choice either, look at the state that the game was released in. Even today, the UI is not even close to the perfection of UT2004's or UT's after several patches.
I am arguing that the game would have had more players in the first place if it had more to offer out of the box.(And a presentation that didn't make people go wtf) Rather than have a small amount of old popular maps and some new maps that people may or may not like, why not have all of the old favorites plus a ton of new content? There will almost always be both good and bad maps, but by offering more of them, you're more likely to have something for everyone. There are plenty of people who miss Assault, and I am sure there are people who would enjoy playing some Domination or Bombing run.
Quality Map making is the most difficult process. It requires both an artistic and engineering level approach.
Everything else is systematic. AI mapping, q/a testing, etc.
Take a look at some of the more advanced Crysis maps and tell me that shit didnt take a minute.
Everything else is systematic. AI mapping, q/a testing, etc.
Take a look at some of the more advanced Crysis maps and tell me that shit didnt take a minute.
SonicIce
Diamond Member
- Apr 12, 2004
- 4,771
- 0
- 76
I made a pretty good UT2004 map you can download here. It's a small 2-4 player deathmatch map.
screenshot
I also spent probably hundreds of hours making Doom II maps for cooperative and deathmatch. Don't think anybody on this forum plays Doom though.
screenshot
I also spent probably hundreds of hours making Doom II maps for cooperative and deathmatch. Don't think anybody on this forum plays Doom though.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. It is about 90% of why the game did poorly. The other 10% was not enough content.
The entire community was very excited when the demo was released. Even the UT99 guys loved the gameplay. Everybody was set to upgrade.
Then they found that the final game was basically the demo with more content, and immediately lost interest.
Performance issues were an afterthought; this is not why people did not buy the game.
Because... you say so? Where are you getting this 90% statistic?
Sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree until one of us can produce something tangible to back up our claims. I know what I saw when the game came out, and I'm not buying the whole "the GUI ruined the game" for two seconds. It functioned. It was not a barrier.
No, it was not. SOME UT99 guys liked it. SOME UT2k4 guys liked it. MANY in BOTH groups were PISSED OFF, and not just because of the UI.
That's quite a claim.
Yeah, that's why they call it a demo. Anyone surprised by that is, I'm terribly sorry, stupid.
The game ran phenomenally on my system, but I'm aware there were some bugs and issues. There's no question the game lacked polish, but I'm talking specifically about the consequences of the UI.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter