Func_Msgboard: Community Bonus Pack 3 For UT3 Released

News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Register | Log in

|  | Community Bonus Pack 3 For UT3 Released

Posted by DaZ [80.41.163.47] on 2008/06/26 04:26:18
Screens : http://cbp.beyondunreal.com/conten... Download (311mb) : http://cbp.beyondunreal.com/downlo... The community bonus pack 3, volume 1 has been released and features 8 new high quality UT3 maps for your gaming pleasure!

UT3
#1 posted by inertia [24.164.67.55] on 2008/06/26 05:43:13
How many people play it?
The Shots...
#2 posted by JPL [213.30.139.243] on 2008/06/26 08:11:32
...look really awesome !
Yeah
#3 posted by negke [82.82.179.16] on 2008/06/26 11:21:03
Looks great, but also somewhat busy.
Which Is UT3 In A Nutshell
#4 posted by nitin [203.217.76.123] on 2008/06/26 12:22:00
too cluttered.
#5 posted by Willem [75.177.185.17] on 2008/06/26 13:06:32
God, some of that stuff looks really nice. The community is definitely still brimming with talent!
UT3 = Bbbbbaaaaahhhhh
#6 posted by CI475 [82.50.113.204] on 2008/06/26 15:07:56
What a waste of effort in mapping for ut3, at least from my point of view.
#7 posted by Willem [24.199.192.130] on 2008/06/26 15:14:26
More so than Quake1? :) People map for the games they enjoy...
Please
#8 posted by JPL [213.30.139.243] on 2008/06/26 15:17:12
Calm down, there's already a thread for whinner and complains :P
Guys, I Repeat
#9 posted by CI475 [82.50.113.204] on 2008/06/26 15:50:31
"at least from my point of view"
#10 posted by Willem [24.199.192.130] on 2008/06/26 16:42:44
Well, that's great, but if you didn't want to discuss the issue why did you post it on a message board?
Soundslike
#11 posted by RickyT23 [217.44.37.217] on 2008/06/26 16:51:05
blind fanboi talk to me, but fanboi of what?
I personally think that UE3 and UT3, Gears and Bioshock are all fucking ace games, Unreal engine 3 works propper fucking good on my comp! Also I think that UT3 has the best multiplayer out there at the moment! (havent played TF2 yet either tho)
I might even buy it soon...
Hmm
#12 posted by DaZ [80.41.163.47] on 2008/06/26 17:19:26
Its still too fast imo. I remember when the demo of UT2003 was released I thought there was something wrong with my pc that was making the game run too fast, and sadly they kept that speed since.
UT was no where near as fast and felt a lot better as a result.
I always play ut3 with the slomo mutator on, maybe im just getting old? :)
The maps do look great though, the authors have a real nice job, and I will download the pack just to have a better look at the maps.
Werl
#13 posted by ijed [216.241.20.2] on 2008/06/26 17:34:07
Gears2 and the others mentioned are looking good.
Weather or not I'll buy them depends entirely upon how much time I'm spending in Q1, where most of my gaming requirements are met.
UT3 Too Fast? WTF?
#14 posted by Jago [88.195.214.20] on 2008/06/26 17:37:20
As someone coming from a strong Quake background, UT3 being a fast game is a very, VERY welcome change from UT2k4, which was noticably slower paced.
I Must Admit
#15 posted by RickyT23 [217.44.37.217] on 2008/06/26 17:50:07
After playing HL2, D3 and Quake4, playing UT3 was a l00t of fun because it's soooo fast! I mean making it a *tiny* bit slower wouldn't kill it for me, but personally I like the speed it's at now!
#16 posted by Willem [24.199.192.130] on 2008/06/26 18:04:52
We slowed it down quite a bit, actually. 2004 was crazy with people bouncing off of walls and boost jumping everywhere. UT3 is much closer to UT'99 speeds in terms of player movements and mobility.
Well.
#17 posted by Shambler [92.232.214.79] on 2008/06/26 19:26:12
Felt like the double jumping was well toned down. The rest of it was pretty frantic. Still don't find, graphics aside (which can be too lush and too hard to appreciate in a fast DM game), that it's offering me much more over UT.
Willem
#18 posted by Jago [88.195.214.20] on 2008/06/26 19:57:51
While the movement speed in UT3 was slightly toned down, it's precisely the reason combat gameplay speed went up by a margin.
If you ever watched demos of professional UT2k4 players, you surely noticed how often the fights turned into slow-paced hitscan-fests? Not to mention that with the faster movement, people could often put up the shield and just run away from you for ages. In UT3, it's a lot more about "kill or be killed" as there is little to no chance of escaping once you are engaged in a close-quarters firefight.
And I like it.
#19 posted by Willem [24.199.192.130] on 2008/06/26 20:00:04
Oh OK, I see what you're saying now.
BTW, Willem
#20 posted by Jago [88.195.214.20] on 2008/06/26 20:02:23
Is Inoxx still with Epic?
#21 posted by Willem [24.199.192.130] on 2008/06/26 20:08:29
No, he left awhile back. He's with one of our licensees now but I can't remember which.
Hmm
#22 posted by nonentity [87.194.146.225] on 2008/06/26 20:33:22
I play it at times (that and Warsow depending on mood).
And yeh; Guys, I Repeat; "at least from my point of view"
While I find your well argued and informed opinion useful and non-hypocritical, it would help if you actually expanded on your reasoning rather than just re-quoting tautological cliches (akin to 'no offence meant' or 'in my honest opinion').
(ps, employability of learning modern tech rather than an engine nearly 15 years old, etc, but People map for the games they enjoy..., each to their own)
Hmm
#23 posted by nonentity [87.194.146.225] on 2008/06/26 20:38:21
Half a dozen posts since load, I need to read faster ;p
Its still too fast imo
Um... CPM much?
I like the pace of UT3 a lot (enough 'realism' and it's bastard offspring), and tbh, I can deal with cluttered graphics a lot more now a days. I think it's a result of playing more on consoles where you can't cfg tweak, you just learn to cope with random detail rather than aim at bright green blob amongst the grey blocks.
Although tbh, anything is a welcome change from the pace of WoW >_<
Did I Offended Someone?
#24 posted by CI475 [82.54.178.254] on 2008/06/26 22:01:58
I don't like ut2 and ut3. I don't like textures models musics and so on. As for the gameplay in ut3 I feel like a free camera moving, and the places are too big.
I don't like ut 2 and 3 engines, there is too much stuff and the whole feeling is plane. Everyone goes crazy for Bioshock, well I don't like it. Please don't ask me to explain why, I will write pages and pages.
I still play a lot ut1 with oldschool mod (I don't like the ut look but I love unreal look) and all the customs sps, my favorite is DejaVou.
The new uts looks... I don't know, amatorial?
they are like "let's implement a lot of shaders, bigger textures and so on" I'm not impressed.
Instead I like the composure of the engines like q1 q2 ut1 doom3, less shining things but better look, more tangible.
Sorry if I bored you, but I think someone tried to point out my cryptical post.
Please Willem don't be offended, it's only that I see a lot of my friends becoming unreal fanatic and it's not a good thing. I mean, it's good if you like a game, it's bad if you are a fanatic, and unreal games tend to make fanatic people, at least this is my experience.
#25 posted by Willem [24.199.192.130] on 2008/06/26 22:07:46
"The new uts looks... I don't know, amatorial?
they are like "let's implement a lot of shaders, bigger textures and so on" I'm not impressed. "
And new game types and vehicles and better bot AI and ... I mean, none of this appeals to you?
"I mean, it's good if you like a game, it's bad if you are a fanatic, and unreal games tend to make fanatic people, at least this is my experience."
Well, it's not really the games fault if your friends love it a whole lot. I mean .. buh?
CI475
#26 posted by JPL [82.234.167.238] on 2008/06/26 22:13:23
Oula, you didn't offend anybody... Just check "SpaceHulk256 Mapping Competition (cancelled)" thread....
Williem, From My Point Of View
#27 posted by CI475 [82.52.127.251] on 2008/06/26 22:45:27
Better ai, vehicles implementation and gametypes are amatorial, they are not part of the game, they are external.
A game is composed from (for me, I'll never stop saying this, I'm not judging, I'm only showing how I feel about video games)
Models or sprites
levels
music
textures
sounds
The rest is external, if the game has bad models and a good graphic engine this does not mean that the game is a good game.
If I don't like the gameplay of a game, implementation of vehicles is usless, I will still don't like the game.
A better AI will not make a good game, if I don't like to shoot with the new Flack cannon I will not like to shoot neither a stupid bot or a smart bot.
#28 posted by Willem [24.199.192.130] on 2008/06/26 22:50:35
You don't have to like the game. It's cool if you don't, no hard feelings. I was just trying to make some sense out of your complaints which I have to admit it getting harder and harder with every post you add.
I Honestly Have No Idea What You Are Trying To Say...
#29 posted by czg [83.253.254.12] on 2008/06/26 22:52:04
^^^^^ C-guy, Now W-guy
#30 posted by czg [83.253.254.12] on 2008/06/26 22:52:31
Hmm
#31 posted by nonentity [87.194.146.225] on 2008/06/26 23:06:38
OK, this is bugging me, wtf do you mean by amatorial? immaterial? amateurial? (I don't think that's actually a word, but etymologically it should be).
Also, just gonna circle and eyebrow raise here;
A game is composed from (for me, I'll never stop saying this, I'm not judging, I'm only showing how I feel about video games)
Models or sprites
levels
music
textures
sounds
So that's the art content (which for sake of convience we'll call 'graphics') which you feel is most important to a game. OK.
Better ai, vehicles implementation and gametypes are amatorial, they are not part of the game, they are external.
So that's the way the game plays in terms of believable opponents, weapon/vehicle mechanics design and gametypes (ie, the... um... game). For the sake of convience we'll call these 'gameplay'.
So from that we can deduce that you feel a game should be judged on 'graphics' only, regardless of 'gameplay'. While I can see where you're coming from, personally I would rather play something fun, regardless of art content (see Q1).
I know, I know;
If I don't like the gameplay of a game, implementation of vehicles is usless, I will still don't like the game.
But that seems to be contradicted by every other point you've made in your posts, so I'm going to have to assume that by gameplay you mean 'overall art style/direction'.
#32 posted by Scampie [24.158.1.74] on 2008/06/26 23:20:52
I play UT3 here and there with friends. I really don't get why no one likes it, it's pretty fun and it's the closest modern game to the old school speed and chaos of Quake1 DM.
#33 posted by Willem [24.199.192.130] on 2008/06/26 23:23:27
It really is a great game. We had a ton of fun playing it during development.
Hmm
#34 posted by nonentity [87.194.146.225] on 2008/06/26 23:24:00
I really don't get why no one likes it
They herd it was bad
UT3
#35 posted by Kinn [86.162.11.209] on 2008/06/26 23:51:55
I've been meaning to give it a go. I'm scared it's going to run like cack on my new laptop though.
Loved UT, more so than Q3 by a long way - got some wonderful memories duelling my brother in instagib, and out-sniping each other on that Morpheus level.
I didn't get into UT2003/2004 as much, but then again I never really had the time to invest in playing them properly.
Hmm
#36 posted by nonentity [87.194.146.225] on 2008/06/27 00:16:11
It runs surprisingly well on my 4 year old piece of shit.
2k3 was a terrible, terrible game (100% absorbion armour, brilliant idea ;)
2k4 was what 2k3 should have been, but by then everyone had already played 2k3 and even the rebate couldn't get them to take the same risk again. Shame. (I think UT3 suffers from a similar problem)
Not Really
#37 posted by Jago [88.195.214.20] on 2008/06/27 00:26:00
UT2004 was wildly popular.
If You're Ever In The Mood
#38 posted by Scampie [24.158.1.74] on 2008/06/27 00:55:16
208.43.15.242 is the ut3 server my tf2 group runs, usually Sunday nights we play.
Er
#39 posted by inertia [24.164.67.55] on 2008/06/27 03:50:40
According to C-whatever, chess is a better game when you play it on your computer with animations, as compared to a board IRL!
Nonentity, Inertia
#40 posted by CI475 [82.50.124.134] on 2008/06/27 08:50:38
As a matter of fact quake1 is my favourite game in terms of models textures music sounds bla bla bla, it does not need a better ai or better engine, wich is a great engine it is only old. By the way, from where I come from?
The gameplay is not made by what you will use in a game, but how.
With the therm amatorial I mean that there is no concern about what the game is, only that the game has to have every graphical effect available and every game type possible in order not to be wrong and make everyone happy.
Chess? is it a video game? It's a board game, it does not have graphics, I'm talking about video games.
Tuppence
#41 posted by Shambler [92.232.214.79] on 2008/06/27 10:54:54
UT(insertnumberhere).
Improved bot AI *IS* part of gameplay, it is a good thing. I always rated UT bots over other bots, less 100% reactions 100% accuracy bullshit (apart from at higher skill levels) and more random human like behaviour. Couldn't notice the difference in UT(n) but if it's there it's there.
New game-modes and vehicles - simply didn't like them enough to make them a good addition for me. One of the things that turned me off the series, too many bizarre vehicle modes getting in the way of fragging in cool enviroments. IMHO.
#42 posted by Willem [75.177.185.17] on 2008/06/27 11:14:59
This is the only online meaning I could find:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/A...
Not sure if it really relates.
#43 posted by Willem [75.177.185.17] on 2008/06/27 11:19:55
"New game-modes and vehicles - simply didn't like them enough to make them a good addition for me. One of the things that turned me off the series, too many bizarre vehicle modes getting in the way of fragging in cool enviroments. IMHO."
We've always included DM maps for those who like simple killing. Don't give me your bullshit excuses, boy! Don't make me take off my belt.
I Like To Chat About What Makes A Good Game...
#44 posted by CI475 [82.50.113.113] on 2008/06/27 11:48:12
...so let's chat and make our points, no hard feelings.
"We've always included DM maps for those who like simple killing. Don't give me your bullshit excuses, boy! Don't make me take off my belt."
This is what I'm talking about: no objective in making the game, only let's implement everything, wich is a good thing if you simply whant to implement everything, but "implement everything" is not a good objective.
Improved AI does not mean "a bot miss you sometimes" means a bot will play in a more complex way to become umpredictable. But I want this from human players, not from bots! And you can always release a game and make it moddable, so users can make their own bots, it has been done before, right? I mean I think you can do this with every unreal and quake. Maybe now you understand what I'm talking about: AI is a technical issue external to the video game, I don't think it's a very part of the game.
Amatorial! ooops, I meant amateur. So I'll repeat my self.
UT programmers are amateur for the reasons above (objective in the game and so on). When I first saw UT3 I thought about Nexuiz, they are very similiar, but Nexuiz is free, UT3 is not.
"Don't give me your bullshit excuses, boy! Don't make me take off my belt."
Please Willem stay calm! why beeing so aggressive? If you are part of Epic well, I'm happy for you that the game and the engine are selling well, Shambler was simply making his point.
You Make No Sense
#45 posted by czg [213.132.100.2] on 2008/06/27 12:05:33
The Only Problem With Ut3
#46 posted by Jago [88.195.214.20] on 2008/06/27 12:09:24
That I see is the lack of theme variations in stock texture/mesh packages compared to the previous installments. I am seeing only 3 real themes: Japan, Modern/Industrial and Necris.
#47 posted by Willem [75.177.185.17] on 2008/06/27 12:29:50
"Please Willem stay calm! why beeing so aggressive? If you are part of Epic well, I'm happy for you that the game and the engine are selling well, Shambler was simply making his point."
I was kidding. I'm getting the feeling that you're not a native English speaker. Is that correct? Maybe that's the source of a lot of these misunderstandings.
#48 posted by Willem [75.177.185.17] on 2008/06/27 12:32:49
"That I see is the lack of theme variations in stock texture/mesh packages compared to the previous installments. I am seeing only 3 real themes: Japan, Modern/Industrial and Necris."
That's funny. We tried to give it a story with some sense of real of place this time around - so that's why the themes are limited. Can't win 'em all, I guess! :)
From Italy...
#49 posted by CI475 [82.50.113.113] on 2008/06/27 12:38:35
...I'm not making sense, that's sad :(
Willem
#50 posted by Jago [88.195.214.20] on 2008/06/27 12:53:38
UT99, UT2k4 and Quake all share the same nice thing: they are a total mess of wildly different themes. While it may not be a good thing from storytelling purposes, it definitely makes a mapper's life easier as he has more to chose from.
Modes.
#51 posted by Shambler [92.232.214.79] on 2008/06/27 13:26:06
True, I guess. I'm not sure why their presence disquiets me so much. Do you have to play them to get through the "sequential botmatch" aspect of the game?? I have got UT2k4, I can't remember though.
#52 posted by Willem [24.199.192.130] on 2008/06/27 14:17:37
Jago
I agree. For the home mapper it helps to have tons of wildly varying themes. Remember though that Quake only really has 4 or 5 themes in it.
Shambler
Yes, if you're going to play the single player story you're going to have to experience the other game modes.
#53 posted by Trinca [194.65.24.228] on 2008/06/27 15:35:43
let´s make sence!
Quake is Quake the rest is crap
You're Crap
#54 posted by czg [213.132.100.2] on 2008/06/27 15:45:44
I Think The Problem Is...
#55 posted by DaZ [80.41.163.47] on 2008/06/27 15:48:58
What else can you really do with a deathmatch orientated game these days?
I mean, practically every gametype has been covered now, and new game types are typically extensions or out right rip offs of ones that came before it.
I think the most original game type ive seen in a shooter in the last 6 years or so was actually bombing run in ut2k3, and even that could be distilled down to "ctf with a bouncy flag".
Its great that companies are still trying to innovate in the deathmatch space, but I think that just about everything has been done here unless you increase your scope to a more single player orientated game with a storyline, but then that destroys the whole point of it being a multiplayer focused title in the first place.
About the themes in ut3, while there are less of them which was a down point imo, all 3 of them were brilliantly done and looked fantstic, im a huge fan of the necris stuff in ut3 it looks awesome :)But I agree with other posters that one of the cool things about previous ut games and quake was the lack of any fixed themes which made each map feel more unique and interesting.
CI475 - I'm sorry but I just do not agree that AI is not part of the gameplay. If that was true then you would not mind seeing Quake AI in games like half-life 2 / <insert new shooter here>? The AI is what makes new gameplay in many new shooters these days, as the game NPC's understand more techniques and systems better the designers can use them to bring new gameplay possibilities to the table...
Less Themes In New Retail Games
#56 posted by nitin [203.217.76.123] on 2008/06/27 16:11:43
is a problem for mappers because if someone wants to do a new theme in modern engines, it's no longer just about finding/making some new textures, but a whole lot more stuff which isery time consuming.
Of course, the same applies to developers who also have deadlines etc to meet and therefore can save time by not having too many different themes.
I Wander If The Diminishing Whatever It Was
#57 posted by RickyT23 [217.44.37.217] on 2008/06/27 16:11:57
of Moore's Law will ever allow totally realistic deathmatch?
Like a typical American suburban setting where players have to sneak around like Psychos, break into houses, catch people when they're "in", or stalk them when they go out...
You see I like eye candy. That's half the reason I like UT2 (and UE3 stuff) so much! Because the graphical capabilities are fantastic, and you get a good framerate to boot! Just keep ramping up the graphics, the gameplay is fine. MORE EYECANDY!!!
Bombing Run
#58 posted by Shambler [92.232.214.79] on 2008/06/27 20:29:47
That was kinda cool. Yeah.
I think it's the vehicle bollox I don't get on with. I gave the demo VTCHTF map a whirl just now and it feels like a long distance mess of confusion and random deaths. If you're on foot it takes forever to get anywhere - respawn, collect necessary items, die. If you're in a vehicle you seem to be surrounded by foot soldiers managing to kill you insanely quickly. I can imagine it could work better with proper organised teamplay but....I dunno it doesn't vibe with me.
CI555
#59 posted by inertia [24.164.67.55] on 2008/06/28 00:18:20
Are you mixing issues of "the rendering engine" with those of the entire "game"?
UT3 Is Aces.
#60 posted by biff_debris. [75.136.215.221] on 2008/06/28 06:49:42
Well, the exclusion of Bombing Run is an unforgiveable heresy, but otherwise...
and UED is a lot easier to deal with than it used to be (when I tried mapping for Rune and UT2k4).
Inertia
#61 posted by CI475 [79.11.9.123] on 2008/06/28 09:35:43
I'm tireddddddddd.
interview with carmack
http://www.gamesradar.com/f/carmac...
"But in terms of first-person shooters, if you look at something like Crysis and say that’s the height of what the PC market can manage, I don’t think that’s necessarily that exciting of a direction for the PC to be going in the future."
Just after all I wrote here I found this article and I thought: finally someone that agrees with me: it's not graphics, not advanced AI, not ultra high res textures, it's a good work with good ideas that makes a good game.
DaZ: I can't agree with you. The most important thing in a game like half life 2 is the level design, where you have to explore, blast some monsters and go through the exit, not how those monsters behave. In fact I was not able to play HL2 for the poor level design if compared with doom3 or halo2, where the monsters behave in a simple way, but where the level design, helped by scripted stuff, orchestrate (am I using the right therm?) their simple behaviour.
I see that this can make to think that simple ai and scripts will kill the replayability factor, but are movies and music albums the same everytime you watch/listen to them? And yet they sound differt everytime you watch them, because they are the same, but you are not.
I prefere cube to half life 2, and quake to crysis and doom3 to bioshock. Less special effects and more game.
I'm not in contradiction with my previous post #something when I spoke of textures, music bla bla bla. And right now I can't tell you why, maybe later, or tomorrow, or never. Because I'm tireddddddddd :)---
Hmmm`
#62 posted by Shambler [92.232.214.79] on 2008/06/28 13:57:13
Having said all that, last night I played botmatch in the demo VTCHGCSFD map and spent the entire game (must have been 40 minutes including overtime) in the flying vehicle, usually over the enemy base, spamming rockets below and occasionally landing on their roof to heal with the link gun. Died twice and got up to....errr Massacre I think?? That was kinda fun.
Shambler
#63 posted by CI475 [79.11.9.123] on 2008/06/28 14:39:25
Cool
Hmm
#64 posted by nonentity [87.194.146.225] on 2008/06/28 15:59:26
In fact I was not able to play HL2 for the poor level design if compared with doom3 or halo2, where the monsters behave in a simple way, but where the level design, helped by scripted stuff
Put. Down. The. Crack. Pipe.
Hmm
#65 posted by nonentity [87.194.146.225] on 2008/06/28 16:01:08
I'm not in contradiction with my previous post #something when I spoke of textures, music bla bla bla. And right now I can't tell you why
Crack pipe.
OK, OK, I'm sorry, I won't just quote and one liner again (even if it is half the discussion on here ;)
More post coffee.
Got
#66 posted by ijed [190.20.74.86] on 2008/06/28 17:51:26
To agree there - saying that half life2 had bad level design is like saying the mona lisa has a wonky smile.
Maybe the funneling is too apparant in some parts - is this going back to your earlier comments about free roaming / exploring?
Personally it'll be a matter of nanoseconds between the release of ep3 and me owning it.
Ditto That.
#67 posted by biff_debris. [75.136.215.221] on 2008/06/28 19:17:43
HL games aren't big on exploration (outside of a few crates here and there) but their environments are both concise and still fully detailed and interactive.
Hmm
#68 posted by nonentity [87.194.146.225] on 2008/06/29 19:19:53
OK, I accept the point about free roaming/open environments being better than linear level design in an ideal game.
However, a strong story requires certain routes/progression points in order to convey the main narrative arc of the game (I think we can agree that an ideal game would also have a well written, engaging plot). There are various reasons why a choice to tell a strong story (as in HL2) results in linear level design.
The vast majority of games that have depicted large areas outside of story relevant routes have had simple zones generally filled with dumb ai masses (zombies! (see Derrida) ;) rather than interestingly scripted encounters. The best example of this being any MMORPG game, which will literally have fields of the stupidest creatures found outside an internet forum.
While the ideal is obviously an entire world within which the main plot arc occurs, there are unfortunately pragmatic limitations when it comes to the timespans involved in human creative productions (at least, if one wishes to maintain any validity as 'art').
The only game(s) that has achieved something approaching this is the GTA series, but for Rockstar to make one city with believable, interactive non-main arc areas takes them years. To create an entire world with this level of immersion would take a lifetime.
While I concede that a choice of routes within the level design is flaw of Half-Life 2, it is far more apparent in Doom 3 and Halo 2 (the games you referenced as preferable to HL2; poor level design if compared with doom3 or halo2). This is something we have discussed many, many times on here and is a common flaw in the majority of FPS games (not that that justifies linear level design, but it does negate your point when used in a comparative argument). There is also the pragmatic arguments that non-linear level design results in increased production time (which I feel is the reason for recent FPS games being majoritively linear) and, again returning to the issue of plot progression, certain scripted sequences need to be observed/played out (and to a lesser extent item/weapon upgrades provided), resulting in the need for choke points/linearity for the designer to maintain any kind of control of the players experience of the game (yes, I'm a control freak ;)
(oh, and on re-reading CI475's posts; it's not that you contradict your previous posts, it's that you contradict yourself within the same post)
#69 posted by metlslime [98.210.181.179] on 2008/06/29 22:48:23
(I think we can agree that an ideal game would also have a well written, engaging plot)
This can only be true if you've already restricted your definition of "game" to "single player games with some sort of narrative." And I guess this is where all big-budget PC/Console single player, non-sports games are trying to go nowadays, but it's not the only way a game can be.
Hah
#70 posted by ijed [190.20.106.213] on 2008/06/29 23:32:35
. . . stupidest creatures found outside an internet forum.
If we're talking about an ideal FPS with story then it'd basically be HL2 but with branching narrative.
You do something different in the game at some point - go left instead or right, or fail a mission and allow something important to be destroyed (or someone killed eg. Alyx's dad) and the plot goes off in a completely different direction.
The reason that it's not done very often is because it's a bastard to get right and isn't 200% the effort, more like 250% (per branch).
But that'd be the ideal, for me.
#71 posted by Willem [75.177.185.17] on 2008/06/30 01:07:19
"The reason that it's not done very often is because it's a bastard to get right and isn't 200% the effort, more like 250% (per branch). "
Exactly. It's hard enough to get the base game done with the one path - never mind adding a bunch of content that most people will never see if they don't replay the game several times. Oy. :)
Hmm
#72 posted by nonentity [87.194.146.225] on 2008/06/30 05:39:55
And even in games where there is a 'choice' of outcomes (a la Deus Ex, Silent Hill series, etc), the plot is only really effected at a few key points, most of the time it doesn't matter what you do as far as plot goes. A game where every little decision effects the plot? I'm not sure that's even possible given current tech (you'd have to be verging on making a realistic model world/humanity at that point).
Although I do like the idea of a game in which one of the possible outcomes would be;
"you remember that 27th random guy you killed in the spree you went on after getting bored of the tutorials? Yeh, well he was the guy who was supposed to betray the bad guy and give you the codes to the uber-l33t-underground-base-o'-doom... Unlucky"
(complete freedom of narrative remember ;)
Hmm
#73 posted by nonentity [87.194.146.225] on 2008/06/30 05:47:13
I'm aware this is a double post, but I wanted to seperate these points (the previous is just my comment on non-linear narrative to ijed/Willem).
I think metl raises a very interesting point that an all encompassing, uber sandbox with professionally written dialogue/plot (note, not self indulgent fappery by a games designer (hai MGS4) isn't necessarilly the ideal game. What about just plain fun? What about mindless escapism for 30 minutes without having to care about x, y or z's life story? What about the joy of simplicity or lateral problem solving? Is it possible for the 'ideal' game to include all these elements as 'sub games' (kinda like the GTA arcade machines but better)? Is any given genre of game 'more ideal' or could the ideal game combine the existing genres (rts+fps+rpg+puzzle+sport game, etc)? Will Batman escape from the evile clutches of the Joker or will the clown prince of crime have the last laugh?
Tune in tomorrow when I'm not sleep deprived and mildly intoxicated for more thrilling self-indulgent pretention
But
#74 posted by ijed [190.20.106.213] on 2008/06/30 06:20:45
That was HL2, for me at least. A bit of everything.
Multi-branching storylines are doable with current tech, the reason why they're rare is that putting time into a story, unless its an RPG is seen as a waste of money. Expanding on a storyline always has trouble because the producers won't like the branches, gaurunteed.
"What, so they player can end the game a murderous evil bastard? No, make it so it ends the same but the character feels a bit guilty." ~20 seconds of different cutscene.
Grindspire/nonentity:
#75 posted by metlslime [98.210.181.179] on 2008/06/30 08:31:27
Is it possible for the 'ideal' game to include all these elements as 'sub games' (kinda like the GTA arcade machines but better)? Is any given genre of game 'more ideal' or could the ideal game combine the existing genres (rts+fps+rpg+puzzle+sport game, etc)?
That definitely seems to be the trend. We seem to be converging on uber-games that contain all other games. Moving from "roller coaster" games to "theme park" games -- like world of warcraft, for example, which combines all the things you might have once done outside the game, so you never have to leave -- chat channels so you don't need to hang out in IRC, auction houses so you don't need ebay, lobbies where you can hang out waiting for a raid group to form up, etc.
And GTA has the same sort of theme park idea going -- you can play the entire game of Crazy Taxi, for example, just by getting in a cab (in one of the sequels, at least.)
This is an good development in one way (more immersive, epic worlds you can lose yourself in, more open worlds where your choices matter, etc.) But it also changes the playing field -- few developers have the expertise, resources, and existing market positioning (a known brand) to be able to compete in that space. In a sense, if one theme park game (like GTA) contains every games game you would want to play, right down to Tetris, Mortal Kombat, Gran Turismo, and Madden '08, then that's sort of a monopoly situation where you're getting all your games from the same source. Nobody can make a better tetris clone and compete with GTA 5, because to compete with GTA 5 you need to compete on all features. And if someone already bought GTA 5, they have less incentive to buy another tetris clone, if it's only somewhat better.
Well...
#76 posted by Nookadum [202.8.238.117] on 2008/06/30 09:57:43
<quote>What about just plain fun? What about mindless escapism for 30 minutes without having to care about x, y or z's life story?</quote>
Well, that's what Quake(n), Unreal/UT(n), etc. are for. Sometimes you don't want to wade around in a story. Sometimes you just wanna frag and slaughter everything around you. Best non-sexual, non-perverted stress reliever ever. :P
In either case, I still don't see the point of people commenting on a subgenre of FPS that they don't like. The reasons are either "it's too slow", "it's too fast", "the story sucks", "there's no story", etc.
Stick with what you like. It's cool that people like CI475 have opinions, but we really don't give a shit if a game is not favorable to them. It's just taking up space on the forum.
People that like that game? Gather around and enjoy together, that's the point of these multiplayer games. People that don't like the game? Go away and enjoy your types of game. Don't try to ruin it for others.
And yes, I am an UT(n) fan as well. Awesome maps guys. :)
LOL
#77 posted by Nookadum [202.8.238.117] on 2008/06/30 09:59:48
Sorry for the double-post, but I can't quote for shit. :D
Hmm
#78 posted by nonentity [87.194.146.225] on 2008/06/30 11:02:20
Running to get our soundsystem, but two points;
1) What about modular content releases? Makes the better tetris clone a mod for GTA5 with a micro payment to upgrade
2) < q > < / q >
#79 posted by metlslime [98.210.181.179] on 2008/06/30 11:10:13
1) What about modular content releases? Makes the better tetris clone a mod for GTA5 with a micro payment to upgrade
Sure, except you're suggest Rockstar make the game moddable enough that their competitors have a shot at getting some money after all?
Hmm
#80 posted by nonentity [87.194.146.225] on 2008/06/30 20:41:07
With mods released under license by Rockstar so they earn a percentage on any game released ever... Yeh, I think they'd go for that ;p
Think of it as Game 2.0, you get 'world creation' studios and then other developers create games/stories within those worlds.
(And then you have the possibility of indie/bedroom developers releasing uber cheap games to a mass audience through the system)
#81 posted by metlslime [64.175.155.252] on 2008/06/30 22:06:55
Think of it as Game 2.0, you get 'world creation' studios and then other developers create games/stories within those worlds.
This sounds sort of like a "game OS" that people can develop apps for. Rockstar can be the microsoft of modding. Or maybe valve is microsoft, rockstar is apple? Anyway, having one platform that everyone is locked into sounds like how everyone has Windows.
Ehh
#82 posted by inertia [24.164.67.55] on 2008/07/02 11:43:29
Sounds like a shitty version of the Metaverse...
Inertia:
#83 posted by metlslime [64.175.155.252] on 2008/07/02 22:02:11
what makes the metaverse better?
P.S.
#84 posted by metlslime [64.175.155.252] on 2008/07/02 22:04:10
Maybe it wasn't clear, but when I compare things to windows and microsoft, I'm implying that they might be a bad idea. I don't want another monopoly platform that can be controlled by some company.
But Still...
#85 posted by metlslime [64.175.155.252] on 2008/07/02 22:05:56
...I resent the claim that my dystopian vision of gaming's future won't be as good as the metaverse.
CBP3-August
#86 posted by Jago [88.195.214.20] on 2008/07/06 00:28:34
is fucking brilliant.

Post A Reply:

Name: |
Title: |
Body: |

Website copyright © 2002-2013 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.