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 >