UT3 a bit of a dissapointment

[Deleted member 56031]

Actually is there any reason as to why UT III sold so low?

It only sold just over 30000 (including ps3 as well).

UT is a popular franchise, why does suddenly no one care?

 

[Narvi]

So, are the gameplay and physics different enough for me to get it, or should I just install UT2004 and buy this when the good mods come out?

 

[fury]

UT3 is worth a shot, IMO. There are the new exotic vehicles, like the Darkwalker that makes you feel like God when you're sitting in it, and that one ball thing with the tentacles that retract so you can roll real fast through a long map.

The physics of some of the vehicles are a bit clunky and hard as opposed to the largely smooth running vehicles in 2004. (but it does fit in well with some of the behemoths like the aforementioned Darkwalker)

Warfare is as many said already, a downsized version of Onslaught, but personally, I like it that way. The massive number of nodes to control in a typical 2004 Onslaught, how long it took to build a node, and how easy it was to destroy one that was being made all made it difficult to get any scoring done, whereas in UT3 Warfare, it's very much to the point. I almost never have a match that goes into overtime, where with Onslaught, I rarely ever had a match end within the time limit.

One thing that kind of bothers me, and I miss a bit from the Assault mode, is that the new Warfare maps are largely symmetrical - blue power core is at one end of the map, there's some nodes near it, a few nodes in the center/fanning out from the center, and then the red power core at the other end with a very similar arrangement. If this game type is supposed to bring all of the best from Onslaught and Assault together, then it needs to have some non-conventionally-arranged team style formats like Assault had. There was this one map that had one team coming up from a beach aiming to infiltrate an underground facility and destroy it. Perhaps they could make some Warfare maps that only involve one team having the power core, and simply defending it for the score points? I dunno, not as if they'd take suggestions from someone who's neither a casual nor professional gamer anyway.

The graphics are a double edged sword. On one end, you've got undeniably the best-looking fast-paced killer game in history. For the record, I don't count any of these new games that are coming out with realistic (slow) movement, conventional weapons, etc...if I wanted to play real life warfare, I'd join the real life military; give me ludicrous kills, respawning, shock combos, double jumping & god mode any day! Anyways... On the other end, the intricately detailed worlds can be a distraction to the gameplay. Most of that can be taken care of by turning the details down, but there's still a lot of unnecessary geometry often getting in the way of a good, open frag fest like I'm used to with 2004 and Quake 3-4. I presume that will be taken care of by custom maps.

Single player is a bit disappointing, but when is it ever not? well, truth be told, I enjoyed (and still do) 2004's single player mode where you had an actual win/lose scheme. The idea of betting credits on a challenge and then losing had me as emotionally riled as I'd ever get in a multiplayer game. In UT3, they dump all that for having a storyline intertwined in with a typical mix of bot matches, and if you lose, you simply start the match over again. Hell, in the middle of the campaign, you can even resume it with a lower AI difficulty if you can't cut it on a certain map. They kind of went one step forward (with trying the storyline bit) and 2 steps back (removing all possibility of a "game over; start from the beginning, loser!" scenario). I realize multiplayer is the focus of this series, but if they're going to include a single player mode, they should at least give a decent try at improving it over what they had in 2004.

My ultimate dream is for one day somebody makes a game that has a single player storyline/gameplay that actually rocks, along with a multiplayer mode much like the one the UT series has perfected. It'd be like getting two games in one. UT3's single player gets an honorable mention for the CG cutscenes playing out a story, but as far as the actual game part of it that you get to play, it's nothing more than a laundry list of Instant Action configurations.

UT3 is also missing my favorite modes, Invasion and Domination/Double Domination, and lacks one thing I figured would have been a no-brainer, Vehicle Deathmatch. Think Destruction Derby with guns.

edit: oh yeah, and why the hell can't I figure out how to get the "holy SHIT!" announcements?

I've edited all over the INI files to make sure AllowMatureLanguage is true, and I set up a bot match with instagib rifles just to make sure I can get enough kills that would qualify. It just stops at Monster Kill, keeps repeating that over and over (I got like 40 kills in a row)

 

[Lucid]

Actually is there any reason as to why UT III sold so low?

It only sold just over 30000 (including ps3 as well).

UT is a popular franchise, why does suddenly no one care?

The beta demo probably left a bad taste in all of the UT2004er's mouths.

It did with me, something about the game just doesn't click with me.

 

[Sam]

But UT3 LOOKS the shit!
And that goes a long way when it comes to showing impressionable people how good your cheap gaming rig is!

Like your rig is cheap.

 

[Operational]

Actually is there any reason as to why UT III sold so low?

It only sold just over 30000 (including ps3 as well).

UT is a popular franchise, why does suddenly no one care?

People have already seen what the engine can do in BioShock... too cynical?

 

[fury]

Speaking of the engine, I want to know why, with my Geforce 7800 GT OC @ 485/1175, UT3 runs so well with full detail at 640x480 and so shitty with minimum detail at 1600x1200. I thought fill rate wasn't supposed to matter in this day and age. I can do every other game just fine at 1600x1200 and full detail, even Quake 4. UT3, I am lucky to get >30 FPS

 

[Operational]

What is your CPU?

 

[DEATHMASTER]

gpu memory probably has an effect too, especially at resolution like 1600x1200.

 

[fury]

Athlon 64 x2 3800+ @ 2.5ghz (FSB at 250mhz, HT at 1x)
2gb of OCZ PC3200 LL @ 456mhz CL2.5

GPU has 256mb...I had figured the only thing taxing the GPU memory would be the textures, since frame buffers only take up a handful of MB, and the thing runs perfect on 640x480. I'm talking like 100 FPS, full detail, all the goodies turned on, full AF (and of course AA doesn't work anyway). Is it loading that many textures even at minimum detail that a bump in resolution from 640x480 to 1600x1200 is causing it to have to constantly fetch textures out of my regular old DDR SDRAM?

 

[VirusType2]

Speaking of the engine, I want to know why, with my Geforce 7800 GT OC @ 485/1175, UT3 runs so well with full detail at 640x480 and so shitty with minimum detail at 1600x1200. I thought fill rate wasn't supposed to matter in this day and age. I can do every other game just fine at 1600x1200 and full detail, even Quake 4. UT3, I am lucky to get >30 FPS

Higher resolutions really tax weaker cards, some tech site said.

I can't see why you need to run it in that high of a resolution. FULL HD (1280x768?) should look fantastic. Then you can probably keep the details up too ay?


I always have to settle for 800x600 for games like Gears of War, there is no way I can play the game in full HD. I've tried.

800x600 looks pretty good. I can't play games at 640x480. That is quite horrible. When I bought doom3, I had to play it at 640x480 with my old PCI graphics card. Anything higher was a slide-show.

 

[Krynn72]

If it weren't for Azureus, I'd be fifty bucks poorer with nothing to show for it.

I didnt even bother going that far. I got the demo, and decided I'd never get it.

 

[2real]

your missing out then.

 

[99.vikram]

your missing out then.

...on a subpar multiplayer experience?

 

[Narcolepsy]

Once again, I can't even begin to understand why everyone seems to hate this game so much when every time I fire it up, I have an absolute blast.

It's just like the people who call Bioshock mediocre. Just some real wtf-ery.

 

[repiV]

Once again, I can't even begin to understand why everyone seems to hate this game so much when every time I fire it up, I have an absolute blast.

It's just like the people who call Bioshock mediocre. Just some real wtf-ery.

Because it lacks that magical combination that just makes the whole experience "work". It doesn't feel right. It's like the game has no soul.
It doesn't help that the maps suck and the shock rifle makes all the other weapons virtually redunant by being so ridiculously overpowered, whilst also being extremely annoying.

 

[Narcolepsy]

Because it lacks that magical combination that just makes the whole experience "work". It doesn't feel right. It's like the game has no soul.
It doesn't help that the maps suck and the shock rifle makes all the other weapons virtually redunant by being so ridiculously overpowered, whilst also being extremely annoying.

That's the thing though, it feels great to me. The core shooting action is probably the most satisfying I've experienced in any game. The maps are beautiful, the weapons are fun and powerful, and the necris vehicles are just amazing.

Most of all though, what I like about this game is the drama and spectacle of it all. Grabbing the orb, flipping out your hoverboard and grappling onto a raptor as it dives into the enemy prime node is just badass. There's the oh-s*** moments when you see a dark walker on the horizon and pray it doesn't see you. There are cinematic moments happening completely spontaneously that rival some singleplayer games.

And notice, people, that pretty much nothing in this last paragraph was in the demo. Everything that makes the game worth buying over 2k4 wasn't in the demo. It's such a shame that people are basing their opinion of the game off of it.

EDIT: I will note, though, that I've played it on a 6800 Ultra and a 8600 GTX. The latter felt almost like a different game - I can cast away the blurry textures and ugly post processing for crisp awesomeness - and the smooth framerate makes the game come alive.

 

[repiV]

That's the thing though, it feels great to me. The core shooting action is probably the most satisfying I've experienced in any game. The maps are beautiful, the weapons are fun and powerful, and the necris vehicles are just amazing.

Most of all though, what I like about this game is the drama and spectacle of it all. Grabbing the orb, flipping out your hoverboard and grappling onto a raptor as it dives into the enemy prime node is just badass. There's the oh-s*** moments when you see a dark walker on the horizon and pray it doesn't see you. There are cinematic moments happening completely spontaneously that rival some singleplayer games.

And notice, people, that pretty much nothing in this last paragraph was in the demo. Everything that makes the game worth buying over 2k4 wasn't in the demo. It's such a shame that people are basing their opinion of the game off of it.

Well, you're free to like it. I'm just telling you why a great many people think it sucks.
You obviously don't play it on a competitive level (nothing wrong with that), and if you did, you would realise that the game is fundamentally broken. It's just a shock-whoring circlejerk of high radius explosions, and not a single damn one of the maps is even memorable, let alone inspirational. I've never been a UT fan, but hand on heart I can say that one thing UT always did have going for it was its brilliant and beautiful maps. UT3 has none. I mean, one of the DM maps even has a WMD-wielding robot on it - WTF is that about?
Getting around is tediously slow thanks to the lack of dodge-jumping, which is also a factor in making the shock combo as overpowered as it is because it's much more difficult to avoid.

Rarely could anyone tell you why Quake III is such a great game, it just feels perfect. Quake 4 is practically the same game as Quake III, but it differs in a number of subtle ways and is nowhere near as good as a result. UT3 got the mixture wrong.

EDIT: I will note, though, that I've played it on a 6800 Ultra and a 8600 GTX. The latter felt almost like a different game - I can cast away the blurry textures and ugly post processing for crisp awesomeness - and the smooth framerate makes the game come alive.

Graphics are the least important consideration in an online game. My Quake 3 used to look something like this, it's less distracting.

 

[Narcolepsy]

So we're basically looking at the game from completely different angles. Fair enough.

 

[Remus]

OK I understand. At least in your case Repiv it's clear why you don't like it. You want a pure "competitive" online shooter, fine. I for one am looking for a action packed game that looks good and you can have tons of fun with it, plus this is the first game I've been able to actually start making my own maps for
http://forums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=593848

Also regarding the art direction and colors used, I just have to say this: UT3> UT2003,UT2004. In UT2003 and UT2004 there was TOO MUCH COLOR, to the point that it looked like a circus, and on top of that they got the sizes wrong, the players were too small compared to the environment.

And the weapons overpowered? Actually now they are the way they should be in my opinion. In the previos versions they were underpowered...

Edit:

I mean, one of the DM maps even has a WMD-wielding robot on it - WTF is that about?

Haha, that's actually my favorite map in the game.

 

[repiV]

OK I understand. At least in your case Repiv it's clear why you don't like it. You want a pure "competitive" online shooter, fine. I for one am looking for a action packed game that looks good and you can have tons of fun with it, plus this is the first game I've been able to actually start making my own maps for
http://forums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=593848

Well, Quake 3 and other games in the genre also fulfil the criteria of being action packed, looking good and being tons of fun - these things don't have to be sacrificed for competitive quality.

Also regarding the art direction and colors used, I just have to say this: UT3> UT2003,UT2004. In UT2003 and UT2004 there was TOO MUCH COLOR, to the point that it looked like a circus, and on top of that they got the sizes wrong, the players were too small compared to the environment.

My main issue with UT2004 was that the player models are far too narrow, yes.

And the weapons overpowered? Actually now they are the way they should be in my opinion. In the previos versions they were underpowered...

I didn't say all the weapons are overpowered, I said the shock rifle is. The shock whoring only gets worse the higher up the skill ladder you go, and there's nothing fun or interesting about a game that consists of nothing but combo whoring.
Weapon balance in the UT series has always sucked bigtime - except for UT2004. It had a pretty balanced set of tools. UT2004 marked the point at which UT became an excellent competitive FPS, and UT3 has taken a stap backwards into the amateur. I also think the lightning gun was much more appropriate than the sniper rifle.

 

[repiV]

I completely disagree. The Assault Rifle in UT2003 and 2004 is utter garbage, and the Shield Gun lacks the power of the Impact Hammer. The BioRifle is also fairly useless, though not nearly as much so as in the first game. The Flak Cannon is hideously overpowered in both 2003 and 2004, making it a one-hit kill weapon at both melee and range. Unreal Tournament 3 is the first in the series where all the weapons feel equally powerful, from the Enforcer to the Rocket Launcher - I've never died once because I had the wrong gun out, and each is just as effective as the last in the right situation.

The starting weapon is supposed to be utter garbage - otherwise, the game becomes a spamfest of newly spawning players blasting the shit out of each other and takes the emphasis away from tactics, map control and staying alive. A powerful starting weapon can completely destroy the game. The Enforcers in the original UT were terrible for this.
The shield gun is actually the most serious issue with the UT2004 weapons - it turns duels into 10 minute standoffs, and TDMs into obscenely defensive matches. Get a kill and then spend the rest of the game running around with shields up - great.
The power of the game's melee weapon (shield capabilities aside) is so totally irrelevant to the gameplay I'm not sure why you're even mentioning it.
The BioRifle is definitely not useless in UT2004 - alt-fire is extremely powerful and it's also a good defensive weapon.
The flak cannon - somewhat overpowered yes, but less so in UT2004 as the secondary fire has a much shorter range. Also, the greater range of movement available in that game makes it much less of an issue - it's easy enough to dodge the flak balls.

As for UT3, the weapons are NOT all equally powerful. The only way you could possibly come to that conclusion is if you play at a n00b level. The shock combo is utterly, hideously, game-breakingly overpowered. The minigun is also slightly overpowered and the rocket launcher underpowered.

 

[Krynn72]

Well, to be fair... probably the main reason why I didnt like it is because I never really liked UT games. Only reason I bought UT2004 was so I could play the mods after Make Something Unreal.

 

[Narcolepsy]

Each weapon in UT3 is extremely fun to use, and I never feel like I'm being unfairly dominated. Example: The shock combo is difficult and satisfying to pull off (without standing still) and results in an amazing gravity defying explosion, so it's extremely powerful, and thus extremely satisfying. Such balancing logic takes away at the pro level, but do you see how it adds to the fun at the casual level?

Graphics are the least important consideration in an online game. My Quake 3 used to look something like this, it's less distracting.

Less distracting, but less of a spectacle. There's something to be said for UT3's cinematic flair, and yes, it is mostly due to the graphics.

 

[repiV]

Map control? What about random spawn points? If you keep popping up in a place with no weapons, then how can you possibly have a chance of winning? The Enforcer isn't overpowered; it's good, but if someone else has a better weapon than you, chances are they will kill you before you kill them unless you sneak up on them.

You're not supposed to engage if you don't have the upper hand. The whole point of DM, but especially TDM, is to control the weapons and items - if the weapon you spawn with is powerful enough anyway, the game just becomes a spamfest. Ideally, the starting weapon should be virtually useless - and on that count, the Assault Rifle succeeds.


If you're outnumbered or outgunned, you run like **** - which isn't exactly difficult to do in UT2004, with the shield gun. And if you don't want to get put into a position where you keep getting spawnraped, don't die. The people who regularly win DM games are the ones who always have the powerups and run away when they're likely to lose an encounter. Deathmatch isn't just a game of mindless shooting.
Besides which, I'm not clear on how the system works in UT, but in Q3, you spawn in the spot farthest away from the enemy.

The Impact Hammer is quite possibly the most satisfying weapon to use in Unreal Tournament 3. What's wrong with having fun?

You wouldn't get a chance to use it against a decent opponent.

True, but there are weapons that will kill people much faster, making it useless if you have anything else.

A well-aimed secondary shot is deadly - it just takes skill to use. If anything, the biorifle is one of the more powerful weapons in UT2004. Plus, it has other uses - such as covering your retreat and temporarily blocking passage.
Things have uses that often aren't immediately or statistically apparent - link gun primary is great for covering your advance in the face of an opponent with shock/mini/sniper. Or just keeping the opponent in a position where they can't harm you until backup arrives. It's a tactical weapon.

I'm not a Shock Rifle whore, and I never have been, so I haven't really noticed an issue with that. The Stinger Minigun is actually useful this time around (it was much too weak in UT2004) and the Rocket Launcher seems about the same as ever to me.

The minigun was far too weak in UT2003, but it was about right or slightly too powerful in UT2004. It's a continually firing, hitscan weapon that's practically impossible to avoid and effective at any range - in no way was it too weak in 04.
The rocket launcher is similar in UT3, but the rockets are slower and it suffers for it. I'm sure it does slightly less damage too.
You probably haven't noticed the issue with the shock rifle because shock combos take a fair degree of skill to pull off on an ongoing basis, but when you hit the level of play where people can do that, it's so much more powerful than all the other weapons it's not even funny. UT2004's shock combo had a much lower area of effect and it was much easier to avoid due to the faster movement.

The problem is that the game is balanced for low-level play. Major faults become apparent when a certain level of skill is reached.

 

[repiV]

Each weapon in UT3 is extremely fun to use, and I never feel like I'm being unfairly dominated. Example: The shock combo is difficult and satisfying to pull off (without standing still) and results in an amazing gravity defying explosion, so it's extremely powerful, and thus extremely satisfying. Such balancing logic takes away at the pro level, but do you see how it adds to the fun at the casual level?

Yes, but games like UT aren't meant to be aimed at casual gamers. A game that's balanced at pro level still works just as well at lower levels of play, but a game that's balanced at n00b level is useless for decent-level play - and in any event, an online game that isn't supported by the competitive community is destined to failure. It's serious clan play that keeps games alive in the long run, drives development of patches/mods and brings new players into the fold long after the game has disappeared from the shelves.

Less distracting, but less of a spectacle. There's something to be said for UT3's cinematic flair, and yes, it is mostly due to the graphics.

I treat my online gaming like a sport - I couldn't care less about the spectacle. Bright yellow models on untextured backgrounds are far easier to see and hit than murky shadows lurking amongst forests.

 

[Letters]

"Competitive gaming" is gettin' riled up in a Super Smash Bros. match or having a grudge (friendly or otherwise ) against another player or guild in World of Warcraft. What you're talking about is just silliness. Nothing ruins a game more than playing it with people who take it too seriously.


UT3 is good if for only one thing alone... driving the darkwalker! Oh yeah!

 

[repiV]

"Competitive gaming" is gettin' riled up in a Super Smash Bros. match or having a grudge (friendly or otherwise ) against another player or guild in World of Warcraft. What you're talking about is just silliness. Nothing ruins a game more than playing it with people who take it too seriously.


UT3 is good if for only one thing alone... driving the darkwalker! Oh yeah!

Well that's your opinion.

I happen to enjoy sport, and Quake is as good a sport as any.

 

[repiV]

I don't like your analogy. You know, you don't have to play sports at a super-competitive professional level, either.

It doesn't have to be super-competitive for glaring faults to ruin the game. Merely skilled.

 

[Seagull]

Playing at a competitive level isn't for everybody.