Mac players prefer UT?
ColdForged
This is no troll or platform war type of post. I just find it
interesting. It really seems that most of you guys in here prefer UT to
Q3. Case in point is the [osX] "clan", which seems to be primarily UT
oriented. Is this a conscious decision, or just preference? It's
_almost_ like you've taken Unreal under your wing like the Marathon of
old 8-).
Personally I bought a PC (*boo* *hiss*) in January after 15 years of
solid Macs (still have my PBG3 and use it for work! Don't kick me out
yet!) _solely_ for games (a lot cheaper than a G4... and the primary
game I wanted to play was UT. But I allowed myself to play the Q3A
demo, enjoyed it, and bought Q3 and haven't really played UT since.
Like a lot of others have expressed, I just really get into it more
than UT (mostly CTF and Team Deathmatch).
Enjoy,
- ColdForged -
Mr. Sharumpe
at dupuis...@earthlink.net wrote on 2000-03-16 08:24:
> Hey guys,
>
> This is no troll or platform war type of post. I just find it
> interesting. It really seems that most of you guys in here prefer UT to
> Q3. Case in point is the [osX] "clan", which seems to be primarily UT
> oriented. Is this a conscious decision, or just preference? It's
> _almost_ like you've taken Unreal under your wing like the Marathon of
> old 8-).
That's an interesting comparison. Perhaps that's true in my case. My
co-workers and I played Marathon (usually M:Evil) until UT and Q3A demos
arrived. We still play Marathon, for that matter, because a couple of their
machines will not play either Q3A or UT due to the built-in graphics of the
machines they use (a couple PBG3s and a Beige G3 desktop - RagePro isn't
good enough IMO).
However, now that we've got at least a couple machines that will play, we've
checked out both, and UT won out. Why? It seemed to work better on all the
systems involved, we all like to play strategically (ok, what's he gonna do
next?) and assault and CTF are something that really appealed to all of us,
and UT seemed to fit our Marathon-inspired tastes. Plus - and you can put
this onto the list of obscure reasons - I really don't like that most of the
Q3A maps (that I've seen) are decorated with skulls and otherwise look very
macabre. If I want that, I'll watch a Clive Barker movie.
The above is, of course, MHO.
:)
--
Mr. Sharumpe - [osX]Mr. Sharumpe
DC
why, but I much prefer UT/Unreal more than anything else. Can't explain it.
-JUGULATOR!!!
ColdForged wrote:
>
> Hey guys,
>
> This is no troll or platform war type of post. I just find it
> interesting. It really seems that most of you guys in here prefer UT to
> Q3. Case in point is the [osX] "clan", which seems to be primarily UT
> oriented. Is this a conscious decision, or just preference? It's
> _almost_ like you've taken Unreal under your wing like the Marathon of
> old 8-).
>
ColdForged
> That's an interesting comparison. Perhaps that's true in my case. My
> co-workers and I played Marathon (usually M:Evil) until UT and Q3A demos
> arrived. We still play Marathon, for that matter, because a couple of
> their
> machines will not play either Q3A or UT due to the built-in graphics of
> the
> machines they use (a couple PBG3s and a Beige G3 desktop - RagePro isn't
> good enough IMO).
Yeah, even after the first Unreal came out, my coworkers and I
would still mostly play M? during our breaks. That mixed in with a bit
of Myth.
An interesting tangent is how _little_ playing Marathon and being
skilled at it helps one to be good at UT or Q3. I was a decent Marathon
player (won the '98 WWDC Marathon contest... yeehaw!), and am getting
to be a decent Q3 player. But it's so much different! Here's my take
on it:
1) Not as much resource reliance in Marathon. By this I mean armor
and health. Sure, some maps had rechargers, and there was the random
red, yellow, purple health, but it's not the same. In Q3 and UT, you
have to develop a flow or pattern through the maps to keep yourself
equipped. In Marathon, you had to get to weapons and ammo, but get in
a corridor with me and dual shotguns and it was over 8-). Or one solid
blast with the spanker is all it takes.
2) Aiming seems far more important. The really good Q3 (and, I
assume, UT) players have very good aim, and it's crucial to develop
this aim, especially with the high-powered instant weapons. In
Marathon, there are no really powerful instant weapons like the railgun
or the, errr, "UT-instant-blast-thingie". Make sense?
> However, now that we've got at least a couple machines that will play,
> we've
> checked out both, and UT won out. Why? It seemed to work better on all
> the
> systems involved, we all like to play strategically (ok, what's he gonna
> do
> next?) and assault and CTF are something that really appealed to all of
> us,
> and UT seemed to fit our Marathon-inspired tastes.
Remember Kill The Guy With The Ball? Fun game.
I'm a CTF person myself. I find I enjoy the Q3 maps a bit more than
the UT ones for CTF. Especially the Threewave maps. Q3 seems to be
about map "flow", and these definitely have it for me. Only one I
don't like (at all) is Troubled Waters. Ugh.
> The above is, of course, MHO.
Of course. 8-)
Thanks,
- ColdForged -
Bob Van Burkleo
ColdForged <dupuis...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Hey guys,
>
> This is no troll or platform war type of post. I just find it
>interesting. It really seems that most of you guys in here prefer UT to
>Q3. Case in point is the [osX] "clan", which seems to be primarily UT
>oriented. Is this a conscious decision, or just preference? It's
>_almost_ like you've taken Unreal under your wing like the Marathon of
>old 8-).
>
> Personally I bought a PC (*boo* *hiss*) in January after 15 years of
>solid Macs (still have my PBG3 and use it for work! Don't kick me out
>yet!) _solely_ for games (a lot cheaper than a G4... and the primary
>game I wanted to play was UT. But I allowed myself to play the Q3A
>demo, enjoyed it, and bought Q3 and haven't really played UT since.
>Like a lot of others have expressed, I just really get into it more
>than UT (mostly CTF and Team Deathmatch).
Well my only Quake experience of any consequence was the Q3A demo. I
prefer the UT physics and look. Particularly the I don't really like
the Q3A demo maps - they seem like mazes for you the rat to run around
in. I think this might be the concept of 'flow' that some people
actually like, but I don't. I want cul-de-sacs, elevation changes that
need special effort to get to, and environments that you actually do end
up having to stop somewhere along the line.
Of course there is already a large installed base of Mac Unreal users
that are used to the 'look and feel' and migrate more easily to UT than
Q3A. I would think that's a major factor too.
--
Bob Van Burkleo rp...@mindspring.com http://rpvb3.home.mindspring.com
"the difference between failure and success is doing a thing nearly
right and doing a thing exactly right"
- Edward Simmons
POost
> It really seems that most of you guys in here prefer UT to
> Q3. Case in point is the [osX] "clan", which seems to be primarily UT
> oriented. Is this a conscious decision, or just preference?
Just a couple of thoughts: Mac users were left out during the Quake2
heyday, so perhaps then the Quake brand became associated a little with
the Dark Side.
Furthermore, MacSoft and Westlake people who work on UT are regularly
present in this newsgroup, being helpful and open to suggestions. This
has probably generated a lot of loyalty from the readers of this group.
Gerard Ryan
------------------------------------------------
the railgun - you want it... it could care less.
http://railgun.macquakeinfinity.com
Bob Van Burkleo
<po...@mac.com> wrote:
More good points. I played the Quake demo which was a play once toss it
(way too Doomish in game style - yuck), and I have a few weekends away
were I got to play the full PC version, but the only one that I've even
had on my personal hard disk for any length of time was the Q3A demo.
Maybe if Quake 2 had come out in a timely manner in relation to Unreal
they would have been a contender. And having Mark Adams working so hard
on both Unreal and UT does generate a load of 'brand' loyalty. (Quake
being too retrograde to really matter today).
But it does spark controversy - I have some idiot sending me emails with
invalid return addresses about this subject that just go on and on and
on - fortunately for me I always toss non-respondable mail in the trash
largely unread - but he still keeps writing :)
Michael Pollard
Bob Van Burkleo wrote:
>
> And having Mark Adams working so hard
> on both Unreal and UT does generate a load
> of 'brand' loyalty.
I agree. I can't put my finger on it, but there's something about the
Westlake crowd and the way they've dealt with the Mac "community" that's
made me a big fan. Maybe it's just that they seem to do a better job
than other Mac port houses at explaining what they're doing, and when
problems come up they don't go into a defensive crouch, spewing excuses
just to deflect criticism.
> But it does spark controversy - I have some idiot sending me emails with
> invalid return addresses about this subject that just go on and on ...
Hey, I'm...er, he's probably not an idiot. ;)
- Michael
Bill Wilcox
> This is no troll or platform war type of post. I just find it
> interesting. It really seems that most of you guys in here prefer UT to
> Q3.
Well, a couple of things:
1. Bigger maps. UT has them. Non of the Q3 maps were very big, and I've
played all the ones in the retail copy (finnished the game even). Most of
the Q3 maps are focused on furious death-match type play. Small corridors
and rooms suits it just fine, but I like the wide open areas that a lot of
UT maps have. Perhaps there are 3rd party maps for Q3 that remedy that,
but I haven't played it much on-line.
2. Weapon combo's are just cool. =) The shock rifle combo is a fav, and
the sniper rifle is fun. =)
3. The in-game server browser in UT is superior to Q3. Which is the
primary reason I play it all the time. I play on a modem, on a good day I
get 28.8. I have never been able to play Q3 on-line, even on servers
that have pings _lower_ than what I consider playable in UT (usually
anything 400 and lower is playable for me) what the browser reports is
completely unreliable for me. So I stopped even trying to find playable
games. Why spend 15 minutes hopping from server to server in Q3 when I
can pop in UT, find a descent game and start playing?
I will give Q3 one thing, it looks _way_ better than UT. Most of the UT
maps (retail maps) feel incomplete. But the Q3 ones are stunning,
visually.
Later.
Bill
aka: Yoda
Bob Van Burkleo
bde...@worldnet.fr (DBD) wrote:
>Bob Van Burkleo <rp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> ..are used to the 'look and feel' and migrate more easily to UT than
>> Q3A. I would think that's a major factor too.
>
>Well I still find Unreal as the best looking fps game among those I know
>but in most maps, for me, UT is far to reach the same quality.
Keep looking at some of the new 3rd party maps and there are excellent
comversions of the Unreal classics coming out too. It seems that all
the map creations sites are really helping out - most of the new maps
have very good bot mapping - I find that in a CTF game with bots at
adept, and relics you can get quite a challenging game going on (plus
the benefit that the your teammates can actually be doing something
constructive ;)
>I have also another problem in solo play, the game is power hungry and
>fps on my G3 466 Mhz voodoo3 3000 system are a bit low if I don't tweak
>the game particularely with lighting off. Then the look becomes less
>important.
Gee what fps do you want? ;) I was playing UT on my G3 300 at 800x600
with a Voodoo 2 with everything one and never even restarted extensions.
Now with the G4 400 I am still using the Voodoo2 and its even better
(obviously).
Alan R. Miller
is best simply because of this in my books.
Killyou
----------
In article <rpvb3-2A703D....@news.uswest.net>, Bob Van Burkleo
<rp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> In article <poost-528499....@news.casema.net>, POost
> <po...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <dupuisfamily-792E...@news.earthlink.net>,
>>ColdForged <dupuis...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> It really seems that most of you guys in here prefer UT to
>>> Q3. Case in point is the [osX] "clan", which seems to be primarily UT
>>> oriented. Is this a conscious decision, or just preference?
>>
>>Just a couple of thoughts: Mac users were left out during the Quake2
>>heyday, so perhaps then the Quake brand became associated a little with
>>the Dark Side.
>>Furthermore, MacSoft and Westlake people who work on UT are regularly
>>present in this newsgroup, being helpful and open to suggestions. This
>>has probably generated a lot of loyalty from the readers of this group
>
> More good points. I played the Quake demo which was a play once toss it
> (way too Doomish in game style - yuck), and I have a few weekends away
> were I got to play the full PC version, but the only one that I've even
> had on my personal hard disk for any length of time was the Q3A demo.
> Maybe if Quake 2 had come out in a timely manner in relation to Unreal
> they would have been a contender. And having Mark Adams working so hard
> on both Unreal and UT does generate a load of 'brand' loyalty. (Quake
> being too retrograde to really matter today).
>
> But it does spark controversy - I have some idiot sending me emails with
> invalid return addresses about this subject that just go on and on and
> on - fortunately for me I always toss non-respondable mail in the trash
> largely unread - but he still keeps writing :)
>
DBD
> Hey guys,
>
> This is no troll or platform war type of post. I just find it
> interesting. It really seems that most of you guys in here prefer UT to
> Q3. Case in point is the [osX] "clan", which seems to be primarily UT
> oriented. Is this a conscious decision, or just preference? It's
> _almost_ like you've taken Unreal under your wing like the Marathon of
> old 8-).
I just put a little post about Q3 vs UT. The result reflect somehow my
opinion, I preffer Q3 but still enjoy a lot UT. BUT BUT I only play them
in solo-mode because of no serious net connection.
The strong points for Q3 for me are :
- Bots
- Maps
- Speed
- Raw power and easy controls of the game (for me it's linked because
easy controls allow me a more hot action)
The strong point for UT for me are :
- Weapons
- More numerous play modes (even if I still prefer those also offered
by Q3).
Well about the attitude of this newsgroup I saw that mostly in some
well-placed people that gives the lead, all in the same direction. You
know it's named "mode". Few to do about that. You know it's more hazard
than a box where you can put Mac users that play games.
But well check the official reviews in PC sites too, most give the lead
to UT over Q3. I don't know if it's so different for Pc users. Ok in
fps, Half-life seems the more popular game for far. But after that UT
seems to perform very well, in fact better than Unreal.
Anyway as someone else wrote it here, I think that ID have here a bad
tradmark. Doom ports was very late and mostly people killed it and
perhaps sometimes also in order to protect the single serious Mac game
compagny, Bungie. Later Quake was ported when 3D card was just released
on Mac with only very few other 3D games. Also Duke was the current hot
mode with to tell the truth a much higher speed than any fps before.
Then Quake 2 have been ported very very late and during the demo
releases of Q3 and UT.
Well myself I disliked Quake in solo-play after few weeks but I'm sure
that more than Westlake or Bungie, it helps to improve 3D game living on
Mac. I must admit that Quake 2 port was too late but still found it as
one of my prefered fps game.
Well I'm a bit sad about the attitude here about Q3 but I doubt that
anything could be done against that. I just feel in minority or in the
wrong newsgroup so no desire tu support here Q3 that I find great.
I'm not only a bit sad because I think people definitly underestimate
this game I enjoy a lot but perhaps more because I also think people
miss how more impportant are ID ie Carmark moves in the direction of
port compatibility and to attract the interesest of other compagny on
the Mac game market.
Yes, I also think that Westlake and Bungie moves are important too but
that's not the same impact.
No mimic of Job could have a little bit of the impact that could have
and have ID to expose and promote Mac game. In fact Job is a high smart
person and it's first and main moves for games was all related to
Carmark, quick contact him, support of Open GL despite Quickdraw 3D, and
few other moves.
Also Quake 3 itself is an impressive tech defense of developpement with
support of secondary platforms as Mac. With only something like 20 Ko of
code specific to plateforme, it's a number that speak enough. The open
source attitude with the pak files that you can browse easily and which
includes a bunch of code wich is plateforme independent is another
strong point and demonstration in favor of multiplateforme support. Also
appart the initial releases against the Carmark goals, all the last
updates release was simultaneous plateform release, another proof in
favor of multiplatform support.
Well its the combination of that and the underestimation of Q3 (in my
opinion) that make me a bit sad about the attitude in this newsgroup and
in fact in some important Mac game news sites. If I had thought that the
game or the compagny suck, I wasn't sad, but...
Ho well enough grey clouds here! Afterall all of that have no
importance.
DBD
DBD
> I prefer the UT physics and look.
Yeh I can understand that, sometimes, I prefer Quake 3 physics with
"fun" jumping pads, a bit faster run and play, faster rocket and few
other stuff. It's just preferences, hard to explain, perhaps speed. I
still wait for a 3D game with good fps on my system and play as fast
than had Doom which is from far the fastest.
> ..are used to the 'look and feel' and migrate more easily to UT than
> Q3A. I would think that's a major factor too.
Well I still find Unreal as the best looking fps game among those I know
but in most maps, for me, UT is far to reach the same quality.
I have also another problem in solo play, the game is power hungry and
fps on my G3 466 Mhz voodoo3 3000 system are a bit low if I don't tweak
the game particularely with lighting off. Then the look becomes less
important.
DBD
ZepHead
Burkleo <rp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> But it does spark controversy - I have some idiot sending me emails with
> invalid return addresses about this subject that just go on and on and
> on - fortunately for me I always toss non-respondable mail in the trash
> largely unread - but he still keeps writing :)
LOL let me guess is name is menace
same e-mail to me. Just goes on and on
about how Quake players rule etc...
: )
ColdForged
> In article <poost-528499....@news.casema.net>, POost
> <po...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <dupuisfamily-792E...@news.earthlink.net>,
> >ColdForged <dupuis...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> It really seems that most of you guys in here prefer UT to
> >> Q3. Case in point is the [osX] "clan", which seems to be primarily
> >> UT
> >> oriented. Is this a conscious decision, or just preference?
> >
> >Just a couple of thoughts: Mac users were left out during the Quake2
> >heyday, so perhaps then the Quake brand became associated a little with
> >the Dark Side.
> >Furthermore, MacSoft and Westlake people who work on UT are regularly
> >present in this newsgroup, being helpful and open to suggestions. This
> >has probably generated a lot of loyalty from the readers of this group
>
> More good points. I played the Quake demo which was a play once toss it
> (way too Doomish in game style - yuck), and I have a few weekends away
> were I got to play the full PC version, but the only one that I've even
> had on my personal hard disk for any length of time was the Q3A demo.
> Maybe if Quake 2 had come out in a timely manner in relation to Unreal
> they would have been a contender. And having Mark Adams working so hard
> on both Unreal and UT does generate a load of 'brand' loyalty. (Quake
> being too retrograde to really matter today).
Yup, those are _very_ good points. With the attention that Mark
Adams and the rest of the crew at Westlake have given to make Unreal and
UT a quality product, there's very good reason for there to be loyalty.
I must also say that once Halo comes out, I doubt I'll ever see Q3
again 8-). I can't explain the complete, overwhelming _LUST_ I have to
play Halo. May sound weird, so shoot me. 8-P
Thanks for your responses,
- ColdForged -
ColdForged
> Well my only Quake experience of any consequence was the Q3A demo. I
> prefer the UT physics and look. Particularly the I don't really like
> the Q3A demo maps - they seem like mazes for you the rat to run around
> in. I think this might be the concept of 'flow' that some people
> actually like, but I don't. I want cul-de-sacs, elevation changes that
> need special effort to get to, and environments that you actually do end
> up having to stop somewhere along the line.
Interesting. What are your favorite maps in Unreal/UT? My favorite
by far are the Deck16 levels. In analyzing what I like about them,
I've determined that *to me* they have more of this "flow" than most of
the others. Does anyone see what I mean?
> Of course there is already a large installed base of Mac Unreal users
> that are used to the 'look and feel' and migrate more easily to UT than
> Q3A. I would think that's a major factor too.
Yeah, makes sense. I was used to Unreal as well, and really
enjoyed it (especially with RealCTF... woohoo!). I don't know what it
was that changed my preference.
Enjoy,
- ColdForged -
Bob Van Burkleo
<gro...@erols.com> wrote:
>In article <rpvb3-2A703D....@news.uswest.net>, Bob Van
>Burkleo <rp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> But it does spark controversy - I have some idiot sending me emails with
>> invalid return addresses about this subject that just go on and on and
>> on - fortunately for me I always toss non-respondable mail in the trash
>> largely unread - but he still keeps writing :)
>
>LOL let me guess is name is menace
>
>
>same e-mail to me. Just goes on and on
>about how Quake players rule etc...
>: )
Well at least you read it :) The first one I assumed it was just a
carbon of something left in the newsgroup, but it wasn't - just an email
rant with presenting lots of opinions that can't be discussed because he
has an invalid email address. Like I want to listen to his monologue ;)
Subsequent ones go in the dumper unread.
Derrick Chilton
> by far are the Deck16 levels. In analyzing what I like about them,
> I've determined that *to me* they have more of this "flow" than most of
> the others. Does anyone see what I mean?
In unreal I loved Curse, Deck, Radikus, Ariza, Elsinore and Tundra.
Nice maps, Radikus was one of the best, gorgeous to play in.
Tundra was more (to me) like a typical quake DM level, fast and furious.
The best things about the maps were paceing, lots of time to think, to
collect stuff and use stuff, but the quakeworld players hated that stuff
called thinking, and weapon selection.
Thats why Q3 has so few weapons cos it hurts to think ;-)
In UT the better maps are Converyer, Turbine, Gothic and zeto,while deck
is as it should have been in Unreal.
But for me the Unreal maps are the best, lots of eye candy, lots of
secrets and places to go, things to do.
Cliff climbing in tundra and ariza, towers etc.
One of the best games I ever had was on ariza, when I chased the resident
camper round the map, up round the cliffs and bounced him over the edge
with the 8ball :-)
The weapons in UT are better, but they look like crap when compared to
Unreals aminations (asmd smoking when fired, the racking 8ball, and the
minigun one of the best).
Derrick...
Bob Van Burkleo
ColdForged <dupuis...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article <rpvb3-03D505....@news.uswest.net>, Bob Van
>Burkleo <rp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Well my only Quake experience of any consequence was the Q3A demo. I
>> prefer the UT physics and look. Particularly the I don't really like
>> the Q3A demo maps - they seem like mazes for you the rat to run around
>> in. I think this might be the concept of 'flow' that some people
>> actually like, but I don't. I want cul-de-sacs, elevation changes that
>> need special effort to get to, and environments that you actually do end
>> up having to stop somewhere along the line.
>
> Interesting. What are your favorite maps in Unreal/UT? My favorite
>by far are the Deck16 levels. In analyzing what I like about them,
>I've determined that *to me* they have more of this "flow" than most of
>the others. Does anyone see what I mean?
Well using all these soft terms can get you in trouble. I liked Deck16
too when I played DM, but even if its got 'flow' its not the same
quality that Quakers seem to be talking about. The maps they say have
good 'flow' usually are tighter with fewer good choices. Deck 16 was
like a regular big room - of course there is 'flow' if you want it - you
can go where you want to (doing running jumps from the rifle place to
the crossing ramps could 'flow' me right on top of a distant furball to
cap some prey or someone running with the 'flow' ;) And of course I had
a mini 'flow' to do a shield belt, armor, flak cannon pickup. But is
that what Quakers are talking about?
>> Of course there is already a large installed base of Mac Unreal users
>> that are used to the 'look and feel' and migrate more easily to UT than
>> Q3A. I would think that's a major factor too.
>
> Yeah, makes sense. I was used to Unreal as well, and really
>enjoyed it (especially with RealCTF... woohoo!). I don't know what it
>was that changed my preference.
Yes, once RealCTF came out I played that almost exclusively. Now I
thought virtually all of their maps were great though I don't know what
the 'flow' would be considered. Look at McSwartzly - there is virtually
no 'flow' with lots of culdesacs in that level but it was one of my
favorites. Or look at the popular or Mayan Temple, or Football. Even
when the very Quake feeling Real_Small came out they eventually altered
it so that the 'flow' was decreased by adding the over the top tunnel.
Mr. Sharumpe
at dupuis...@earthlink.net wrote on 2000-03-17 06:55:
> I must also say that once Halo comes out, I doubt I'll ever see Q3
> again 8-). I can't explain the complete, overwhelming _LUST_ I have to
> play Halo. May sound weird, so shoot me. 8-P
>
> Thanks for your responses,
> - ColdForged -
Not weird at all - if my current machine does not play Halo well, I will be
upgrading just to play that game...
:)
--
Mr. Sharumpe - [osX]Mr. Sharumpe
do not reply to the above address - it is a spam filter
send mail to: mrsharumpe-at-macwebb-dot-com
Bob Van Burkleo
<spam...@macwebb.com> wrote:
>in article dupuisfamily-0692...@news.earthlink.net,
>ColdForged
>at dupuis...@earthlink.net wrote on 2000-03-17 06:55:
>
>> I must also say that once Halo comes out, I doubt I'll ever see Q3
>> again 8-). I can't explain the complete, overwhelming _LUST_ I have to
>> play Halo. May sound weird, so shoot me. 8-P
>>
>> Thanks for your responses,
>> - ColdForged -
>
>
>Not weird at all - if my current machine does not play Halo well, I will
>be
>upgrading just to play that game...
>
>:)
Isn't that why all of us upgrade our machines ;) But the promise of
Halo is wonderful, I just hope that its doable. I mean, look how hard
it is for people to play as a team in something like UT - just how bad
will it be in a structured persistent game like Halo? I mean sure,
there will be the True Believers(TM) that have organized groups that meet
on Halo rgularly, but that will be a small fraction of the total game
playing crowd - how is it going to appeal to the casual user if the
quality of the gaming experience is dependent on people you don't even
know. Think how often a game of CTF in UT is ruined by people not
playing to win - how will this be in Halo?
(Although I am very hot towards the idea of a persistent scifi online
world. With the new graphics chips in the works, just think of the
environmental detail you can have. Who wants to think that the
Neuromancer type VR worlds are really only just a decade away if that?)
Mitch Crane
<lo...@not.found> wrote:
> I like Q3, my sisters like UT. Go figure.
So, maybe UT is for the gurly iBook crowd. ;-)
--
ybbxvatyvxrnobeantnvayvivatyvxrnurergvpyvfgravatgbneguheyrrerpbeqfznxv
atnyylbhesevraqfsrryfbthvyglnobhggurveplavpvfznaqgurerfgbsgurvetrareng
vbaabgriragurtbireazragnertbaanfgbclbhabjohgnerlbhernqlgborurnegoebxra
ColdForged
> Isn't that why all of us upgrade our machines ;)
Damn skippy 8-). I'm planning on getting _at least_ the latest,
hottest graphic card (be it nVidia or 3dfx). Perhaps bump up my
processor to 800MHz, which seems to be the max that my motherboard
supports. It is kinda silly, isn't it?
> But the promise of
> Halo is wonderful, I just hope that its doable. I mean, look how hard
> it is for people to play as a team in something like UT - just how bad
> will it be in a structured persistent game like Halo? I mean sure,
> there will be the True Believers(TM) that have organized groups that meet
> on Halo rgularly, but that will be a small fraction of the total game
> playing crowd - how is it going to appeal to the casual user if the
> quality of the gaming experience is dependent on people you don't even
> know. Think how often a game of CTF in UT is ruined by people not
> playing to win - how will this be in Halo?
I think it might be instructive to look at the current situation in
Starsiege:Tribes. I only played the demo a bit to see what it was like.
The thing that I saw was a rather high level of organization among the
players, even though it was a pickup game. My guess is that as the
games mature, or as people get more used to playing them, the people
will adopt appropriate behaviors to be effective in a team environment.
Yes, you will have your occasional newbies and l4m3rz that don't want
to play the game for the goals the game provide, but they will be a
minority over time. Hopelessly naive?
> (Although I am very hot towards the idea of a persistent scifi online
> world. With the new graphics chips in the works, just think of the
> environmental detail you can have. Who wants to think that the
> Neuromancer type VR worlds are really only just a decade away if that?)
Don't make me salivate... I'll short out my machine.
Enjoy,
- ColdForged -
ColdForged
<y...@yours.com> wrote:
> In article <lost-51D4FF.1...@corp.remarq.com>, Tangent
> <lo...@not.found> wrote:
>
> > I like Q3, my sisters like UT. Go figure.
>
> So, maybe UT is for the gurly iBook crowd. ;-)
Strange... my wife saw both Q3 and UT. She preferred UT. And she
owns a Tangerine iBook.
Just watch yourself there, Mitch. Start rattling off my credit card
numbers and I'm gonna sling a redeemer your way.
8-),
- ColdForged -
Starman
> Hey guys,
>
> This is no troll or platform war type of post. I just find it
> interesting. It really seems that most of you guys in here prefer UT to
> Q3. Case in point is the [osX] "clan", which seems to be primarily UT
> oriented. Is this a conscious decision, or just preference? It's
> _almost_ like you've taken Unreal under your wing like the Marathon of
> old 8-).
>
> Personally I bought a PC (*boo* *hiss*) in January after 15 years of
> solid Macs (still have my PBG3 and use it for work! Don't kick me out
> yet!) _solely_ for games (a lot cheaper than a G4... and the primary
> game I wanted to play was UT. But I allowed myself to play the Q3A
> demo, enjoyed it, and bought Q3 and haven't really played UT since.
> Like a lot of others have expressed, I just really get into it more
> than UT (mostly CTF and Team Deathmatch).
I had Q3 for months before UT was released. To me, UT is just a better
game *for me*. It has nothing to do with platform preference. I like the
maps and the atmosphere better in UT than Q3.
Mike
--
ICQ: 6426785
AOL IM: StarmanTHX
UT stats: Starman - 385187
Mitch Crane
ColdForged <dupuis...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Don't worry, your wife never lets me near your credit cards. ;-)
--
ybbxvatyvxrnobeantnvayvivatyvxrnurergvpyvfgravatgbneguheyrrerpbeqfznxv
atnyylbhesevraqfsrryfbthvyglnobhggurveplavpvfznaqgurerfgbsgurvetrareng
vbaabgriragurtbireazragnertbaanfgbclbhabjohgnerlbhernqlgborurnegoebxra
Starman
ColdForged <dupuis...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <rpvb3-03D505....@news.uswest.net>, Bob Van
> Burkleo <rp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > Well my only Quake experience of any consequence was the Q3A demo. I
> > prefer the UT physics and look. Particularly the I don't really like
> > the Q3A demo maps - they seem like mazes for you the rat to run around
> > in. I think this might be the concept of 'flow' that some people
> > actually like, but I don't. I want cul-de-sacs, elevation changes that
> > need special effort to get to, and environments that you actually do
> > end
> > up having to stop somewhere along the line.
>
> Interesting. What are your favorite maps in Unreal/UT? My favorite
> by far are the Deck16 levels. In analyzing what I like about them,
> I've determined that *to me* they have more of this "flow" than most of
> the others. Does anyone see what I mean?
Facing Worlds is by far the BEST net level ever created by man :). I
play others, but I find myself on Facing Worlds a lot. Deck 16 is very
nice too. November's nice, but can be a bitch to get through people's
defences.
Bryan Holland-Minkley
<rp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Isn't that why all of us upgrade our machines ;) But the promise of
> Halo is wonderful, I just hope that its doable. I mean, look how hard
> it is for people to play as a team in something like UT - just how bad
> will it be in a structured
I'm not sure what structured means in this context.
> persistent
Bungie is not creating a persistant universe. When you shut down a
netgame, the netgame is gone. It does not effect a stored Halo on Bungie's
servers.
> game like Halo? I mean sure,
> there will be the True Believers(TM) that have organized groups that meet
> on Halo rgularly, but that will be a small fraction of the total game
> playing crowd - how is it going to appeal to the casual user if the
> quality of the gaming experience is dependent on people you don't even
> know. Think how often a game of CTF in UT is ruined by people not
> playing to win - how will this be in Halo?
Think of it like Myth. You get strategy even in games where people don't
know each other. The keys to this are making captains clear, giving them
tools (maps and the ability to draw on them, and more), and giving them
pre-game time and planning time in which to discuss strategy. It also
depends on the pace of the game. Myth works because there is a significant
amount of time between confrontations, usually, and much effort must be put
into creating these confrontations.
> (Although I am very hot towards the idea of a persistent scifi online
> world.
Lets be clear, as you appear not to have listened up above when I said
this ;) ;) ;) ;)
Halo isn't persistant. People are making persistant on-line scifi style
worlds. Bungie just isn't one of them.
> With the new graphics chips in the works, just think of the
> environmental detail you can have. Who wants to think that the
> Neuromancer type VR worlds are really only just a decade away if that?)
Heh. Our rendering ability is way above what they describe in Neuromancer,
though we don't have direct neural interfaces yet. And, of course, the UI
that Neuromancer suggests sounds worse than Aqua. They'll have to do better
than that, TYFM.
- Bryan Holland-Minkley
b...@andrew.cmu.edu
Michael Pollard
ColdForged wrote:
>
> I must also say that once Halo comes out, I doubt I'll ever see Q3
> again 8-). I can't explain the complete, overwhelming _LUST_ I have to
> play Halo. May sound weird, so shoot me. 8-P
Bang. ;)
Halo looks to be one of the four or five best games of the year, but I
don't see it or any other other 3rd-person game replacing Q3A or UT.
- Michael
Michael Pollard
Bob Van Burkleo wrote:
>
> >> Well my only Quake experience of any consequence was the Q3A demo. I
> >> prefer the UT physics and look. Particularly the I don't really like
> >> the Q3A demo maps - they seem like mazes for you the rat to run around
> >> in. I think this might be the concept of 'flow' that some people
> >> actually like, but I don't.
For me, "flow" means that a map is direcing/encouraging player movement
in certain ways. This apparently makes some feel like a rat getting
pushed around a maze, but for others it means semi-constant and welcome
action.
By the way, I don't see how The Longest Yard (one of my all-time
favorite maps) is at all maze-like, although it definitely forces
constant player movement.
- Michael
Bryan Holland-Minkley
<idontre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <8121732.3...@mach.res.cmu.edu>, Bryan
> Holland-Minkley <b...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
>> Bungie is not creating a persistant universe. When you shut down a
>> netgame, the netgame is gone. It does not effect a stored Halo on
>> Bungie's servers.
>
> When did this change? I thought the original announcements stated
> that it would be a persistent world.
I think it depends on how you mean persistant. The typical definition of a
persistant gaming universe, in my experience, is that the state of the
universe is stored on a remote server, which you access whenever you play,
and everyone plays in the same universe, or chooses from among the same
group of available universes/servers. This is like a persistant on-line
MMPRPG. This is not the kind of game Bungie is making. There is someone
making a persistant MMPRPG in a sci-fi world with the Unreal engine,
though, but I can't remember what it's called.
If by persistant you mean that when you blow a hole in the ground, it's
still there an hour later, and you play in a single, consistant universe,
instead of a sequence of levels, then that seems to be what Bungie is
doing. I don't think that's generally called persistant, though, hence my
confusion.
- Bryan Holland-Minkley
b...@andrew.cmu.edu
Bob Van Burkleo
<b...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>--On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 4:16 PM -0600 Keep it to Usenet please
><idontre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <8121732.3...@mach.res.cmu.edu>, Bryan
>> Holland-Minkley <b...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Bungie is not creating a persistant universe. When you shut down a
>>> netgame, the netgame is gone. It does not effect a stored Halo on
>>> Bungie's servers.
>>
>> When did this change? I thought the original announcements stated
>> that it would be a persistent world.
>
> I think it depends on how you mean persistant. The typical definition of a
>persistant gaming universe, in my experience, is that the state of the
>universe is stored on a remote server, which you access whenever you play,
>and everyone plays in the same universe, or chooses from among the same
>group of available universes/servers. This is like a persistant on-line
>MMPRPG. This is not the kind of game Bungie is making. There is someone
>making a persistant MMPRPG in a sci-fi world with the Unreal engine,
>though, but I can't remember what it's called.
>
> If by persistant you mean that when you blow a hole in the ground, it's
>still there an hour later, and you play in a single, consistant universe,
>instead of a sequence of levels, then that seems to be what Bungie is
>doing. I don't think that's generally called persistant, though, hence my
>confusion.
Well that does change things - I was also under the impression that Halo
was going to be a persistent universe where people could take over alien
camps etc and when you came back the alien camp was till taken over. If
it is just another online game where each signon is just a new game,
that's not nearly as big a deal.
I'm severely disappointed now. :(
Bob Van Burkleo
>--On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 10:48 AM -0800 Bob Van Burkleo
><rp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Isn't that why all of us upgrade our machines ;) But the promise of
>> Halo is wonderful, I just hope that its doable. I mean, look how hard
>> it is for people to play as a team in something like UT - just how bad
>> will it be in a structured
>
> I'm not sure what structured means in this context.
>
>> persistent
>
> Bungie is not creating a persistant universe. When you shut down a
>netgame, the netgame is gone. It does not effect a stored Halo on Bungie's
>servers.
That's too bad. From the early news that was my impression. If it is
just an 'online game' experience than I don't think a 3rd person view
game will capture my interest away from true FPS games.
>> game like Halo? I mean sure,
>> there will be the True Believers(TM) that have organized groups that
>> meet
>> on Halo rgularly, but that will be a small fraction of the total game
>> playing crowd - how is it going to appeal to the casual user if the
>> quality of the gaming experience is dependent on people you don't even
>> know. Think how often a game of CTF in UT is ruined by people not
>> playing to win - how will this be in Halo?
>
> Think of it like Myth. You get strategy even in games where people don't
>know each other. The keys to this are making captains clear, giving them
>tools (maps and the ability to draw on them, and more), and giving them
>pre-game time and planning time in which to discuss strategy. It also
>depends on the pace of the game. Myth works because there is a significant
>amount of time between confrontations, usually, and much effort must be
>put
>into creating these confrontations.
Yes if they are merely 'for the moment' games that don't persist it
won't be nearly as much of a problem (although getting people to work as
a team on Myth was always a problem too).
>> (Although I am very hot towards the idea of a persistent scifi online
>> world.
>
> Lets be clear, as you appear not to have listened up above when I said
>this ;) ;) ;) ;)
>
> Halo isn't persistant. People are making persistant on-line scifi style
>worlds. Bungie just isn't one of them.
Then forget I said anything; you have single handedly dampened my 'over
the top' interest in Halo. The primary feature that I thought it had
was a persistent universe. If it doesn't its must another game.
>> With the new graphics chips in the works, just think of the
>> environmental detail you can have. Who wants to think that the
>> Neuromancer type VR worlds are really only just a decade away if that?)
>
> Heh. Our rendering ability is way above what they describe in
>Neuromancer,
>though we don't have direct neural interfaces yet. And, of course, the UI
>that Neuromancer suggests sounds worse than Aqua. They'll have to do
>better
>than that, TYFM.
>
> - Bryan Holland-Minkley
> b...@andrew.cmu.edu
--
Bryan Holland-Minkley
wrote:
> Yes if they are merely 'for the moment' games that don't persist it
> won't be nearly as much of a problem (although getting people to work as
> a team on Myth was always a problem too).
Yeah, teamwork is a bit of an issue in Myth. I wonder how they'll handle
the team play in Halo. Will there be a captain? Will the game leave time
for the captain to do captaining? Will people survive long enough to
actually carry out plans? Will the standard UT plan of throwing bodies at
the enemy be valid?
> Then forget I said anything; you have single handedly dampened my 'over
> the top' interest in Halo. The primary feature that I thought it had
> was a persistent universe. If it doesn't its must another game.
I do what I can :)
I wouldn't call it just another game, if it manages to emphasize team play
as much as its supposed to. But I can understand that if you wanted what
you were describing, the reality would be dissapointing. Fortunately,
Bungie is making the game I want to play ;)
If you haven't already, I suggest you take a look at Dark Sector being
made by Digital Extremes ( http://www.digitalextremes.com/ ). It uses the
UT engine, it's Sci-Fi, it's massively multiplayer, and it's persistant. I
don't think it will be quite the same style as Halo, but you might find it
interesting.
Good gaming.
- Bryan Holland-Minkley
b...@andrew.cmu.edu
Bob Van Burkleo
mei...@speedchoice.com wrote:
>In article <rpvb3-04DB48....@news.uswest.net>, Bob Van
>Burkleo <rp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Well that does change things - I was also under the impression that Halo
>> was going to be a persistent universe where people could take over alien
>> camps etc and when you came back the alien camp was till taken over. If
>> it is just another online game where each signon is just a new game,
>> that's not nearly as big a deal.
>>
>> I'm severely disappointed now. :(
>
>So let me get this straight - you are dissapointed in Halo because you
>were totally mistaken as to what type of game it is, and now your error
>has been pointed out?
No you messed up. I am disappointed because someone somewhere soon
after the announcement of Halo referred to it as a 'persistent' game
that that was the aspect I found most attractive. I'm not disappointed
in Halo, but rather in the fact it isn't the game I was anticipating and
had I known I wouldn't have been anticipating nearly as much.
So I guess my level of interest now is what it should have been all
along, but it is still significantly lower than it was just hours
earlier.
Understand?
Bob Van Burkleo
<gay...@looser.com> wrote:
>Bob Van Burkleo wrote:
>>
>> >> Well my only Quake experience of any consequence was the Q3A demo. I
>> >> prefer the UT physics and look. Particularly the I don't really like
>> >> the Q3A demo maps - they seem like mazes for you the rat to run around
>> >> in. I think this might be the concept of 'flow' that some people
>> >> actually like, but I don't.
>
>For me, "flow" means that a map is direcing/encouraging player movement
>in certain ways. This apparently makes some feel like a rat getting
>pushed around a maze, but for others it means semi-constant and welcome
>action.
And such structured 'action' is what I mean by saying something feels
'arcade', which to me is a negative game experience.
>By the way, I don't see how The Longest Yard (one of my all-time
>favorite maps) is at all maze-like, although it definitely forces
>constant player movement.
Never heard of it. Unreal map?
Bob Van Burkleo
<b...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>--On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 3:23 PM -0800 Bob Van Burkleo <rp...@mindspring.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Yes if they are merely 'for the moment' games that don't persist it
>> won't be nearly as much of a problem (although getting people to work as
>> a team on Myth was always a problem too).
>
> Yeah, teamwork is a bit of an issue in Myth. I wonder how they'll handle
>the team play in Halo. Will there be a captain? Will the game leave time
>for the captain to do captaining? Will people survive long enough to
>actually carry out plans? Will the standard UT plan of throwing bodies at
>the enemy be valid?
If it is then the game can't be what I've thought it would be (but then,
you've already shown me that it wasn't that anyway).
>> Then forget I said anything; you have single handedly dampened my 'over
>> the top' interest in Halo. The primary feature that I thought it had
>> was a persistent universe. If it doesn't its must another game.
>
> I do what I can :)
>
> I wouldn't call it just another game, if it manages to emphasize team play
>as much as its supposed to. But I can understand that if you wanted what
>you were describing, the reality would be dissapointing. Fortunately,
>Bungie is making the game I want to play ;)
>
> If you haven't already, I suggest you take a look at Dark Sector being
>made by Digital Extremes ( http://www.digitalextremes.com/ ). It uses the
>UT engine, it's Sci-Fi, it's massively multiplayer, and it's persistant. I
>don't think it will be quite the same style as Halo, but you might find it
>interesting.
>
> Good gaming.
Thanks I'll check it out - the 3rd person perspective of Halo was a
negative as far as I'm concerned - a persistent UT based universe WOULD
be more what I'm looking for.
Michael Pollard
Bob Van Burkleo wrote:
>
> In article <38D2B45B...@looser.com>, Michael Pollard
> <gay...@looser.com> wrote:
>
> >Bob Van Burkleo wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Well my only Quake experience of any consequence was the Q3A demo. I
> >> >> prefer the UT physics and look. Particularly the I don't really like
> >> >> the Q3A demo maps - they seem like mazes for you the rat to run around
> >> >> in. I think this might be the concept of 'flow' that some people
> >> >> actually like, but I don't.
> >
> >By the way, I don't see how The Longest Yard (one of my all-time
> >favorite maps) is at all maze-like, although it definitely forces
> >constant player movement.
>
> Never heard of it. Unreal map?
It's the "space" map in the Q3A Demo.
- Michael
Bob Van Burkleo
mei...@speedchoice.com wrote:
>In article <rpvb3-734A82....@news.uswest.net>, Bob Van
>Burkleo <rp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> No you messed up. I am disappointed because someone somewhere soon
>> after the announcement of Halo referred to it as a 'persistent' game
>> that that was the aspect I found most attractive. I'm not disappointed
>> in Halo, but rather in the fact it isn't the game I was anticipating and
>> had I known I wouldn't have been anticipating nearly as much.
>
>Whatever the source of this perception was, it was totally mistaken.
>There have never been plans for a persistent world in Halo, period. I
>should know - I've been following this game since before it was public
>knowledge, and I work with two former Bungie employees.
>
>> So I guess my level of interest now is what it should have been all
>> along, but it is still significantly lower than it was just hours
>> earlier.
>>
>> Understand?
>
>No, you still sound a little like a spoiled child, I'm afraid. I don't
>mean to be hard on you, but you are actually finding fault in your own
>expectations, not in the game. Griping about it doesn't change the fact
>that what you believed never existed.
Who blamed the game other than you? I made it very clear it was my
ill-founded expectations that had been in error, not the game.
Regardless, my enthusiasm for the game were primarily centered around
this same ill-founded expectation and as such the game is not as
attractive as it was before this revelation. I think any reasonable
person would see the correlation between such a radical drop in
percieved attractiveness and the concept of disappoint, can you? And I
guess we have a totally different definition of what 'griping' means -
saying I was personally disappointed that a property I thought was part
of the game isn't hardly qualifies in my usage of the term.
You sound a little like a very defensive person as far as Halo is
concerned, I'm afraid? What's your involvement in the game that my
personal drop in its perceived attractiveness seems to threaten you so?
;)
Bob Van Burkleo
<gay...@looser.com> wrote:
Oh. That would definitely fit my definition of an 'arcade' experience.
Virtually every spot on the map is targetable from every other spot on
the map. To sum it up: Yuck.
There are definitely two play type philosophies and we are moste likely
in the opposite ones.
Steve Lee
> This is no troll or platform war type of post. I just find it
> interesting. It really seems that most of you guys in here prefer UT to
> Q3. Case in point is the [osX] "clan", which seems to be primarily UT
> oriented. Is this a conscious decision, or just preference? It's
> _almost_ like you've taken Unreal under your wing like the Marathon of
> old 8-).
>
> Personally I bought a PC (*boo* *hiss*) in January after 15 years of
> solid Macs (still have my PBG3 and use it for work! Don't kick me out
> yet!) _solely_ for games (a lot cheaper than a G4... and the primary
> game I wanted to play was UT. But I allowed myself to play the Q3A
> demo, enjoyed it, and bought Q3 and haven't really played UT since.
> Like a lot of others have expressed, I just really get into it more
> than UT (mostly CTF and Team Deathmatch).
Aside from the differences between the two games, which have been
discussed ad nauseum already, my take on it is that Unreal filled a void
that was created by the long delayed port of Q2. It's also hard to know
what the true numbers are out there, since those of us on csmga are only a
small fraction of all Mac gamers.
--
Steve (Masai)
Steve Lee
<rp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> And having Mark Adams working so hard
> on both Unreal and UT does generate a load of 'brand' loyalty. (Quake
> being too retrograde to really matter today).
Yes, I agree. Mark Adams is a *big* reason why most of us on csmga are
playing UT today, over Q3A. Those early days of Unreal were rough with
some pretty crummy network code, but Mark was there right from the start
helping us out, and answering all our questions. He wasn't necessarily
able to solve everything (much depended on Epic), but it was very
comforting to know that the programmer was so accessible and actually
cared about our experience with the game.
--
Steve (Masai)
ZepHead
Burkleo <rp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >same e-mail to me. Just goes on and on
> >about how Quake players rule etc...
> >: )
>
> Well at least you read it :)
Yeah I read it. I always read e-mail
but it was so biased to Quake Players.
It was the typical Quake Players are great at all games
and if you do not agree you are deluded etc....
These people just do not realize that as an example
some people can play chess and others never get the hang
of it. It doesn't mean they could not kick ass in Checkers.
Now which is Chess and which is Checkers : )
> Like I want to listen to his monologue ;)
> Subsequent ones go in the dumper unread.
; )
Mitch Crane
<gro...@erols.com> wrote:
> In article <rpvb3-41E6A9....@news.uswest.net>, Bob Van
> Burkleo <rp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > >
> > >same e-mail to me. Just goes on and on
> > >about how Quake players rule etc...
> > >: )
> >
> > Well at least you read it :)
>
> Yeah I read it. I always read e-mail
> but it was so biased to Quake Players.
Wouldn't be more fun to filter his mail directly to the trash so that
he's doing all that work in utter futility?
> It was the typical Quake Players are great at all games
> and if you do not agree you are deluded etc....
>
> These people just do not realize that as an example
> some people can play chess and others never get the hang
> of it. It doesn't mean they could not kick ass in Checkers.
>
> Now which is Chess and which is Checkers : )
Checkers is the one with the little red and black disks. ;-)
--
ybbxvatyvxrnobeantnvayvivatyvxrnurergvpyvfgravatgbneguheyrrerpbeqfznxv
atnyylbhesevraqfsrryfbthvyglnobhggurveplavpvfznaqgurerfgbsgurvetrareng
vbaabgriragurtbireazragnertbaanfgbclbhabjohgnerlbhernqlgborurnegoebxra
Michael Pollard
Bob Van Burkleo wrote:
>
> BVB >>> No you messed up. I am disappointed because
> BVB >>> someone somewhere soon after the announcement
> BVB >>> of Halo referred to it as a 'persistent' game
> BVB >>> that that was the aspect I found most attractive.
> BVB >>> I'm not disappointed in Halo, but rather in the
> BVB >>> fact it isn't the game I was anticipating and
> BVB >>> had I known I wouldn't have been anticipating
> BVB >>> nearly as much.
>
> E >> Whatever the source of this perception was,
> E >> it was totally mistaken. There have never been
> E >> plans for a persistent world in Halo, period.
> E >> I should know - I've been following this game
> E >> since before it was public knowledge, and I
> E >> work with two former Bungie employees.
>
> BVB >>> So I guess my level of interest now is what
> BVB >>> it should have been all along, but it is
> BVB >>> still significantly lower than it was just
> BVB >>> hours earlier.
> BVB >>>
> BVB >>> Understand?
>
> E >> No, you still sound a little like a spoiled
> E >> child, I'm afraid. I don't mean to be hard on
> E >> you, but you are actually finding fault in
> E >> your own expectations, not in the game.
> E >> Griping about it doesn't change the fact that
> E >> what you believed never existed.
>
> BVB > Who blamed the game other than you? I made
> BVB > it very clear it was my ill-founded
> BVB > expectations that had been in error, not
> BVB > the game.
Don't you get it? If you mistakenly thought X was going to happen even
though no one promised you X, and it turns out only Y will happen, then
you have no right to be disappointed when you realize your mistake.
In fact, it just goes to show how spoiled you are that you inflict your
misguided disappointment on the rest of us. Have you no decency?
If it isn't obvious, that was sarcasm. It was clear from your very
first message why you were disappointed and that you weren't blaming
Bungie or anyone else. It doesn't matter *why* your expectations are
dashed. Anyone who hopes for something and believes he has a good
reason to think he'll get it will naturally be "disappointed" when it
turns out he's wrong. Why this requires explanation is anyone's
guess...
- Michael
Mitch Crane
<gay...@looser.com> wrote:
> Don't you get it? If you mistakenly thought X was going to happen even
> though no one promised you X, and it turns out only Y will happen, then
> you have no right to be disappointed when you realize your mistake.
Why not?
So long as Bob isn't blaming anyone but himself for his mistaken
impression of the game, why can't he be disappointed? In fact, whether
he was ever mistaken about it seems to be beside the point. One can be
dissapointed that halo will not be a persistant world game without ever
having thought it would.
There is the new persistant world game what's his face (the creator of
Unreal) spoke about wanting to do next. I have all sorts of hopes for
what that will be. If it doesn't live up to my expectations then I'm not
sure how I can not be disappointed. Feeling let down *about a game*
isn't the same as saying the game creators let you down.
--
ybbxvatyvxrnobeantnvayvivatyvxrnurergvpyvfgravatgbneguheyrrerpbeqfznxv
atnyylbhesevraqfsrryfbthvyglnobhggurveplavpvfznaqgurerfgbsgurvetrareng
vbaabgriragurtbireazragnertbaanfgbclbhabjohgnerlbhernqlgborurnegoebxra
Michael Pollard
>
> In article <38D3C800...@looser.com>, Michael Pollard
> <gay...@looser.com> wrote:
>
> > Don't you get it? If you mistakenly thought X was going to happen even
> > though no one promised you X, and it turns out only Y will happen, then
> > you have no right to be disappointed when you realize your mistake.
>
> Why not?
>
> So long as Bob isn't blaming anyone but himself for his mistaken
> impression of the game, why can't he be disappointed? In fact, whether
> he was ever mistaken about it seems to be beside the point. One can be
> dissapointed that halo will not be a persistant world game without ever
> having thought it would.
Mitch,
Gee whiz, did you not read my next paragraph where I say I was being
sarcastic and that Bob's disappointment is perfectly "natural."
- Michael
Michael Pollard
Keep it to Usenet please wrote:
>
> In article <38D3C800...@looser.com>, Michael Pollard
> <gay...@looser.com> wrote:
>
> > Don't you get it? If you mistakenly thought X was going to happen even
> > though no one promised you X, and it turns out only Y will happen, then
> > you have no right to be disappointed when you realize your mistake.
>
> Chill out. He's saying disappointed in the same way that 99.999999%
> of the population would if they thought they were about to catch the
> last matinee but when they got there the movie actually started after
> 6pm.
>
> > In fact, it just goes to show how spoiled you are that you inflict your
> > misguided disappointment on the rest of us. Have you no decency?
>
> What is YOUR problem?
Mr. "Keep It to Usenet Please,"
Did you notice that my very next paragraph began with, "If it isn't
obvious, that was sarcasm." That means the preceding stuff was not what
I actually think.
Did you notice the following parapgraph where I say, "Anyone who hopes
for something and believes he has a good reason to think he'll get it
will naturally be 'disappointed' when it turns out he's wrong. Why this
requires explanation is anyone's guess..."?
I hadn't thought it possible for the meaning to be so confusing. The
first part of that paragraph says that Bob's "disappointment" is
perfectly "natural." The second part says that this is so obviously
true that he shouldn't need to explain it to anyone.
> You're the only one that's berating him. Most likely
> because YOU ASSUMED motivations and/or emotional
> content that wasn't there. Coupled with YOUR internal
> state because you were familiar with the project before
> the general public and you know two FORMER Bungie
> employees.
You are confusing me with the person who wrote Bob is acting like a
"spoiled child." Go back and see who wrote which messages and then read
them more carefully.
- Michael
Mitch Crane
<gay...@looser.com> wrote:
> Mitch Crane wrote:
> >
> > In article <38D3C800...@looser.com>, Michael Pollard
> > <gay...@looser.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Don't you get it? If you mistakenly thought X was going to happen
> > > even
> > > though no one promised you X, and it turns out only Y will happen,
> > > then
> > > you have no right to be disappointed when you realize your mistake.
> >
> > Why not?
> >
> > So long as Bob isn't blaming anyone but himself for his mistaken
> > impression of the game, why can't he be disappointed? In fact, whether
> > he was ever mistaken about it seems to be beside the point. One can be
> > dissapointed that halo will not be a persistant world game without ever
> > having thought it would.
>
>
> Mitch,
>
> Gee whiz, did you not read my next paragraph where I say I was being
> sarcastic and that Bob's disappointment is perfectly "natural."
>
>
> - Michael
Well, I thought I read it, but I guess I read it very poorly. Someome in
the thread seemed genuinely offended at Bob's disappointment, but in
hindsight I think that may have been a different Michael (one who is
known to not tolerate nonbelievers).
Sorry about that.
--
ybbxvatyvxrnobeantnvayvivatyvxrnurergvpyvfgravatgbneguheyrrerpbeqfznxv
atnyylbhesevraqfsrryfbthvyglnobhggurveplavpvfznaqgurerfgbsgurvetrareng
vbaabgriragurtbireazragnertbaanfgbclbhabjohgnerlbhernqlgborurnegoebxra
Nijhazer
Not too much is known about Halo right now. What we do know is that it
won't be a massively-multiplayer game such as EverQuest. However, things
that you do in Halo are reportedly going to stay throughout the game.
For instance, if you blow up the enemy's base, it will remain that way,
unless events change this. Halo looks like it will have weather, so
presumably it is possible that a tornado could come along and sweep up the
remains of the base and the enemy could rebuild there, although by that time
they probably would have rebuilt elsewhere (the Halo is ten thousand square
km IIRC).
How this is implemented is unknown, but that's the word we have.
-Nij
Michael Pollard
Mitch Crane wrote:
>
> In article <38D3EFFA...@looser.com>, Michael Pollard
> <gay...@looser.com> wrote:
>
> > Mitch Crane wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <38D3C800...@looser.com>, Michael Pollard
> > > <gay...@looser.com> wrote:
> > >
> > Gee whiz, did you not read my next paragraph where I say I was being
> > sarcastic and that Bob's disappointment is perfectly "natural."
>
> Someome in the thread seemed genuinely offended at Bob's
> disappointment, but in hindsight I think that may have been
> a different Michael (one who is known to not tolerate
> nonbelievers).
Bingo. :)
- Michael (the one who understands Bob's disappointment)
Michael Pollard
Nijhazer wrote:
>
> Not too much is known about Halo right now. What we do know is that it
> won't be a massively-multiplayer game such as EverQuest.
It's not just EverQuest with jeeps? That's it, now I refuse to buy the
game. ;)
- Michael
Bob Van Burkleo
>Don't you get it? If you mistakenly thought X was going to happen even
>though no one promised you X, and it turns out only Y will happen, then
>you have no right to be disappointed when you realize your mistake.
>
>In fact, it just goes to show how spoiled you are that you inflict your
>misguided disappointment on the rest of us. Have you no decency?
>
>If it isn't obvious, that was sarcasm. It was clear from your very
>first message why you were disappointed and that you weren't blaming
>Bungie or anyone else. It doesn't matter *why* your expectations are
>dashed. Anyone who hopes for something and believes he has a good
>reason to think he'll get it will naturally be "disappointed" when it
>turns out he's wrong. Why this requires explanation is anyone's
>guess...
Thanks for the understanding. As you noted, I didn't say anything bad
about Halo - it would be wonderful if its online experience was a
persistent reality, and it as the other person I was talking with
confirmed it wasn't my misconception alone.
My guess is that it was the idea of the 'persistent damage' ain its
levelless solo play that somehow got permutated into the idea this
carried over into the multiplayer as well.
Heck, just the solo game alone will be worth twice the price of
admission if Bungie history is repeated. I am still looking forward to
the time when a truly persistent multiplayer VR experience is available
- I thought that time was here with Halo is all.
Bob Van Burkleo
<nijh...@SPAMbungie.org> wrote:
> Not too much is known about Halo right now. What we do know is that it
>won't be a massively-multiplayer game such as EverQuest. However, things
>that you do in Halo are reportedly going to stay throughout the game.
> For instance, if you blow up the enemy's base, it will remain that way,
>unless events change this. Halo looks like it will have weather, so
>presumably it is possible that a tornado could come along and sweep up the
>remains of the base and the enemy could rebuild there, although by that
>time
>they probably would have rebuilt elsewhere (the Halo is ten thousand
>square
>km IIRC).
> How this is implemented is unknown, but that's the word we have.
But if this does occur across time and signons, then that's all the
persistence I had heard of. Example; you take over a base held by the
enemy. You leave for a day or two and when you sign back on if that
base hasn't been retaken over it is still your base.
Now from the good and rude Michaels' notes I garner this ISN'T the way
its going to be - that if you signon and start up a game it starts from
'fresh' just like a game of Myth would.
So I guess the question is, is it like Myth were you are starting from a
'local' prime copy of the map, or are you getting a 'persistent' map
stored somewhere at bungie.net that will show the accumulated changes of
who knows how many battles at the same location?
Bob Van Burkleo
bde...@worldnet.fr (DBD) wrote:
>Bob Van Burkleo <rp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Keep looking at some of the new 3rd party maps and there are excellent
>> comversions of the Unreal classics coming out too.
>
>Unreal DM maps, these DM xx II maps?
I don't play DM much, more into the team goal games of CTF and Assault,
it was these games I was referring to.
I' not sure that this fit so well
>to new UT possibilities relative to gameplay. But well if you have some
>URL of the best, despite I already wandered in this area, could be great
>to find new "jewel".
>
>> >I have also another problem in solo play, the game is power hungry and
>> >fps on my G3 466 Mhz voodoo3 3000 system are a bit low if I don't tweak
>> >the game particularely with lighting off. Then the look becomes less
>> >important.
>>
>> Gee what fps do you want? ;) I was playing UT on my G3 300 at 800x600
>> with a Voodoo 2 with everything one and never even restarted extensions.
>
>Gee what fps you accept? ;-) Well I have curently with the tests demos,
>46 fps for UT and 57 fps for Q3A. Well if you compare to fps that PC
>users want to have, it's low.
Well that explains it, I find any FPS greater than 20 just fine.
Bryan Holland-Minkley
wrote:
> But if this does occur across time and signons,
I think you're mixing up the solo game and the net game. In the solo game
if you do something, and we don't know if taking over an enemy base is an
option, then it will remain that way throughout the course of the game. The
net games will most likely be Myth or Marathon style in which each time you
start one, you start from scratch.
This isn't a massively-multiplayer on-line game, where the solo game is
played on-line.
> then that's all the
> persistence I had heard of. Example; you take over a base held by the
> enemy. You leave for a day or two and when you sign back on if that
> base hasn't been retaken over it is still your base.
That's not the case when you sign back onto b.net
That is the case when you sign back into the game and resume your saved
game, which doesn't involve connecting to any remote server.
Now, I don't know that you can take over a base in a meaningful way, or
how enemy regeneration works, or anything of that form.
> Now from the good and rude Michaels' notes I garner this ISN'T the way
> its going to be - that if you signon and start up a game it starts from
> 'fresh' just like a game of Myth would.
That's my impression too.
> So I guess the question is, is it like Myth were you are starting from a
> 'local' prime copy of the map, or are you getting a 'persistent' map
> stored somewhere at bungie.net that will show the accumulated changes of
> who knows how many battles at the same location?
There's been no indication that everyone will play on the same map, or
that bungie will keep a copy on the remote server which will keep getting
updated.
There has been indication that the solo game takes place on a single map,
so that if you do things one place on the map, the consequences of that
will persist.
- Bryan Holland-Minkley
b...@andrew.cmu.edu
Mitch Crane
Burkleo <rp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Gee what fps you accept? ;-) Well I have curently with the tests demos,
> >46 fps for UT and 57 fps for Q3A. Well if you compare to fps that PC
> >users want to have, it's low.
>
> Well that explains it, I find any FPS greater than 20 just fine.
Not comparing average to minimum, I hope. I mean, an average of 21 fps
is going to be damned horrible much of the time.
--
ybbxvatyvxrnobeantnvayvivatyvxrnurergvpyvfgravatgbneguheyrrerpbeqfznxv
atnyylbhesevraqfsrryfbthvyglnobhggurveplavpvfznaqgurerfgbsgurvetrareng
vbaabgriragurtbireazragnertbaanfgbclbhabjohgnerlbhernqlgborurnegoebxra
Michael Pollard
Bob Van Burkleo wrote:
>
> Thanks for the understanding. As you noted, I didn't say anything bad
> about Halo - it would be wonderful if its online experience was a
> persistent reality, and it as the other person I was talking with
> confirmed it wasn't my misconception alone.
I hadn't even thought much about this before you started the thread, but
what would Halo multi-player have to have to qualify as a "persistent
world"?
Paul McGrane
Burkleo <rp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the understanding. As you noted, I didn't say anything bad
> about Halo - it would be wonderful if its online experience was a
> persistent reality, and it as the other person I was talking with
> confirmed it wasn't my misconception alone.
I think we've all learned our lesson. If the Mac game community gets
excited about something, we must all also sing its praises frequently
and obviously, or face the wrath of the 'public'! No doubt this just
comes from us already being defensive mac users :^)
--
...Paul McGrane
Bob Van Burkleo
<gay...@looser.com> wrote:
>Bob Van Burkleo wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the understanding. As you noted, I didn't say anything bad
>> about Halo - it would be wonderful if its online experience was a
>> persistent reality, and it as the other person I was talking with
>> confirmed it wasn't my misconception alone.
>
>I hadn't even thought much about this before you started the thread, but
>what would Halo multi-player have to have to qualify as a "persistent
>world"?
I'm pretty much a minimist - just what's been mentioned in the previous
thread - that the game field reflect the qualities wrought by previous
encounters at the same spot, e.g. if you take over a town, destroy a
structure, reek havoc, that conquest/rubble/mayhem is present for others
following.
I mean I guess I thought that was the whole point of having the vast
Halo playfield - if they are just a set of maps (like Myth) where
everyone starts from the same point over and over again, what's the
point of a huge playing field?
Oh, and since I'm keeping count there have now been 3+ people who've
mentioned they had the idea the multiplayer game play persisted in some
quality or another. If this definitely isn't true, then there is some
major misunderstandings out there.
Bob Van Burkleo
<y...@yours.com> wrote:
>In article <rpvb3-DEFC07....@news.uswest.net>, Bob Van
>Burkleo <rp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> >Gee what fps you accept? ;-) Well I have curently with the tests demos,
>> >46 fps for UT and 57 fps for Q3A. Well if you compare to fps that PC
>> >users want to have, it's low.
>>
>> Well that explains it, I find any FPS greater than 20 just fine.
>
>Not comparing average to minimum, I hope. I mean, an average of 21 fps
>is going to be damned horrible much of the time.
No I mean minimum. I assumed his fps reading were minimum too - any
number higher is just gravy. Who cares what the average is?
Bob Van Burkleo
<b...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>--On Sat, Mar 18, 2000 5:19 PM -0800 Bob Van Burkleo <rp...@mindspring.com>
>wrote:
>
I thought that might be the misconception. As to the solo games that's
really sort of been the theoretical play case anyway - you just couldn't
revisit your previous locals. So this solo persistence is a incremental
improvement over previous solo Bungie games, but there isn't the quantum
level change that having a persistent multiplayer environment would have
been. So, multiplayer is most likely going to be a variation on a theme
rather than the whole new symphony I'd mistakenly anticipated. :)
Oh well, the solo game will be great anyway (its from Bungie) - If I can
get into a 3rdPS episodic multiplayer will remain to be seen - I didn't
have much luck getting involved in Dark Vengence or even Tomb Raider for
that matter. Hopefully Bungie will figure out someway you can control
yoru character easily without having to be continually looking at its
back.
Anyway, the upcoming persistent MP with the UT engine mentioned in a
previous note should take up the slack. Guess I'll have to start saving
my pennies.
Jamal Bernhard
> Mitch Crane <y...@yours.com> wrote:
>
> >> Well that explains it, I find any FPS greater than 20 just fine.
> >
> >Not comparing average to minimum, I hope. I mean, an average of 21 fps
> >is going to be damned horrible much of the time.
>
> No I mean minimum. I assumed his fps reading were minimum too - any
> number higher is just gravy. Who cares what the average is?
LOL. I *average* about 8fps on most UT maps. :-)
--
Jamal
jamalb at mac dot com (please delete crap for reply via email)
http://home.pacbell.net/jamalb
e l w e n
> Not too much is known about Halo right now. What we do know is that it
> won't be a massively-multiplayer game such as EverQuest. However, things
> that you do in Halo are reportedly going to stay throughout the game.
> For instance, if you blow up the enemy's base, it will remain that way,
> unless events change this. Halo looks like it will have weather, so
> presumably it is possible that a tornado could come along and sweep up the
> remains of the base and the enemy could rebuild there, although by that time
> they probably would have rebuilt elsewhere (the Halo is ten thousand
> square km IIRC).
> How this is implemented is unknown, but that's the word we have.
Well, whatever the case may be I'm already looking forward to Halo, be
it persistent or not :o)
--
e l w e n
"All that is not given is lost..." - Hasar Pal
DBD
> Keep looking at some of the new 3rd party maps and there are excellent
> comversions of the Unreal classics coming out too.
Unreal DM maps, these DM xx II maps? I' not sure that this fit so well
to new UT possibilities relative to gameplay. But well if you have some
URL of the best, despite I already wandered in this area, could be great
to find new "jewel".
> >I have also another problem in solo play, the game is power hungry and
> >fps on my G3 466 Mhz voodoo3 3000 system are a bit low if I don't tweak
> >the game particularely with lighting off. Then the look becomes less
> >important.
>
> Gee what fps do you want? ;) I was playing UT on my G3 300 at 800x600
> with a Voodoo 2 with everything one and never even restarted extensions.
Gee what fps you accept? ;-) Well I have curently with the tests demos,
46 fps for UT and 57 fps for Q3A. Well if you compare to fps that PC
users want to have, it's low.
In fact for UT I still suffer during game of fps slowdown I don't like.
I made some checks during play and had 23/24 fps for the lowest fps
during the game. If I remove the tweaking that makes most map looks bad,
Lighting off, then the lowest fps are 19 fps and I have hard times and
not so much fun.
For Q3, the average fps is better but not so much with 11 fps more. But
I don't suffer of fps enough low that I feel it hard during the game. I
dunno why, perhaps because Q3 test is more near the real gameplay or
perhaps because the few fps more, make the lowsest fps enough good for
me.
Anyway, for both games, this depends of the map, of the area, of the
number of bots, of the skill of bots, of the number of bots in view and
so on.
It's why I tweak a lot both games in order to "always" have good fps.
Then, why I need these "good" fps. First there's a direct link between
fps I have and how good I play. And the better I play, the more
interesting is the game with bots (the better they are so the cooler is
the fun).
For both games, I don't use the crosshair. It's because I found that
this make aiming more instinctive and much more fun. I also notice a
fast important improve in quick aiming when I drop crosshair so I stick
with that as many games played before without crosshair.
But I need good fps to feel confortable in this "instinctive" aiming.
Ok, I must admit that with these tweakings, the both games haven't the
great look they could have. For Q3 it's still ok for most maps, for UT
it's ok only for few maps.
DBD
Mitch Crane
Burkleo <rp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> In article <8b1e5c$rg5$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>, Mitch Crane
> <y...@yours.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <rpvb3-DEFC07....@news.uswest.net>, Bob Van
> >Burkleo <rp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >Gee what fps you accept? ;-) Well I have curently with the tests
> >> >demos,
> >> >46 fps for UT and 57 fps for Q3A. Well if you compare to fps that PC
> >> >users want to have, it's low.
> >>
> >> Well that explains it, I find any FPS greater than 20 just fine.
> >
> >Not comparing average to minimum, I hope. I mean, an average of 21 fps
> >is going to be damned horrible much of the time.
>
> No I mean minimum. I assumed his fps reading were minimum too - any
> number higher is just gravy. Who cares what the average is?
I pretty sure 46 and 57 on a fast Mac are averages.
I'm not sure minimum is more meaningful than average, but maybe so. You
might drop to 10 fps but only in rare circumstances. If the vast
majority of the time is spent above a certain minimum then that would
seem to be what matters. Average would probably show that better. UT
also has a root mean square stat which might be a better benchmark
(though I'm not a stats wiz, so I could be wrong).
But there's an old cliche about war which says something like, it's long
periods of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror. Well, if those
10 fps always seem to always come during those moments of sheer terror
then that's what matters.
Now if I can just figure out why I'm arguing with myself.
--
ybbxvatyvxrnobeantnvayvivatyvxrnurergvpyvfgravatgbneguheyrrerpbeqfznxv
atnyylbhesevraqfsrryfbthvyglnobhggurveplavpvfznaqgurerfgbsgurvetrareng
vbaabgriragurtbireazragnertbaanfgbclbhabjohgnerlbhernqlgborurnegoebxra
Michael Pollard
Bob Van Burkleo wrote:
>
> In article <38D442A4...@looser.com>, Michael Pollard
> <gay...@looser.com> wrote:
>
> >I hadn't even thought much about this before you started the thread, but
> >what would Halo multi-player have to have to qualify as a "persistent
> >world"?
>
> I'm pretty much a minimist - just what's been mentioned in the previous
> thread - that the game field reflect the qualities wrought by previous
> encounters at the same spot, e.g. if you take over a town, destroy a
> structure, reek havoc, that conquest/rubble/mayhem is present for others
> following.
I was told I could use the following quote on usenet if I cited the
speaker (DogStar/Corey Tamas) as a "persistent fag"
(http://fagz.macquakeinfinity.com/memberz.html):
'I was talking to Jason Jones (man behind Halo)
at MacWorld New York last summer about Halo. He
said that the world would not have degenerating
models, i.e. a dead body or an exploded vehicle.
He said (and I quote) "If you blow up a tank
and walk away, then come back 3 weeks later,
it'll still be there". So unless you plan to
stay connected to a server for 3 weeks, that
sounds pretty persistent to me.'
Maybe Jones was talking only about the single-player game?
> I mean I guess I thought that was the whole point of having the vast
> Halo playfield - if they are just a set of maps (like Myth) where
> everyone starts from the same point over and over again, what's the
> point of a huge playing field?
>
> Oh, and since I'm keeping count there have now been 3+ people who've
> mentioned they had the idea the multiplayer game play persisted in some
> quality or another. If this definitely isn't true, then there is some
> major misunderstandings out there.
Good points. Maybe the huge world is there basically for the
single-player game, but doesn't get fully exploited in multi-player? I
don't know, just guessing.
- Michael
Corey Tamás
<gay...@looser.com> wrote:
>I was told I could use the following quote on usenet if I cited the
>speaker (DogStar/Corey Tamas) as a "persistent fag"
I need to start telling Michael things anonymously.
DS
--
Keep your punkass co-workers catchin' the vapours
http://www.macgamer.com/
e l w e n
> <gay...@looser.com> wrote:
>
> >I was told I could use the following quote on usenet if I cited the
> >speaker (DogStar/Corey Tamas) as a "persistent fag"
>
> I need to start telling Michael things anonymously.
Hahahaha... good one :o)
Bob Van Burkleo
>Bob Van Burkleo wrote:
>>
>> In article <38D442A4...@looser.com>, Michael Pollard
>> <gay...@looser.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I hadn't even thought much about this before you started the thread, but
>> >what would Halo multi-player have to have to qualify as a "persistent
>> >world"?
>>
>> I'm pretty much a minimist - just what's been mentioned in the previous
>> thread - that the game field reflect the qualities wrought by previous
>> encounters at the same spot, e.g. if you take over a town, destroy a
>> structure, reek havoc, that conquest/rubble/mayhem is present for others
>> following.
>
>I was told I could use the following quote on usenet if I cited the
>speaker (DogStar/Corey Tamas) as a "persistent fag"
>(http://fagz.macquakeinfinity.com/memberz.html):
>
> 'I was talking to Jason Jones (man behind Halo)
> at MacWorld New York last summer about Halo. He
> said that the world would not have degenerating
> models, i.e. a dead body or an exploded vehicle.
> He said (and I quote) "If you blow up a tank
> and walk away, then come back 3 weeks later,
> it'll still be there". So unless you plan to
> stay connected to a server for 3 weeks, that
> sounds pretty persistent to me.'
>
>Maybe Jones was talking only about the single-player game?
At the VERY least, its comments like this that are confusing people if
it DOESN'T refer to the multiplayer game. I mean, why would you mention
a server if it DOESN'T refer to the multiplayer game? If it DOES, then
that's what I was talking about as a 'persistent' world.
>> I mean I guess I thought that was the whole point of having the vast
>> Halo playfield - if they are just a set of maps (like Myth) where
>> everyone starts from the same point over and over again, what's the
>> point of a huge playing field?
>>
>> Oh, and since I'm keeping count there have now been 3+ people who've
>> mentioned they had the idea the multiplayer game play persisted in some
>> quality or another. If this definitely isn't true, then there is some
>> major misunderstandings out there.
>
>Good points. Maybe the huge world is there basically for the
>single-player game, but doesn't get fully exploited in multi-player? I
>don't know, just guessing.
I think its becoming clear that there isn't a clear understanding of the
qualities of Halo multiplay characteristics.
Bob Van Burkleo
(Corey Tamás) wrote:
>In article <38D4EB70...@looser.com>, Michael Pollard
><gay...@looser.com> wrote:
>
>>I was told I could use the following quote on usenet if I cited the
>>speaker (DogStar/Corey Tamas) as a "persistent fag"
>
>I need to start telling Michael things anonymously.
Don't worry, being 'persistent' is a good quality no matter what people
say ;)
Bryan Holland-Minkley
wrote:
> In article <38D4EB70...@looser.com>, Michael Pollard
> <gay...@looser.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I was told I could use the following quote on usenet if I cited the
>> speaker (DogStar/Corey Tamas) as a "persistent fag"
>> (http://fagz.macquakeinfinity.com/memberz.html):
>>
>> 'I was talking to Jason Jones (man behind Halo)
>> at MacWorld New York last summer about Halo. He
>> said that the world would not have degenerating
>> models, i.e. a dead body or an exploded vehicle.
>> He said (and I quote) "If you blow up a tank
>> and walk away, then come back 3 weeks later,
>> it'll still be there". So unless you plan to
>> stay connected to a server for 3 weeks, that
>> sounds pretty persistent to me.'
>>
>> Maybe Jones was talking only about the single-player game?
>
> At the VERY least, its comments like this that are confusing people if
> it DOESN'T refer to the multiplayer game. I mean, why would you mention
> a server if it DOESN'T refer to the multiplayer game? If it DOES, then
> that's what I was talking about as a 'persistent' world.
I would _guess_ that Jason Jones was talking about the solo game, and that
the interviewer inserted the comment about the server, as it doesn't appear
in quotes. It's also a little jumbled. I mean, from what Jason said, it
could be the case that the _only_ way to have the world be persistant is to
stay connected to the server for 3 weeks, so I'm not sure how the "unless
you plan to stay connected..." fits in. So unless there is missing quoted
material, I don't think this counts as real information that the net game
is persistant beyond an instantiation of a match.
> I think its becoming clear that there isn't a clear understanding of the
> qualities of Halo multiplay characteristics.
I'd say you're right. No one knows how net games are going to be played.
Whether they'll take place on a portion of the Halo like a netmap, or the
whole thing. B.net will exist for Halo. We don't even know that the netgame
won't be persistant, there's just been no indication that it will be.
However, given Bungie's problems with keeping anything they host stable and
lag free, and how persistant multiplayer is generally a core concept of the
game, advertised from the beginning, I don't think it's likely net games
will be persistant.
As for the solo game. In a sense, all solo games are persistant. When we
come back to a saved game, everything we've done has still been done. The
only persistance we've been told to expect is one related to physical
changes to the world. But this was true in Myth, and while it was cool, it
was a minor effect. Having a bloody battlefield remain that way was great,
but it didn't ultimately effect gameplay, only atmosphere.
As for bases being taken over, we have no indication that Bungie is going
to allow such a high level event as Human control of a Covenant base, or
whether structures can be destroyed.
- Bryan Holland-Minkley
b...@andrew.cmu.edu
George
Marathon-type mood in UT, while Q3 seems to be just a high-tech rehash of
Doom with all the adolescent Satanic crap that gets tiring fast. Also, the
bots in UT for solo player seem to be more reasonable than their Q3
counterparts. For my part, I stopped playing Q3 at all.
A rewrite of Marathon (or Marathon II) with the UT engine would be a nice
addition to the FPS world. I wonder if it would make any $$?
ColdForged wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> This is no troll or platform war type of post. I just find it
> interesting. It really seems that most of you guys in here prefer UT to
> Q3. Case in point is the [osX] "clan", which seems to be primarily UT
> oriented. Is this a conscious decision, or just preference? It's
> _almost_ like you've taken Unreal under your wing like the Marathon of
> old 8-).
>
> Personally I bought a PC (*boo* *hiss*) in January after 15 years of
> solid Macs (still have my PBG3 and use it for work! Don't kick me out
> yet!) _solely_ for games (a lot cheaper than a G4... and the primary
> game I wanted to play was UT. But I allowed myself to play the Q3A
> demo, enjoyed it, and bought Q3 and haven't really played UT since.
> Like a lot of others have expressed, I just really get into it more
> than UT (mostly CTF and Team Deathmatch).
>
> Enjoy,
> - ColdForged -
e l w e n
> A rewrite of Marathon (or Marathon II) with the UT engine would be a nice
> addition to the FPS world. I wonder if it would make any $$?
Now there's an idea! Too bad there are no Mac-friendly utilities to do
something about it :o(
Bob Van Burkleo
<b...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
Yes, from reading the various things you can figure out that probably is
going to be true, but now that we've been reviewing, I can see where the
misconceptions come in too.
> As for the solo game. In a sense, all solo games are persistant. When we
>come back to a saved game, everything we've done has still been done. The
>only persistance we've been told to expect is one related to physical
>changes to the world. But this was true in Myth, and while it was cool, it
>was a minor effect. Having a bloody battlefield remain that way was great,
>but it didn't ultimately effect gameplay, only atmosphere.
Unless there are benefits to 'altered' terrain. It means you could
blow a hole through a wall in one part of the game and come back later
and know its still going to be there. Possibly you can cache
weapons/ammo/vehicles in some earlier game phase and go raid your stash
later when you might need the resources more. Having a persistent and
openly accessible could change play.
On the other hand it could make play balance a real chore - if you
design the levels so that they depend on frugal caching from earlier
levels a newbie Aesopian 'grasshopper' player will be hurting badly in
later levels of the game with no alternative than to go back and do it
right. If its designed so that caching isn't necessary, the 'ant'
player that does is going to have overwhelming resources by the end of
the game after he zips around in his stolen alien flier to pick them all
up. And if it is designed in some way that makes caching immaterial,
then we are back to the idea that the persistence will just be an
environmental nicety ranther than actually changing gameplay.
>
> As for bases being taken over, we have no indication that Bungie is going
>to allow such a high level event as Human control of a Covenant base, or
>whether structures can be destroyed.
Hmmmm, it seems speculating about what Halo is and isn't going to be may
almost be as much fun as playing it itself ;)
Corey Tamás
<rp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> I would _guess_ that Jason Jones was talking about the solo game,
and that
>>the interviewer inserted the comment about the server, as it doesn't appear
>>in quotes. It's also a little jumbled. I mean, from what Jason said, it
>>could be the case that the _only_ way to have the world be persistant is to
>>stay connected to the server for 3 weeks, so I'm not sure how the "unless
>>you plan to stay connected..." fits in. So unless there is missing quoted
>>material, I don't think this counts as real information that the net game
>>is persistant beyond an instantiation of a match.
I'm just going to step in here and say that, a) it was me who spoke to
Jason Jones and b) the jist of what I heard from Jason was that it is a
persistent world.
It's not an official statement, it's not authoritative, it's not meant to
settle any arguments... so let's put the microscopes away and just take it
for what it is; a recollection of a chat I had... not a "tie breaker".
C
Michael Pollard
e l w e n wrote:
>
> georg...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > A rewrite of Marathon (or Marathon II) with the UT engine would be a nice
> > addition to the FPS world. I wonder if it would make any $$?
>
> Now there's an idea! Too bad there are no Mac-friendly utilities to do
> something about it :o(
I know a number of Marathon fans who have both PCs and Macs and who
could probably create Marathon models for UT and Q3A if they really
wanted to. I think it'd be a neat idea, actually.
- Michael
George Rutherford
<gay...@looser.com> wrote:
> Mitch Crane wrote:
> >
Stuff snipped
> > Someome in the thread seemed genuinely offended at Bob's
> > disappointment, but in hindsight I think that may have been
> > a different Michael (one who is known to not tolerate
> > nonbelievers).
>
> Bingo. :)
>
No problem with Bob. He's disappointed because he had false expectations
and he admits as much. Totally understandable. I expect that Bungie
_could_ make it persistant in the sense he means, but that would make it
cost like EverQuest (which sounds cool to me, but, whatever). A friend of
mine (PC, of course, not available on Mac) told me that it's ~$20/month.
How many hundreds of servers is Everquest running? (Rhetorical question).
George
Thomas Riisbjerg
> I know a number of Marathon fans who have both PCs and Macs and who
> could probably create Marathon models for UT and Q3A if they really
> wanted to. I think it'd be a neat idea, actually.
Would any of those fans happen to be any good at using 3DSMAX? That's
just about the only way to get a mesh into Q3 and/or UT as far as I
know. But there's a good chance I'm wrong. :)
Actually, there are a few projects underway to bring Marathon to newer
engines.
Marathon Arena:
http://www.quakeheads.com/~fragstomp/
Frogblast: The Vencore Project:
http://frogblast.unrealengine.com/
Rampancy:
http://www.bovinia.net/marathon/
Still haven't seen one for the Wolfenstein engine yet... ;)
Cheers
Thomas
--
Thomas Riisbjerg
thomas,riisbjerg*image,dk
Paul McGrane
Bungie could pull in the interim, I think this interview from a while
ago with Bungie's Nathan Bitner addresses the question of a persistent
multiplayer world. Note especially the last paragraph.
<http://www.daboyz.org/core/cgi-bin/database/database.pl?display=0012>
================================================================
HN - The press release for Halo uses terms like łreal-world physics˛ and
łpersistent objects,˛ as well as focusing on the fact that Halo will not
have discrete łlevels˛ as such. That description conjures up images
closer to existing RPGs than action games, and Jason Jones alluded to
such in his interview at Macworld. How will this be borne out in HALO
multiplayer? What is HALOąs player limit expected to be?
NB - We have no idea what the player limit will turn out to be. The
chief determinant will not be what is technically possible, but rather
what is most fun.
When we refer to łpersistent objects˛, one thing we are referrring to is
the debris of battle remaining as active parts of the game world instead
of fading away - similar to the Myth world. If bodies or debris are
disappearing, then there should be a plausible explanation. Nobody likes
to watch a carcass just sink into the ground inexplicably. Well, okay,
not all that many people like watching carcasses period. But you get my
point.This applies to both the single-player and multiplayer gaming
experience.
However, other objects in the world are łpersistent˛ - take for example
an enemy (Covenant) base. Say that you destroy a command and control
center that disrupts communications across the Halo. You may see the
effects of such an attack at a later point in the game. You will return
to the base to Ţnd it still destroyed, not just magically repaired -
unless of course there is a good reason. The world itself will be
persistent. Dead things stay dead. There arenąt inŢnite łbad guys˛. And
when permanent objects in the world change, it will be for a reason.
However, the word łpersistent˛ should not be interpreted as describing
the entire multiplayer world (e.g. all games on the ring at the same
time) - it remains to be seen how that will work and what, if any,
metagame will be implemented on top of the multiplayer experience.
================================================================
--
...Paul McGrane
Bob Van Burkleo
McGrane <pmcg...@wooster.edu.NOSPAM.INVALID> wrote:
>Admittedly Halo is a ways off from release and who knows what tricks
>Bungie could pull in the interim, I think this interview from a while
>ago with Bungie's Nathan Bitner addresses the question of a persistent
>multiplayer world. Note especially the last paragraph.
>
><http://www.daboyz.org/core/cgi-bin/database/database.pl?display=0012>
>However, the word łpersistent˛ should not be interpreted as describing
>the entire multiplayer world (e.g. all games on the ring at the same
>time) - it remains to be seen how that will work and what, if any,
>metagame will be implemented on top of the multiplayer experience.
Thanks Paul, that helps a lot in clarifying the situation. Seems that
even the developers aren't clear on what will be in the multiplayer
game.
I was thinking about it and realized that changes and even persistence
is going to have to be something quick and simple to transmit - you
don't want do the 'Myth' thing of replaying the game to get to an
altered state. But if there is a meta-game, it would be interesting if
there were just some sort of quick 'alteration' layer that was
downloaded to make each net game not quite the same as last time, maybe
even reflecting an over all 'whose currently winning' status in the Halo
metauniverse?
Examples, in the base 'virgin' map there are a certain number of
vehicles and a really cool sniping vantage point, but in the time you
are playing the enemy already has control of some of those vehicles and
the sniping vantage has been reduced to rubble. Just subtle changes
like this that would make it so each net game didn't start from exactly
the same beginning. By not knowing where every bit of ammo is and not
knowing the exactly best place to attack from is, it would go a long way
to keeping the game fresh and add an enhanced level of realism that
could easily be turned off for 'newbies' by just hosting a game that
doesn't use the alteration layer.
Lets hope they can do something to make it not 'exactly the same' game
(if you want it) each time you play an online multiplayer game - I'd be
very happy with just that and think it would really add to the
experience.
Michael Pollard
Thx for posting that. While it doesn't answer the question definitively
(because Bungie itself hadn't resolved all the questions at the time of
the interview), it does at least show us the general direction the Halo
team is taking.
- Michael
Paul McGrane wrote:
>
> Admittedly Halo is a ways off from release and who knows what tricks
> Bungie could pull in the interim, I think this interview from a while
> ago with Bungie's Nathan Bitner addresses the question of a persistent
> multiplayer world. Note especially the last paragraph.
>
> <http://www.daboyz.org/core/cgi-bin/database/database.pl?display=0012>
> However, the word łpersistent˛ should not be interpreted as describing
> the entire multiplayer world (e.g. all games on the ring at the same
> time) - it remains to be seen how that will work and what, if any,
> metagame will be implemented on top of the multiplayer experience.
> ================================================================
>
> --
>
> ...Paul McGrane
Doug Wilson
> Heck, just the solo game alone will be worth twice the price of
> admission if Bungie history is repeated. I am still looking forward to
> the time when a truly persistent multiplayer VR experience is available
> - I thought that time was here with Halo is all.
There's a series of books by an Author named Jeff Gerke or Jefferson
Scott (I can never remember which is his pen name and which is his real
name) that has a video game in it that is much like what you are talking
about. In fact when I first heard of Halo it reminded me of this game in
the book.
So I guess the question I have is "will the Halo universe be
persistant?". In other words if I kill 20 bad guys in a network game and
level a mountian then log out will the bad guys still be dead and the
mountain just be rubble if I log into the same game tomorrow?
--
Eternity - Smoking or Non-Smoking?
Beemer Dan
Well, that covers my weekend!
--
----Beemer Dan
http://itchy.itsamac.com--The Underground Terrorist Motorcycle Cult
The preceding statement may contain language and images unsuitable
for unsweetened breakfast cereal and all farm equipment
Young H Lee
around 12.. Have I done something wrong? Seems like the imac qualifies
as a "fast mac," and should have decent fp, despite "only" have 8 megs of
vram.. (and yes everything is set at low, etc)
-young
: I pretty sure 46 and 57 on a fast Mac are averages.
: I'm not sure minimum is more meaningful than average, but maybe so. You
: might drop to 10 fps but only in rare circumstances. If the vast
: majority of the time is spent above a certain minimum then that would
: seem to be what matters. Average would probably show that better. UT
: also has a root mean square stat which might be a better benchmark
: (though I'm not a stats wiz, so I could be wrong).
: But there's an old cliche about war which says something like, it's long
: periods of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror. Well, if those
: 10 fps always seem to always come during those moments of sheer terror
: then that's what matters.
: Now if I can just figure out why I'm arguing with myself.
: --
: ybbxvatyvxrnobeantnvayvivatyvxrnurergvpyvfgravatgbneguheyrrerpbeqfznxv
: atnyylbhesevraqfsrryfbthvyglnobhggurveplavpvfznaqgurerfgbsgurvetrareng
: vbaabgriragurtbireazragnertbaanfgbclbhabjohgnerlbhernqlgborurnegoebxra
--
-----
Young H. Lee
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."
Mitch Crane
(Young H Lee) wrote:
> I have an imac dv with 192 megs of ram..and i avg around 19 and min at
> around 12.. Have I done something wrong? Seems like the imac qualifies
> as a "fast mac," and should have decent fp, despite "only" have 8 megs of
> vram.. (and yes everything is set at low, etc)
>
> -young
Even the fastest iMacs have relatively slow 3D. *If* you could put a
Voodoo3 in there then you'd do a lot better, but you're stuck the the
on-board ATI.
> : I pretty sure 46 and 57 on a fast Mac are averages.
>
> : I'm not sure minimum is more meaningful than average, but maybe so. You
> : might drop to 10 fps but only in rare circumstances. If the vast
> : majority of the time is spent above a certain minimum then that would
> : seem to be what matters. Average would probably show that better. UT
> : also has a root mean square stat which might be a better benchmark
> : (though I'm not a stats wiz, so I could be wrong).
>
> : But there's an old cliche about war which says something like, it's
> : long
> : periods of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror. Well, if
> : those
> : 10 fps always seem to always come during those moments of sheer terror
> : then that's what matters.
>
> : Now if I can just figure out why I'm arguing with myself.
>
> : --
> : ybbxvatyvxrnobeantnvayvivatyvxrnurergvpyvfgravatgbneguheyrrerpbeqfznxv
> : atnyylbhesevraqfsrryfbthvyglnobhggurveplavpvfznaqgurerfgbsgurvetrareng
> : vbaabgriragurtbireazragnertbaanfgbclbhabjohgnerlbhernqlgborurnegoebxra
>
> --
> -----
> Young H. Lee
>
> "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the
> pig."
>
--
ybbxvatyvxrnobeantnvayvivatyvxrnurergvpyvfgravatgbneguheyrrerpbeqfznxv
atnyylbhesevraqfsrryfbthvyglnobhggurveplavpvfznaqgurerfgbsgurvetrareng
vbaabgriragurtbireazragnertbaanfgbclbhabjohgnerlbhernqlgborurnegoebxra
Bruno Blondeau
> I have an imac dv with 192 megs of ram..and i avg around 19 and min at
> around 12.. Have I done something wrong? Seems like the imac qualifies
> as a "fast mac," and should have decent fp, despite "only" have 8 megs of
> vram.. (and yes everything is set at low, etc)
I am getting much better results on my pismo...
PowerBook400 - 192 Mb of ram - RageMobility128 & 8 Mb of VRAM
Q3A TEST on a tweaked setting I have been given (and no, everyting isn't
set at low :-)
demo001
640x480x16 bit = 50.1 fps
640x480x32 bit = 35.7 fps
(I have heard results would be a bit lower with the real demo...)
UT DEMO
Everything set to medium, in 640x480x32 bit, I am getting avg at 30+,
and min at 15... but very rarely fall under 20.
--
Bruno Blondeau / Découvrez iOrganize :
/ http://www.brunoblondeau.com/iorganize.htm
You don't have to swim faster than the shark...
...just faster than the guy next to you.
Young H Lee
kicked the crap out of my imac though.
-young
: I am getting much better results on my pismo...
: PowerBook400 - 192 Mb of ram - RageMobility128 & 8 Mb of VRAM
: Q3A TEST on a tweaked setting I have been given (and no, everyting isn't
: set at low :-)
: demo001
: 640x480x16 bit = 50.1 fps
: 640x480x32 bit = 35.7 fps
: (I have heard results would be a bit lower with the real demo...)
: UT DEMO
: Everything set to medium, in 640x480x32 bit, I am getting avg at 30+,
: and min at 15... but very rarely fall under 20.
: --
: Bruno Blondeau / Découvrez iOrganize :
: / http://www.brunoblondeau.com/iorganize.htm
: You don't have to swim faster than the shark...
: ...just faster than the guy next to you.
--
poote...@my-deja.com
versions
> kicked the crap out of my imac though.
>
Q3atest doesn't run at all on my iMac/RevA with the Voodoo2 game
wizard. I've tried and tried with whatever mesaglide libraries. Now,
Quake2 doesn't run anymore, which sucks, because I wanted get into the
machinima thing.
Since I got UT, I have really not played anything else.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
brim...@my-deja.com
All you need are the 3dfx voodoo2 drivers. I was able to get my
brother's iMac RevA with a Gamewizard to play Quake3 without a hitch.
No need to use Mesa anymore as far as I can tell.
Ash
Adam Felber
It seems to me that UT is getting the nod of approval over Q3 from most of
the gaming community, PC and Mac. In general it's gotten
better reviews, won more awards, comes out on top of the polls, etc. In
fact, if the Quake name were on the UT package and vice
versa, I don't think anybody would think it was any contest whatsoever.
But the name is on the package, and the incomplete game that iD shipped is
busily being finished up by the community. So it'll be okay.
The huge community around Q3A was busy offering support for the game long
before it came out, and they weren't about to abandon it
when it turned out to be mildly disappointing out of the box.
Sure, mac users are "artistically sensitive" (and UT is just so much
prettier than Q3A in terms of colors and art design), and they
tend to favor the underdog. But in this case I think I think it's
well-founded - UT is an exceptional game and a great finished product.
For me, it was just a preference. I played 'em both and vastly preferred
UT. I understand the technical advantages (and disadvantages) that
each game has, but I don't obsess about framerates and curved surfaces; UT
is just much more fun as far as I'm concerned. In fact, I'm gonna sign off
and hit the servers right now....
adam
Gerard Ryan
gaming, since the introduction of wolfenstien and doom, has grown in
popularity by and large due to the mod scene and the editing tools offered
by the id software, or "hacked" by resourceful users. qIII was built with
that in mind. that is the beauty that is q3. it's engine, in it's "purity,"
provides an awesome platform for anyone with a developer's itch to jump in
and create their own derivitive, or create an entrely New Game. as well as
the advantages of well documented tools available, there's a wealth of
experience and comraderie in the quake editing scene. your perspective
regarding the "completeness" of any given game is based on your inability to
percieve the power of an "open source" initiative. this is why the quake
community is so strong. people were given the tools to create the game they
wanted-- not just play the game they purchased. UT develeopers are still
trying to arouse and capture the sense of community, innovation, and freedom
that has evolved in the quake community. it seems like it's working too-- as
many of the heavyweight quake mods are finding a place in the world of UT
modifications... this is ultimately what determines a game's longevity...
and besides, what game would you rather play: reindhardt's or wright's
rocket arena? see what i mean?
Adam Felber <ada...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:38ED8625...@earthlink.net...
Adam Felber
no, I don't have an "inability" to see it. :)
What I disagree with is the implication here that Quake3: Anengine's out-of-box
lameness is somehow its virtue or a calculated move on iD's part. A game's
completeness is very important to developers, as they are aware that a sizable
percentage of their audience will never download a mod, a map, or cruise a
single fan
site. F'rinstance, about half of my FPS-lovin' friends buy the games, play
through the prepackaged
levels, and consider themselves "done."
Now, we hardcore fans may not LIKE this approach (they're not getting
the WHOLE
experience, dammit!), but it is common, and developers know it. A good
out-of-box experience
is also vital for picking up the allegiance of today's newbies, who are
tomorrow's
devoted fraggers if the game thrills them.
Naw, the "purity" of the Q3 enginge would have been no less pure had iD
hired a
few more
folks to design levels and game variations and packed in some more punch
to the
initial release. I think they just goofed, or rushed, or something. UT is
certainly no LESS
friendly to user modification (the editing tools packed into the PC
version are
reputably wonderful -
not that we Mac users would know....). It's just got a lot more going
for it
right outa the
gate. Epic played hungry - they knew they needed to hit one outa the
park, and
they did.
iD knew it didn't have to so they didn't.
adam
Pascal Robert
wrote:
> It seems to me that UT is getting the nod of approval over Q3 from most of
> the gaming community, PC and Mac. In general it's gotten
> better reviews, won more awards, comes out on top of the polls, etc. In
> fact, if the Quake name were on the UT package and vice
> versa, I don't think anybody would think it was any contest whatsoever.
>
> But the name is on the package, and the incomplete game that iD shipped is
> busily being finished up by the community. So it'll be okay.
> The huge community around Q3A was busy offering support for the game long
> before it came out, and they weren't about to abandon it
> when it turned out to be mildly disappointing out of the box.
I second that. And I think also it's that because UT run in software
and Glide mode, Q3A is OpenGL only and only run on G3.
Bladetooth
Bladetooth
menace
> Sure, mac users are "artistically sensitive" (and UT is just so much
> prettier than Q3A in terms of colors and art design)
????????
Lemme guess, you're yet another of the hordes of "experts" on this
particular subject who have only seen the Q3 demo...
Corey Tamás
no...@noaddress.com (menace) wrote:
>In article <38ED8625...@earthlink.net>, ada...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>
>> Sure, mac users are "artistically sensitive" (and UT is just so much
>> prettier than Q3A in terms of colors and art design)
That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.
Corey Tamás
>In article <38ED8625...@earthlink.net>, ada...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>
>> Sure, mac users are "artistically sensitive" (and UT is just so much
>> prettier than Q3A in terms of colors and art design)
I actually have to repeat myself here: That's ridiculous.
I don't want to hurt UT business or make anyone feel like they've got bad
taste for playing it, but the *main* reason I don't play UT is because I
don't like the artwork, and I liked Unreal's even less. I can honestly say
I *hate* the way the players look in Unreal.
Again, not to say that UT sucks or that anyone who likes it has bad taste,
but I just want to demonstrate how incredibly subjective a comment like
the one that "adameft" made is.
But hey... if UT is the sort of thing you'd take a screenshot of and hang
on your living room wall, that's fantastic. Long life and happiness to
those who dig it! I'm just not one of them.
Ludwig
(Corey Tamás) wrote:
De Gustibus non disputandum est.
Ludwig
"El_Mariachi"