"Actually, we don't think 2K4 was very successful," Steve offers. Jim and Jeff nod their heads in agreement, while I'm certain mine is spinning in disbelief. Steve continues, "It wasn't a bad game...I just wish it had been a better game than it was."

It could have been better theres no denying that

But around ut2004's releasetime their opinion was a wee bit different I recall :p.

Marketing > *

what gaming company in their right mind would say their game is bad or even "could have been better" when it just came out. They are trying to encourage sales like all companies do.

oh right, I didn't get that, I honestly thought they should have not lied, because lying is bad. I don't understand anything you see, thanks for clearing it up. It makes me feel less dumb :)

it is a very interesting statement no doubt.

zzz

when every hallway, ramp, and jump is doing exactly what it should to deliver perfect gameplay, "stick the pretty stuff on top of it."

That still sounds like plastering a map with static meshes to me.

it's not a new concept. creating the basis of a map and honing the gameplay before adding eye-candy is how a lot of map designers work. Infact, monolith, the guys behind f.e.a.r. openly stated this is how they've working on f.e.a.r. and other games as it allowes them to get the game done much quicker - as well as allowing them to go back and change things easier.
if other developers already know this you have to wonder why epic are making such a big deal out of - didn't their engines and tools allow this way of working before? ;-)

It's not a new concept, but it is the first time Epic have done it for an entire game. =P It was pretty bizarre to hear them say that for UT2003, they designed the visual side of maps before considering the game play. Not only is that a terrible decision with regards to making the game playable, it also seems like it would make the process of map making more complex and time consuming. They started doing it the right way round in UT2004, as well as employing community mappers who actually had a good understanding of how DM game mechanics function and the game ended up improved as a result.

Static meshes have earned a bad name ever since UT2003 and they do have obvious drawbacks for deathmatch gaming. Obviously they tend to be highly detailed and thus clutter the player's view and all that complexity also makes it harder to judge the bounce of grenades or other bouncy projectiles when firing them against a mesh. This highly detailed geometry is less necessary in DM games than in any other FPS genre (it really needn't be any more complex than in Q3) as even casual players probably care little about a map's surroundings after a few plays. A good way to achieve a compromise between simple geometry and good looks would be for level designers to observe modern architecture, which generally employs minimalist yet striking structures for its visual appeal. Half-life 2 managed to look good by using this approach, with excellent texturing, lighting and the various fancy effects like bump-mapping and specularity used instead of bunging the map full of ultra high-poly meshes. One could argue that UT1's Deck16 looks better than Deck17 in UT2004, as due to the simplicity of the architecture and texture scheme, the map has an attractive futuristic sheen, whereas the latter is an uncoordinated mess of random meshes and clashing colours.

Having said all that, meshes really aren't so terrible if they're simply placed sensibly and clipped off properly. The thing is, Epic have always failed to accomplish both those feats in previous games. Complex, high poly meshes are placed along corridor edges with no clipping, meaning players will continually get stuck when moving round the map. They really could do with looking at Id's maps for Q3. Despite the fact that the geometry in that game is 99% BSP and as such far less complex than meshes, Id use ten times the clipping employed by Epic and player movement is obstructed much less frequently as a result.

I know all that.
This is a reference to the annoying meshes from 2k3 in which players got stuck and whined about. I was hoping some actual unreal players to react to this.

Instead of looking at ut2k4 as reference, fucking use UT1. They say ut2k4 was a step up from ut1. No ut1 was a step up from ut2k4 b4 ut2k4 even came about.

agreed :)

fo sure

fo shizzle my nizzle

Epic's map design structure:

1. build each level without any art.
2. use those level shells to hone gameplay.
3. when every hallway, ramp, and jump is doing exactly what it should to deliver perfect gameplay, RUIN IT by sticking the pretty stuff on top of it.

;)

heh

Whine whine whine!
At least it looks fucking awesome!

Who gives a flying fuck?

Did anyone bother to read the fkn article?

Also expect to see a big change in player movement, with a lot of UT2K4's bounciness dialed down. "You want the player to feel very powerful and free and able to do all kinds of cool stuff -- but it's not so cool when you can't hit the people you're playing against because they're doing [so much jumping around].

or

One of the big problems we saw with UT2003 and 2004 is the huge learning curve, the huge difference between expert players and novice players," Steve says. Rather than intimidate first-time online players, Steve wants to "reward people for expertise, but you don't want to completely make it not fun for the novice player.

Buuuuurn

Didn't the exact same words fall out of id's mouth right before they fucked the Quake series up with the newbie-friendly vQ3? :P

Hehe at first I was planning to add a 'looks like they're heading the way of another popular franchise whose name cannot be uttered' in my above post but I thought i'd would make it a bit flammable for this site :D

Can't deny the truth.

Besides, it'll give a ut version of a cpma-style mod a good spring board for development. Simple games are always easier to mod...

I didn't quite know what to make of

" One of the big problems we saw with UT2003 and 2004 is the huge learning curve, the huge difference between expert players and novice players," Steve says. Rather than intimidate first-time online players, Steve wants to "reward people for expertise, but you don't want to completely make it not fun for the novice player."

That to be honest, the only thing that made UT1 have "less" of a learning curve was the fact all the weapons were overpowered to hell and gone, so anyone could get a frag, heck my dog stood on my desk once and got a kill. So god knows where they're really going with this O_o

One day the games industry will learn what a false idol this idea is. Until the game is completely 100% random then experienced players will slaughter newbies. Just bite the bullet, accept that and realise that people have fun playing with other players of a similar ability rather than fucking the games up.

fu epic !

yeah how can they think having a huge learning curve is a bad thing ? they might ruin it with that "easy for everybody to get in" gameplay

And that "boring for people who play more than an hour" gameplay!

finally, we all get to be pro's :')

hehe

What? We're being forced to play PK? =P

If they made the AI move more interestingly and removed the little piece of code that says if playerIsWithInTwoMetres = true, accuracy = perfect then the AI might actually be fun to play!...perhaps :)

i remember reading an interview with peter molyneux somewhen before the release of black&white. the article didn't include any screen shots of the actual game which molyneux explained as that they didn't have any graphics yet. he said that over the development of a game a lot of time and development especially with graphics adapters and such happens that it wouldn't quite make sense to start the coding of a new game with the coding of the graphics. upon release you had something quite mediocre and obsolete looking. so they did it the other way round.

i wonder what took epic so long to actually figure that out.

"We're having our cake and eating it, too" rofl, didn't know that was an actual expression..

Not much 'news' in this article. Although it sounds kinda good what they are doing to get the best gameplay, i'm not sure that they have the right feeling of what is fun for the competitive players. If Quake 4 turns out to be a good mp game i think the next ut will have a hard time getting a good community.

"Apparently, members of the hardcore UT community agree. "We've paid a lot of attention to what the guys in the community are saying, and we take that feedback to heart. We've got guys that troll the forums every day"

Yeah right, like all those hardcore guys over at the atari forums....... lolz

"The level we brought in first is called Deck 17, which is kind of 'the level' people associate with UT2K4"

Shows to me that they are not in touch with the community at all because that map should be rankin.

So why don't YOU post there and tell them what they're doing wrong instead of bitching here?

It's useless to post something on the atari forums and i'll post something on here (bitching in your words) when i feel like it, so plz stfu. Making pointless reply's like yours now that's what i call bitcing.

dont be too rough, hes german, bitching is all we can do :/

Dont expect them to make a game for the competetive community, I dont think that would be smart of them.
And when they talk about hardcore players I think they mean those who have played the game for a very long time and not necesarily those that are good.

Apparently, members of the hardcore UT community agree. "We've paid a lot of attention to what the guys in the community are saying, and we take that feedback to heart. We've got guys that troll the forums every day [and read feedback]," Jim says. What's their biggest critique? "I would say mobility. Mobility and weapon balance. That's more for the hardcore guy who plays every day or on a regular basis, but balancing that out overall will make the whole game feel better, and so everybody will benefit."

Seems to me that they are talking about players who play 'serious', in a clan, competitive or whatever you like to call it. But you're right, i also wouldn't expect them to design the game with 'good' players in mind. I guess we will see a noobification of the game after their repeated talks about 2k4's steep learning curve.

There is also newbs that play every day.
And if people want a game that is all competetive and cant accept epic making a more noobish game, they should play PK just to support those who want the best for the competetive community.

Or Q4. Oh hey, look that, nearly everyone will. Isn't that a coincidence?

i wonder how one can play every day and still remain a newb. or are there guys who really don't get a clue no matter how much they play :p

I have one in my clan. He's played daily for the past year, bit over, and his skill level is approximately equal to players who bought the game 4 days ago. Don't ask me why we keep him in the clan, I honestly don't know.

Point is, he's still utterly shit, pulling -20 net in every match he plays. So yes, some people are just completely clueless and lack any sort of trace of skill.

I think it sounds nice tho.. As they said, they didn't really feel that good about ut2k4.. If they aim to make something much better i wish them luck :)

can someone tell me what is wrong with ut2k4?

It's not very good?

it even sucks donkeyass

it's not a game, it's a patch!

it's not a patch, it's a field!

it's not a field, it's a goat !

it's not a goat, it's a cow!

to be honest, look at the most popular game in the world by a mile, CS. Why? cos its very noob friendly.

I'm not surprised they want a piece of this pie, although it disappoints me personally that they are going so commerical. When you make a game with a steep learning curve it seems you dont please the masses of more casual players.

I go to lans about every 3 months, and the games that always get played are the ones that are imo lower skill games, CoD, bf1942, Vietnam etc. Most people dont play the hardcore games for more than half an hour cos they dont like getting their asses handed to them on a plate by the few better than average quakers or ut'ers at the lans.

Everything they are doing points to noobs, look how much effort they are putting into the community thing, with the clan forming facility etc. people arent gonna stop using irc, but the noobs will start using this cos they dont know about the whole irc thing.

I personally don't care how many people play the next ut as long as theres a decent competitive scene. But they are a company, they see the money and I dont blame them

all games take skill. theres no such thing as a lower skill game, although the game may be umpopular it still takes skill. and i dont know how you could ever say cs is very noob friendly because if you actually good at it (which you definitely arent) you would understand cs has one of the hardest learning curve in first person shooters. ok noob?

CS is friendly to beginners, that doesnt mean it's easy to become the best at it. Many people try games like UT/Quake/Tribes/PK and thinks those games are boring since they dont understand how they work, so they lose and lose big probably without getting a single frag and spend most of their time seeing people "fly" by...

In CS on the other hand and other more realistic FPS-games you know what you are supposed to do when you play it for the first time. You can get a lucky kill which is extremly encouraging for new players so they keep on playing...

In my experience, I'm not really a cs-player so please correct me if I'm wrong here, you pretty much learn the basic stuff you can do in CS fairly quickly. You dont have strange weapons or strange moves like dodgejumps, strafejumps and rocketjump that you MUST learn. In UT/Quake there are a number of things that takes quite some time for new players to learn (some more than others ofc) which is why CS is a more beginnerfriendly game

You shouldnt mix up how beginner friendly a game is and how hard it is to become really good at that game...

No not realy. In all fps games you know what you have to do, kill the other players. The fact that cs might seem more realistic has nothing to do with noob friendliness. You can get lucky kills in any game and I do not find cs to be any more prone to it than quake.

The basic stuff in cs would be learning how to move properly (specialy in a firefight), which is alot more difficult than doing rocket/strafe jumps.

I am talking about cs:s though...

Again learning how to move correctly in a firefight isn't the same thing as learning the basic movement. To move correctly is to get good at the game and that doesnt have anything to do with how noob friendly the game is imo. Soccer is a very easy game to learn since the basics running and kicking the ball are natural things, but it's at the same time extremly hard to get really good at soccer.

Imo it's the same thing with many semirealistic games, easy for new players to pick up but hard to get good at...

I'm convinced that if you put a "n00b" in front of two computers, one with CS on it and one with Quake, then I'm sure then will learn the basics of CS faster than they do in Quake.

But as everything else in this thread, it's only my personal belief :)

Learning the game has everything to do with how noob friendly it is.
You're point seems to be how easy it is to move arround the game. That makes absolutely no sense, you think its hard to learn how to walk arround? Its the same in every game, press a key to walk in some direction.

Learning the basic concepts of cs are no more difficult to learn than quake. It just might seem friendlier since it doesnt look totaly alien. You still have to learn the concepts.

Good to know that you're expressing your personal beliefs, I was beginning to think they were someone else's...

It's not just the movement ofc, it's the different weapons and how they work. And ofc learning the game has everything to do with it, but how move correctly is imo not a thing you learn the first time you play a game. You just learn how you move around in a game, not how you do it like a veteran... but anyway if you dont think it's harder to for a person who have never played a FPS to get the basics of UT2004/Tribes/Quake/Painkiller than CS then so be it ^^

CS is beginner friendly because it has a round sistem and you cant get health during a round. So when you have a public match 10vs10 even a beginner can score 3 or more frags if he can find 3 guys with 10 hp :) In quake that is a little harder, bacause the pros always controle armors and stuff, so for a new player it's basically just runing around with mg and trying to kill a 100 100 enemy. Kinda hard :)

but both games require a lot of time and dedication to become very good (pro like)

Learning the basics in CS is alot easier than Q3 or UT. Why is it like that? In CS there is no prediction aiming where you have to learn a weapons trajectory to be able to do any damage with the weapon at all. Alot of hitscan makes a game newbie friendly as aiming is just point and click. The skill that's very hard to learn in CS is game reading. Two newbies in a game like Q3 would take forever to kill eachother with RL as long as they are running around.

It was actually harder to learn the basics of Q3 than CS even if I was a n00b when I started CS and had played CS for more than a year when I started with Q3.

Yes but there is a difference between you and someone who never played online. You were used to a completely different game. That is much harder than it is to learn something completely new (at the very beginning of course, later on you progress much faster).

Actually I had never played any game online before I played CS, and I learnt the basics of Q3 vs bots. It took me forever to be able to hit with anything other than Railgun, MG and shaftt vs even the easiest bots. With CS I was killing people online within a few hours. I also played RTCW before I played Q3, and the difficulty of learning the basics of RTCW was inbetween Q3 and CS. It took me about 1-2 hours to learn the weapons and another 10 hours to get used to the flow of RTCW, while it took more than 10 hours just to be able to do decent damage with the RL in q3.

You wrote " Yes but there is a difference between you and someone who never played online. You were used to a completely different game. That is much harder than it is to learn something completely new (at the very beginning of course, later on you progress much faster)." Unless that's a typo, then you falsely assume I have problems addapting to a new game because I'm used to another one, which is not the case. However if you need to make excusses for you to keep beliving in your own argument then go ahead.
After learning how to play Q3, learning new games has been a breeze because I have learnt almost all basic skills needed (the most difficult one is prediction aiming) for fps gaming.

CS is the most newbie friendly game out there. Here are the reasons why: There are no weapons to pick up. There is no armor or health to pick up. Everything you get, you start with. This simplifies the whole thing into a game of killing your opponent. Nothing could be simpler to learn. Even if you don't kill anyone (you can even sit there doing absolutely nothing), you get more money to buy better equipment. That's right, it rewards you for being worthless. How exciting for the psychology of a newbie... they always feel good, even when they do nothing. And they get the opportunity to achieve more the next round because they have better equipment. In other games, you have to figure out how to get better weapons and armor. They aren't simply given to you.

In addition, when you die in CS, you get to watch your teammates and learn more advanced ways of playing. So, while you sit there being dead and learning and waiting for more money (which is granted for worthlessness), you learn the hyper-advanced elements of planting and defusing bombs. Now you're a master of CS and you know everything you need to know. And if you're lucky enough, you can accidentally spray your ak and get a headshot on Potti from across the map.

Now you know why CS is the most newbie-friendly game.

exactly. nice explained.
in the first months of ut playing i even didnt know the asmd-combo or dodging! i would say these are basic are basic. you cant win a game without these.

In the first months of Quake i played without using strafejumping, i didnt know that. Same with cpma (bunnyhopping). You cant win a game without these too.

In cs it took like some hours to know the basics. forward, backward, strafeleft, straferight, duck, fire. hmm oki, nothing new, i CAN win a game.

soooo please dont say CS isnt the most newbie friendly game. You have to be blind or dumb not to notice that.

ps: of course you have to learn the maps (in all games).

-greg- aka MrKillah

BF1942 is not a lower skill game. Sure, it can be played on publics in a way equivalent to GTA, but that doesn't mean that there's less skill involved. Play me anytime on any server and I promise you I will hand your ass to you just as bad as any Q3 or UT player around.

I agree with your point, that noob-friendly games do appeal, but I don't agree with you clumping in BF there as well. Hell, 70% of UT publics are set to instagib, which is basically the removal of all skill involving aspects of the game except aim.

I thought ut2k4 was newbie friendly =] maybe I'm just use to super unfriendly games.

it was with ons & assault :]

the graphics look sweet

http://www.unrealtechnology.com/html/technology/ue30.shtml

i bet it'll suck ass

we need a game with awesome graphics and easy learning to have pepole&noobs playing it and the community growing strong... but we need a game without f.king static meshes and objects limiting the movements and without f.king random gameplay to avoid noob owning for luck and pro's games being boring too.

we are dreaming ;_;

The newb friendly thing worries me, If the difference between skilled & novice players is real small, I'm not gonna manage half as many wicked sicks on public servers :(

Fuck speculating, if they don't do what they are saying I hope they left enough room for my fist because I am going to ram it into their stomaches!

Sounds like Epic listened to the kids on the Atari forums.

UT2004 (and to a greater extent Quake 3) won't allow a newbie to stand a chance against a remotely decent person. Unless the newbie grabs the Redeemer any mediocre player is going to blank him and piss him off. Angry newbies means fewer long term customers and less word of mouth support.

As has been mentioned, CS is the number one game for a reason. The vast majority of the gameplay is amazingly simple to pickup where as things like shock combos, rocketjumps and wall dodges require a little bit of effort to master. These are newbies we're talking about... a little bit of effort is too much to ask from them.

Quake 3 required a lot of practice to get skilled with movement with high momentum. UT required a lot of practice to get skilled with dealing with the ability to change direction and jump quickly. Both are things that newbies just can't grasp. Painkiller even toned down the complexity of movement a bit most likely in hopes of interesting more newbies.

It sounds like movement is going to be adjusted to be more like the original UT with the occasional dodge and a much slower pace. The longing for close combat sounds like the hitscan weapons are going to take a backseat for more spam cannons. I laughed out loud when I read that they felt Deck17 was THE UT2004 map. Deck16 was the UT map, Ironic was the UT2003 map, and Rankin was the UT2004 map. Deck should die a painful death for sucking so much yet Epic is bringing it back before all others (again, most likely due to Atari forums).

The mention of a matchmaking system is hilarious. Yes, I'm sure "pros" are going to be using that to find a server instead of using their own judgement.

Like Quake 4, my expectations are low for the next UT. Sounds like the newbie is becoming the overwhelming force behind game design now. Mods might end up being the only saving grace for competitive gaming in a few years.

CS is a noob friendly and it has a great compeetive scne.

that is uberdull to watch at...

Mods, or Warsow.

I agree completely, with the exception of Campgrounds or Antalus for UT2003. Deck is a newbie map, and just the fact that they listen to people on the Atari forums is as stupid a move as ever has been done. UT2004 is by far the best UT game as far as the learning curve and skill divide is concerned, as there is so much to learn and to get good at. Yes, it pisses noobies off to get combo'd in the face a lot, but make a fucking matchmaking system instead of fucking the competitive community up the ass.

Make it so that noobies only play against people who have played as long as they have +-3 hours. That way, they'll get games where everyone runs around and crouches while shooting with the minigun, and you don't have to compromise the proper players.

I don't see how Epic can be so stupid to think that the competitive community doesn't generate interest for the game. GIGA has 2000 people signed up for their ladder, CB had 4000 players registered for different OpenCups. How many noobies are there that are flaming the Atari forums?

Reason Deck17 is coming back is because that's all that noobies play on publics, what with it's 19 weapons and 3 rocket launchers and 2 50a's and limitless amounts of ammo. YAY, DECK17!!!!!

so true

Well at least they know it wasnt very successful (UT2004).
Hope they lean towards making it more like UT1.Even UT2003 had a lot of "bounce"

UT1 is noobie-friendly. Personally, I won't even bother buying it if they remove dodge-jumping or walldodging. I thought it was a horrible move to remove the boostdodge out of UT2003, since it just noobifies the movement even more. Leave the dodges there, add another walldodge after the first, make it so that the best players fly across the map. And then add a matchmaking system for noobies and/or a mutator that removes all of this.

i agree wholeheartedly

but at the same time, i know it feels good to go in and rape the noobs every now and again so i dont think a match making system will make that much difference in the end.

UT1 is not noob friendly. Firstly, the weakness of newly spawned players means that you aren't rewarded for poor play (dying). The enforcer is a weak weapon compared to the other guns in the game, you don't have any form of shield and 100HP means you'll die if you merely get tickled by an enemy attack. Secondly, the strong armours, the frequency of their spawning and the fact that there tend to be 3 on many maps rewards players that have good map control. Also, the power of the weapons means players with good aim are rewarded for that skill. Furthermore, the speed of running, the quick acceleration and the high ground friction mean basic player agility is very high, making it much harder to hit a nimble opponent. While the range of movement isn't equivalent to that of UT2004, you don't have the floaty, predictable dodges of that game which make hitscan aiming so straightforward. Hitting an opponent strafing erratically is much harder in UT1 than in UT2003/4.

Hitting an opponent strafing erratically is much harder in UT1 than in UT2003/4.

not always, i seem to remember a 6pack to the floor often does the trick :D you have to remember that models in UT1 were quite odd. they're alot harder to hit than your Keel or Gorge yet no-one really cared, which (after looking at Q3) always struck me as a bit weird. though you could force default model (that Malcom guy with the cap) it was pretty useless, yet in theory could be helpful. there was also the placebo of using a womans skin, i could never work out if they were harder to hit or not..

Pffftt, sif a tele-warping CTFer ever encountered many 6 packisms. =) While the hitboxes in Q3 and UT1 are both pretty fucked up, I think the difference between the games is the size of the targets. In Q3, models are fkn huuuge and so is the hitbox, whereas in UT1 they're just tiny little things strafing around like mad. Main benefit of using the female models is just that they're harder to see in the first place, i reckon.

What makes UT noob friendly you say ?

The only things I can think of of UT being noob friendly is; redeemer being attractive on public servers because it's easy to kill with it, and 6 rockets is also an easy frag on another noob on public server. A headshot being powerful is also noob friendly together with the fast ROF. Movement newbie friendly ? It's the same as 2k4 without feeling like a large box jumping around. Doubledogdes/walldodges simplify getting out of a situation and primarily makes close combat chaotic, it's mostly random who hits and who doesn't in 2k4 close combat because of the movement. Yeh, very pro. UT had the boots, I wish you knew all the stuff you could do with them, other than jumping high for reaching an object. However, enlighten me about what's so noob friendly for UT99 compared to 2k4 (where hitscan, the easiest way of aiming, is the most effective from the first time you touch the game).

Q4 = D3 addon

dumbing down games doesn't help anyone. they just need to implement some kind of online ranking system so newbies can find more fair matches.

It doesn't work. Experienced players just create new accounts to stop newbies. Try some WC3 AMM and see how well that works.

obviously they shouldn't allow players to make so many accounts without tying it back to their cd number or whatever...

I don't think they'd want to do that because they'd want families to be able to play the game with individual accounts. That would also not prevent smurfing because the hardcore would steal extra CD-keys. It's an inevitability.

#73 pointed out all that i wanted to say =(

i read an interview a few years ago where a guy was interviewing a games developer. I think he worked in the graphics department because in the interview he was asked how computer games would look in a few years time and the kind of graphics we would expect to see.

The games developer answered by saying something along the lines of how he envisioned games not to look like real life in a few years time... he said that people already had real life graphics when they woke up so what was the point in making games look the same, why not make them look "better" than real life.

However, it's becoming more and more apparant that the route game artists are taking on graphics is that of the real life look.

Every new photo of the next gen games looks more and more life like and realistic. I think even though they probably don't like to admit it, deep down these people who make our games are in a race to see who can produce the most life like and realistic game first.

They need to use more drugs. Designs would be far more creative if they all had to chew some mushrooms before they drew anything.

we need ut1 movement @ 120% 2k4 with balanced ut1 weapons @ 2k3 speed that way the game will have fast smooth game play and the movement wont be hard for noobs to master quick