sh0ck3r on 2/12/2008 at 00:21
Seems to be the notion of variety in his post was impinging more on graphics than fun, but fair enuff. I remember when I was about 13 years old having some endless debate with Mr. Croft. Wonder what happened to that guy.
Anyway, I do think that an expansion could help out UT3. :eek:
Harvester on 2/12/2008 at 12:31
Variety doesn't always mean more fun. But fun is subjective anyway, and in UT's case, the variety in settings did cause me, personally, to have more fun than with Quake 3 where (almost) all the maps had the same setting. Nuclear reactor, garage, medieval fortress, city slums, asteroid in the sky, water treatment plant, gothic temple etc. are more interesting settings to me than demonic dungeon 1, demonic dungeon 2, demonic dungeon 3 etc. But as I said, it's subjective so others may disagree with me.
june gloom on 2/12/2008 at 18:30
You'll have to forgive me. I'm a veteran of arguing with people who think that because Halo has 4 vehicles while Half-Life 2 only has 2, Halo is a better game. So I have kneejerk reactions to "variety = fun".
Harvester on 2/12/2008 at 21:48
Quote Posted by dethtoll
You'll have to forgive me. I'm a veteran of arguing with people who think that because Halo has 4 vehicles while Half-Life 2 only has 2, Halo is a better game. So I have kneejerk reactions to "variety = fun".
Yeah I know, I followed the dethtoll vs. DaveW debates with great interest ;)
Also, my own preference for variety in multiplayer shooters will be a moot point for many, because most die hard multiplayer FPS gamers probably don't care about map settings and back stories, they will only care about technical map layouts, which map has the better flow and powerup placements, etc., in which case, Quake 3 will probably win over UT.
swaaye on 3/12/2008 at 21:59
Quote Posted by Harvester
I kind of disagree with the statement that Quake 3 looks better than UT99. I'd say that the graphics themselves are sharper and more detailed, sure, but UT is much more versatile in its environments and has much more personality. Every map in Quake 3 looks the same, they all look like, let's say medieval space castles from hell. The exceptions to that can be counted on one hand. The environments in UT are much more varied and fun. But that's just my opinion.
I believe the consensus sorta was that UT had better texturing and, well, more cheerful and pretty environments. The first Unreal engine has major performance issues if the polygon count gets too high so the world and models are relatively simple. The engine was pretty much designed around Voodoo cards, not around a smart use of OpenGL and potential T&L-accelerated GPUs. You can read some interesting commentary on it at (
http://cwdohnal.home.mindspring.com/utglr/) Chris Donhal's UT OpenGL renderer site.
UT does look rather simplistic compared to Quake 3 because of this, but UT also does much larger environments than Q3. Q3 Team Arena tried to change this a little but just ended up showing that the Q3 engine was best at corridors and didn't look much better than Unreal Engine for outdoor stuff..
