2021-05-09, 00:04 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: Which UT do YOU prefer? (Which UT do YOU prefer?)  (Read 8371 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Punisher
 

Cacodemon
****
Posts: 78

« Reply #20 on: 2004-11-04, 22:43 »

wow wing commander?

That game was awsome back in the day.

I didn't know that dosbox could run it.


I liked UT's dodge and double jump stuff, makes matches more intense if you play against people that can really utilize them.
Logged
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8575

WWW
« Reply #21 on: 2004-11-05, 07:31 »

Yeah, Dosbox can run Wing Commander pretty good, but it  does crash out randomly.  I'm hoping a later version will be stable.  I don't want to go playing Secret Missions 1 and 2 with the possibility of it bombing out halfway through one of the tougher battles.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
shambler
 
Icon of Sin
**********
Posts: 999

« Reply #22 on: 2004-11-06, 00:04 »

I've just bought ' blake stone aliens of gold' from a boot fair for ?1. anyone know what this is? looks like wolf engine.
Logged
Woolie Wool
 
Tank Commander
******
Posts: 161

« Reply #23 on: 2004-11-06, 15:17 »

Quote from: Phoenix
My favorite part of UT99?

Voice taunt:  "You be DEAD."
 <3
Yep.Slipgate - Laugh

Anyway, UT2004 for me. You can download the UT99 voices for 2k4 on the internet. "You be dead!" is included.
Logged
games keeper
 

Elite
*
Posts: 1375

« Reply #24 on: 2004-11-06, 15:29 »

the kangroo aliens already say "you be dead"
« Last Edit: 2004-11-09, 19:55 by games keeper » Logged
Dicion
 

Team Member
Makron
*********
Posts: 353

WWW
« Reply #25 on: 2004-11-06, 17:23 »

Quote from: shambler
I've just bought ' blake stone aliens of gold' from a boot fair for ?1. anyone know what this is? looks like wolf engine.
yep... actually, i *think* it's pre-wolf engine tech... not sure though

I owned it once too... fun game Slipgate - Wink
Logged
Lordbane2110
 
Chton
*******
Posts: 225

« Reply #26 on: 2004-11-12, 14:23 »


I Like them all UT 99 is still cool for it's myriad of Mods

Ut 2003 is Cool for all Of it's weirdness

Ut 2004 is Very Cool as Onslaught Rules, Especially now with the MSU Bonus Pack as i Luv <3 the Cicada assualt Craft

But Quake 3 and Generations will always keep me coming back as i'm a true slippy  Slipgate - Smirk

and will be ever since Quake world  

Which is why i love Generations the Most, as the Slipgate Class has truely brought back the coolness and accuracy of Quake

Long live Generations and it's possible sequels  Slipgate - Ownage
Logged
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8575

WWW
« Reply #27 on: 2004-11-12, 19:20 »

Blake Stone came out after Wolf and before Doom.  I distinctly remember one PC magazine reviewing both Blake Stone and Doom at the same time.  I don't know if it was actually based on the wolf engine but it sure looked like it.  Id even had a term for such games back then.  They called them "Wolf-alikes".
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
shambler
 
Icon of Sin
**********
Posts: 999

« Reply #28 on: 2004-11-13, 19:51 »

thanks. as soon as i get the time on a non-XP comp I'll try it.
Logged
YicklePigeon
 
Ogre
**
Posts: 56

« Reply #29 on: 2004-11-14, 00:49 »

Slipgate - Off Topic  Blake Stone: Aliens of Gold is based on the Wolf 3D tech with a great deal of enhancements,  also if you notice on the credits, is is an Apogee game release...and guess who Apogee Software also happen to be! 3D Realms! And you can get more information here: http://www.3drealms.com/blake/index.html.

On topic though, I prefer the original UT just for it's feel.  Especially CTF LAN play.  Ut2k3/4 just don't appeal to me in quite the same way.

Regards from your resident 3DR nut,

Yickle.

P.S. Shambler, Blake Stone (and Wolf 3D) runs immediately but without sound and smoothly under Win2k.  Also, if DOSBox does not work for you - or your game - I strongly recommend VDMS.  Basically, I can run Star Trek: TNG: A Final Unity and Bio Menace flawlessly - the former being finnicky anyway...even in MS DOS...and the latter not working at all under Win98.
« Last Edit: 2004-11-14, 00:52 by YicklePigeon » Logged
mpb
 
Guest
« Reply #30 on: 2004-11-15, 10:43 »

I played ut for over 3 years when it first came out in a number of clans and some lan competitions.  It was a great game that was totally different to q3 relying more on tactics/movement than pure aim/ping. It was fresh and exciting and had a charm that still pulls people in now online with virtually the same number of people playing it online as ut2004.

To me ut2003 put a lot of people off the ut franchise for good and onto other games. The movement was heavier and clunky and the weapons redesigned to make them less "spammy" but  it ended up playing like a bad quake 3 mod with good graphics. ut2004 tried to get more players back with old ut style gameplay types/weapons/feel etc which shows how badly people wanted a game more akin to the original.

This is imo but I feel a number of people shared this view as illustrated by how badly ut2003 did online and how ut2004 is not taken as seriously  as a tournament game e.g. cpl/no of clan ladders etc. Here is a typical quote from ataris own forums where many people feel the same way:

"Yeah, funny that, when ever a thread comes up about UT99 it gets closed, what,, doesn't epic/atari like the fact that UT99 is still popular, or is it that they just can't reproduce the best game ever made"
« Last Edit: 2004-11-15, 10:57 by mpb » Logged
shambler
 
Icon of Sin
**********
Posts: 999

« Reply #31 on: 2004-11-15, 13:53 »

I got to say I agree with this
Logged
Lordbane2110
 
Chton
*******
Posts: 225

« Reply #32 on: 2004-11-15, 14:18 »


I gotta say i agree as well

both UT2003 & UT2004

are games where the graphics, seem to have been more important than the gameplay

plus less and less decent mods are being made for ut2003 /4 as most prefer fast matched deathmatches and ctf

which can't be found anywhere but quake 3

and what the hell happened to the preposed weapons factory for ut2003 as i love weapons factory

but they canned it at the last minute

it's just not far i tell you

as for atari / epic they really don't like the fans of the original keep bringing up what a seriously better game ut99 was, as it's just like having to admit that graphics arn't everything

i still play ut99 and all the mods it has

and although weapons factory ut only made a beta 1.07 it was in many ways a better version than the quake 3 one

(ducks to avoid knives, bombs, grenades and whatever else can be thrown)

as q3wf has serious flaws

for defensive classes such as the gunner and engineer q3 is too fast an engine to go with the slowness need for such a class

all in all wf would suit ut2004, so come guys somebody must know somebody that wan't to start it again

 Slipgate - Ownage
Logged
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8575

WWW
« Reply #33 on: 2004-11-16, 03:14 »

Well, being an old-school gamer and designer for Gen I've found that when you attempt to homogeonize and "nerf" weapons for balance it makes the game start sucking REAL fast.  Some earlier versions of Gen had incorrect damage and knockback calculations for a lot of the guns.  We decided that it was killing the gameplay, so instead we decided to try to make everything as close to old-school as possible first, THEN see if any tweaking is needed.  It worked out pretty good.  We still have some tweaks to do, and some nerfing did occur in some places, but by diversifying the weapons and keeping them strong the gameplay feels much more solid than it did in previous versions.

This is where I noticed a distinct difference in weapon balance in singleplayer games vs multiplayer games, since Gen is a multiplayer mod based on singleplayer games.  Most SP games start out with weaker weapons and graduate to stronger ones as you go, so there's some incrementalism involved.  In Doom, that pistol is good for a few zombies, the shotgun is good for all-around work, but once you get into some of Doom II's massive monster fests that plasma, rocket launcher, and BFG start to take center stage.  Why?  You need more firepower.  Same with Quake 1 and Quake 2.  Multiplayer deathmatch in games that were primarily single-player in focus tends to lean in the direction of certain weapons being dominant over others.  In Doom it's the rocket launcher and plasma rifle, Doom II it's the SSG, Quake it's the rocket launcher and Thunderbolt, Quake 2 it's the railgun and chaingun.

When you have a multiplayer-specific game like Quake 3 then weapon balance starts being thought of more often as opposed to the "get bigger gun, do more hurt" predominant in single-player.  All the weapons in Q3 are fairly balanced (except the BFG) and have some drawbacks and advantages.  Weapons that kick out a lot of damage with one blast have a long refire, automatic weapons tend to do less damage per shot.  Q3's weapons are a bit of a homogeonization of the old Id weapons - shotguns, lightning guns, plasma guns, railguns, rocket launchers, etc - but are balance-tweaked.  This is why Q3 to me feels a bit more "mushy" out of the box than the old games do.

Someone will probably bring up Doom 3 as a counter-example to this, but Doom 3 has been described to me by more than one person as "Q3 weapons with higher gravity and shadows".  It is a post-multiplayer era single-player game, so the balance-tweak mindset is already in effect for the designers.  Other than that I've never played D3 DM, it so I don't know.  I can see the same trend in the UT games though, to "balance" the weapons.  The original UT had a few star weapons.  That six-barreled rocket launcher was one of those "wow" factors, along with the shock rifle's combo attack and the flak cannon's close-range blender action.  Every gun was capable of killing pretty quick, and all took some skill to handle.  But again, UT was a multi-player adaptation of the original Unreal, with a few weapon changes.  The Stinger was out, replaced with the Ripper, you start out with an Enforcer pistol (Unreal Automag) and the dispersion pistol was scrapped in favor of the piston (Q3 gauntlet for all intents).  Pretty much everything else had some near-identical weapon in the original game.  This is why I think Unreal 99 is standing out to so many people.  It's not been "nerfed".  I think nerfing weapons for balance should be treated VERY carefully.  Once games start taking "competition" seriously the whiners (and I'm sorry but pro-gamers whine like babies) start having their way and the result is no one weapon stronger than another, and the "ooh, ahh" factor gets lost along the way.  I play FPS  games for two reasons:  To kill things, and blow things up.  As such, I want the big guns to pack a punch.  Weak or strong, weapons should stand out and be diverse, otherwise where's the fun?

(For those who don't know the context of the term, everyone knows what "Nerf" is, that soft foamrubber stuff that it's impossible to hurt someone with, unless they swallow it an asphixiate.  "Nerfing" a weapon is a term we use for scaling back damage and knockback or any other action taken to make a weapon less powerful.)
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Gnam
 
Makron
********
Posts: 346

« Reply #34 on: 2004-11-16, 08:13 »

I think the biggest difference in between UT2004 and UT99 in terms of damage is that UT99 had a "game style" setting that tweaked the damage and movement scales. At base value, most of the weapons were pretty weak, rockets only did 70 damage, but in the "hardcore" setting, which almost everyone played on, rocket damage was upped all the way to 120. Then you go to UT2004, and rockets only do 90 damage, with no "style" setting to up the damage.

The frustrating thing is if you mention rockets doing 100 damage on a UT2004 forum, most people are like "what? that would make it too easy to get cheap kills". If you ask me, leaving a  player with 10 health left is just annoying. In heated FFA games, I find often I make a nice direct hit shot with the RL, only to have the guy survive by a thread and get finished off by some n00b spaming assault rifle fire while I'm loading the next round. Why should the spamming n00b get the kill when I did all the work?

Certainly preventing things from getting too friendly to 1-shot-kills is a valid concern, but I think nerfing the weapons is a bad way to do that. I think that instead, providing more armor or health vials works better, that way players have to work for their protection, and it contributes to the overall system of rescource control. Also, spawning players with extra health that counted down in Q3 wasn't too bad because it was only temporary, even though having to rail people twice when they spawn in your way was annoying.

The other nice thing about using '100 damage' as the base value for all single-shot weapons is it provides a guidline for damage. In UT2004, even among the single shot weapons, damage values are very arbitrary. Grenades and lightning (rail equivalent) only do 70 damage, then rockets do 90, then for some reason flak does about 110, and the biorifle, if you charge it up all the way, does 200 . Generally, I think it's best to unify things by making damage values consistent from weapon to weapon and then adjusting things like reload time, etc instead to make up the difference. Otherwise, things have a tendency to feel inconsistent and random.
« Last Edit: 2004-11-16, 08:15 by Gnam » Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to: