UT2007 demo will be released

[Fusion]

Look what I happen to run into at work:

http://magazine.gamez.nl/ (page 28, Dutch)

Full translation (ignore the gramatical errors please) :

Gamez: Even though Unreal Tournament 2007 is based on a next generation game-engine, you seem to be able to reduce the loading time of levels to a minimum. How did you manage to accomplish that and will it work the same for console versions of the game?

Epic: Our goal is to reduce loading times to a minimum or completely remove them, where possible. Just the potential to do it alone gets us as gamers excited. Can you image? No loading times between maps and servers. The streaming of elements is how we want to evade this problem en will be applied to both pc as console versions of the game.

Gamez: In Unreal Tournament 2007 the worlds are connected to each other, making it a world on its own. How exactly does this work?

Epic: There are two world philosophies that we live by. The first is that when we create a level concept, we don’t merely focus on “Robot Factory” or “Cityscape”. We also come up with the world in which these levels exist. When we agree on how that would should look and feel, we discuss which parts of this world would serve well as settings for the UT gameplay. One other thing we will accomplish is the linking of Onslaught Levels to potential branches in Unreal warfare campaigns. We hope that a linked world, where actions on one map will be seen on the next will please all UT players, from gamers who like to have a fast frag to players who like long strategic battles.

Gamez: What does Epic hope to accomplish with this “connected world”?

Epic: We want our levels to be part of a real and vast world and not just a few loose maps with a science fiction atmosphere. Even though the diversity of levels is the trademark of the Unreal series, and will continue doing so, we want that each level has its own right to existence in its own way. Creating different planet landscapes in which different levels are situated will help us to achieve this goal.

Gamez: With Ut2007, you plan to go back to the roots of the gameplay. You plan to do this by removing or editing predictable gameplay elements. Things like dodging and wall dodging should be removed. Why?

Epic: Its not like we will remove all advanced movement modes from Unreal, but we are making substantial changes within these movements. The “dodge” from the original series and wall dodging and double jump will all still be there in Unreal Tournament 2007. What we did remove are the dodge-jumps and we have increased the gravity to give the world a more “heavier”, less floating feel. The changed gravity also has influence on how far you can go through the air. By doing so we have reduced the confrontation distance, creating more “in your face” battles. These changes will add to a more predictable player movement, in which less skilled players have a fair chance, but where the more experienced players still have a good set of movements to show their skills with. (fus: omg they noobified it! :gr: ) The skilled player will still be in control of the game, but the less experienced player will have the feeling of losing a fair fight, in stead of a chanceless battle where he feels he didn’t have any influence on the outcome. These changes have also greatly enhanced the “level flow”. Our designers are now able to come with much better and interesting levels. This way, the player will have a wider selection of tactical situations within a level.

Gamez: Can you tell us something about the Artificial Intelligence and the way players can communicate with the bots?

Epic: Giving commands by voice was a painful experience in Unreal Tournament 2004 and we want to give this a second chance. Amongst consolegamers there is a growing interest visible to control your AI-colleagues through voice-command, in stead of the usual d-pad. When we connect this to the AI-personalities of UT2007, we really think we can bring artificial players to life.

Gamez: Will there be new gamemodes, weapons and vehicles to look forward to in the new Unreal?

Epic: Players will come in touch with a whole new range of vehicles, of which a lot are new. We will also do our best not to base the new vehicles on existing vehicles. So you can expect a few umpfy, wicked machines. One gametype that will be totally different from previous parts is Survival. Survival will focus itself on a one-on-one deathmatch experience, whereas a lot of problems that this gamemode had in the past will be fixed. Something we are extensively researching is to have several different one-on-one deathmatches at the same time on the same server. We believe that this gametype will please everyone searching for a real challenge, one that he or she can test his or her skills against an other player.

Gamez: Unreal Tournament 2007 can support up to 64 players combating each other. In which gamemodes will this be possible?

Epic: The number of players will be determined by the maps itself. Most maps in Unreal Tournament 2004 could support numbers ranging from 20 till 32 players at the same time. But there will be servers that far surpass this and gametypes which are very well made for this are Onslaught and Unreal Warfare, in which you get to play on huge open spaces which can house large amounts of players…at least more then Deathmatch levels that is.

Gamez: Can you tell us something about the pc specs needed to run Unreal Tournament 2007?

Epic: We always want to have an audience as wide possible and Unreal Tournament 2007 wont differ from that. Unfortunately, we can make any hard announcements on the specifications until we are nearly finished with the game. But as was the case in the past, we will release a demo around that time, so you can try out if your system is capable of running the game decently.

[HellFox]

thats nice
some news at last

[Sabo]

When is this interview dated?

[MysTikal]

Sweet. Btw, any news on the redeemer?

[Shrimp]

A couple of the ads reference January 2006?

[sure]

A couple of the ads reference January 2006?

Yeah idd. January 19 it says.

Confusing.

edit: And change thread title, he never says 64players are supported

[=XM=]

Look what I happen to run into at work:

So, how do you "run into" a members-only online magazine while dilligently working?

Tss tss.
Nice find though!

[Hanji]

*Sign* and I thought this thread will say when its released, but since UT2007 is delayed till next year, demo might be out next year.

[Xoop]

"What we did remove are the dodge-jumps and we have increased the gravity to give the world a more “heavier”, less floating feel"

Still pisses me off every time I read it.

[AmericanWoman]

"What we did remove are the dodge-jumps and we have increased the gravity to give the world a more “heavier”, less floating feel"

Still pisses me off every time I read it.

Me too.
My heart sinks.

[Ignition]

"...and double jump will all still be there in Unreal Tournament 2007."

I hope there's an option to disable it in the server config... or better off by default!

[placebo]

Sorry, but I think a heavier UT will be a much more satisfying UT for pros and beginners alike.

[=XM=]

I don't mind it's removal in DM/TDM but from the videos we have seen so far it's going to screw ONS balance imo. But who knows, still some time before release.

P.S: I think we should stop now before this thread becomes another dodge-jump thread.

[Magwa]

Don't worry that feeling will pass ..as soon as you install the new game there will be something new you will find that will fill the bill...

[Jake-SF]

I don't mind it's removal in DM/TDM but from the videos we have seen so far it's going to screw ONS balance imo. But who knows, still some time before release.

They say they are going to add that ... platform thingy... what the hell how can I forgot how its called?? OMG!

[drak0n]

A Hoverboard?

[WhipperSnapper]

"What we did remove are the dodge-jumps and we have increased the gravity to give the world a more “heavier”, less floating feel"

Still pisses me off every time I read it.

Imagine how PO'd the UT '99 players were when they discovered that UT 2003 barely resembled the game they had grown to love. Instead of a hardcore, fast-paced fragging game they ened up with...a Super Mario jumping-dodge game. I remember one or two people who'd shelled out big bucks to buy UT 2003 saying that they'd felt they'd been robbed.

[WhipperSnapper]

"...and double jump will all still be there in Unreal Tournament 2007."

I hope there's an option to disable it in the server config... or better off by default!

What exactly is the purpose behind adding a "double jump" to an FPS anyway? Are people really supposed to get some sort of enjoyment by having to hit their jump key twice in order to jump higher? I'd rather have single jumps without corny, artificially high ledges that require a double jump to access.

[Phen]

Dunno but i think demo maybe out march around there. werent the ut2k3 n 2k4 released about this time or so.

[A-Laon]

What exactly is the purpose behind adding a "double jump" to an FPS anyway? Are people really supposed to get some sort of enjoyment by having to hit their jump key twice in order to jump higher? I'd rather have single jumps without corny, artificially high ledges that require a double jump to access.

If you ask me, the utilization of two jumps is more for style than substance, seeing as leaping into the air then suddenly pulling off some time of aerial jump is a lot more interesting than just springing off the ground in one stupidly huge hop. It doesn't really hurt to press jump twice, and the double jump gives UT some character, so why toss it?

And besides, you'd be surprised how often switching between single jumps and double jumps in battle can help throw off your opponent.

[Xoop]

Imagine how PO'd the UT '99 players were when they discovered that UT 2003 barely resembled the game they had grown to love. Instead of a hardcore, fast-paced fragging game they ened up with...a Super Mario jumping-dodge game. I remember one or two people who'd shelled out big bucks to buy UT 2003 saying that they'd felt they'd been robbed.

Its called evolution. I was one of those UT99 players, and it didnt take me long at all to realize how much the expanded movement options added in depth of gameplay. It is the ONLY thing that seperates UT from the countless other FPS out there. Now I am not going to write UT07 off as a total loss yet, but to go backward with the evolution of the game is just plain dumb IMO.

[StalwartUK]

I'll be sure to try out the UT2007 demo when it comes out. I hope it's better that what UT2003 and UT2004 were.

I hope there's some option somewhere to get rid of those fancy doublewalldodgejump movements and those giant adreanline pills.

Shame they have got rid of dodge jumps, guess that they are trying to encourage more people to do other aerobatics.

[HellFox]

adrenaline ias already out

[Boksha]

Its called evolution. I was one of those UT99 players, and it didnt take me long at all to realize how much the expanded movement options added in depth of gameplay. It is the ONLY thing that seperates UT from the countless other FPS out there. Now I am not going to write UT07 off as a total loss yet, but to go backward with the evolution of the game is just plain dumb IMO.

When talking about a product or franchise, the word "evolution" generally refers to a change that improves the product, or is at least supposed to improve it.
Calling a change that turned out to make the game worse for a lot of people "evolution" is just sticking nametags on things; it won't make the change a good one.

If anything, removing dodgejumps because it turned out they didn't work well is evolution of the franchise.
And IMO they indeed didn't work well. Initially when I came from UT99 I also thought they were a great idea, but the more I play this game, the more I realise they make proper mapdesign incredibly hard without adding anything worthwhile to make up for it.

[WhipperSnapper]

Here's another way to look at it:

Number of players on the public CTF servers two years after UT '99's release: thousands. Number of players (humans only, not bots) on the public CTF servers two years after UT 2004's release...well...you guys can look in the server browser and figure it out. I have a hard time calling that "evolution". You would hope that the number of players would have increased significantly at the same time after release, especially if more people had begun to play first person shooters in general.

[Boksha]

You would hope that the number of players would have increased significantly at the same time after release, especially if more people had begun to play first person shooters in general.

While it's true many more people play FPS games nowadays than they did when UT was at it's height a year or so after it's release, most of those people prefer realistic/simplistic shooters like CS or BF2.
Look at the top 10 on the GameSpy stats, leaving out UT2004 because of the bots issue and Neverwinter Nights because it's not an FPS. What are we left with? Nine realism-type games with about 200000 players (140000 of which play Counterstrike) and one non-realism game: Quake3a with 3000 players.

In fact, I'd say that the sum of UT players + Q3a players + UT2004 players is now a lot lower than the sum of UT players + Q3a players a year after UT's release. IIRC, UT had about 6000 players online at it's best days, and Q3a had about 4000 players at the time. Right now, UT has about 1500, UT2k4 (rough guess) about the same and Q3a about 3000. In other words, the amount of player hours a month is down by 40%.

In other words, less people now play non-realistism shooters at the same time than they did back then, and there's more of the games to divide the playerbase between. In a way, it's not so strange UT2004 isn't doing as well as UT was in it's time.
It IS notable that even now there are about three times as many people playing UT CTF than UT2004 CTF.

Hopefully, UT2007 will change that, although I realise a lot of competetive players are disheartened by Quake4's failure, which they saw as the saviour of non-realism shooters. UT2007 will be aimed at multiplayer though, so I'm guessing it won't be a failure like Q4.

[Xoop]

Here's another way to look at it:

Number of players on the public CTF servers two years after UT '99's release: thousands. Number of players (humans only, not bots) on the public CTF servers two years after UT 2004's release...well...you guys can look in the server browser and figure it out. I have a hard time calling that "evolution". You would hope that the number of players would have increased significantly at the same time after release, especially if more people had begun to play first person shooters in general.

If you are saying popular = good game, you are clueless.
If that were true, no one would play anything other than CS or WoW. I do agree that the learning curve in 2K4 is very steep, and the skill gap is a bit too wide. When they first said they were just going to add a little more gravity to 2K7, I was all for it. IMO, that, along with nerfing hitscan a bit, and beefing up projectile weapons a bit, would have been perfect. But to totaly get rid of the ONLY aspect that seperates UT from all the other clone shooters is dumbing it down too far.

Boksha...I agree that the movement of 2K4 makes maps too big, but they could have solved that by just adding a little gravity, not by nerfing the game.

BTW, thank you guys for discussing this maturely, not all bashing and flames.

[=XM=]

Here's another way to look at it:

Number of players on the public CTF servers two years after UT '99's release: thousands. Number of players (humans only, not bots) on the public CTF servers two years after UT 2004's release...well...you guys can look in the server browser and figure it out. I have a hard time calling that "evolution". You would hope that the number of players would have increased significantly at the same time after release, especially if more people had begun to play first person shooters in general.

I'm sorry but any time of the day I look at csports, I see UT2004 with more players than UT. And what is played in UT again these days apart from insta? And why are you comparing only CTF? And I am sorry but some moves in UT are far more "super mario moves" than anything you could dream to do in UT2004. Ever actually played UT back in the day when it was popular? Ever seen the trick jumps that were possible? Nor is it appropriate anymore to have a game with netcode designed for 56k (compare insta accuracy in UT and UT2004) or a game with a sniper rifle that headshots when you hit the top 1/3 of the body when everyone has optical mice these days or being able to load 6 rockets.

While I agree that dodge-jumps didn't work well, it is only because of the amplitude of the movements, not because of the movement system. And it only didn't work well in indoors gametypes. In ONS it is the most used movement for travel and the most used in infantry v/s vehicle combat. Good luck fighting vehicles without dodge-jumps. And guess what mode has the most players (more than DM and TDM combined afaik)? That's right.

Why is the gap over the shock in ranking covered by a dodge-jump? It could be narrow and require just a dodge. It could be wider and not be coverable without a move involving a wall (the way it will likely be if Rankin is re-made in UT2007). And most of all, if maps were made so that you don't require or if (like in some maps) many areas are too narrow for using dodge jumps effectively, then it wouldn't affect the scale so much. It's like every little box in the stock maps requires a double-jump. Why? Just because the movement is there doesn't mean you have to make everything use it. If they scaled the maps such that dodge-jumps weren't the move used to scale everything, then it wouldn't be usable or needed in many places.

Personally if I had to get rid of a movement I would have removed double jumps. And scaled down dodge-jumps. A movement boost horizontally is more useful and makes more sense than one vertically. Especially when you only use normal jumps in combat and not to reach places. In comparison, dodge-jumps can still be used in combat although it isn't a smart idea against hitscan and timing is important against other things. I see people dodge-jump against flak/rox/goop before I shoot a lot of the time. And then they wonder why they get hit.

But then again, if they manage to balance the other aspects of the game to compensate, I'll be lining up to buy it. We'll see after the demo comes out.

[Boksha]

(edit: the first part of this post was originally meant as a reply to Xoop, but it applies to the "amplitude of the movements" part of =XM='s post as well)

Basically so long as the dodgejump is in though, you either have a useless dodge or a dodgejump that lets you clear huge gaps and travel through the map 40% faster than walking. (about 15% faster than dodging constantly)
In the former scenario, it doesn't add anything because a longer dodge would've done the same and in the latter scenario it messes with mapping while not adding anything worthwhile to combat except making it easier to run away from a fight. Like I've said before, the current dodges are enough to get away from rockets, flakshells and combos, so you never actually need the dodgejump in combat unless you want to exit a fight alltogether; if regular dodges were not enough to get away from those attacks, they'd be useless and because everybody will always be dodgejumping there's no reason not to remove the dodge, reduce the amount of keytaps needed for a dodgejump by one and calling the dodgejump a dodge.

IMO, dodgejumping is just an original idea that turned out to have no merit in practice, so I'm not sad to see it go.

I'm sorry but any time of the day I look at csports, I see UT2004 with more players than UT.

Must've been quite a while ago then, because CSports has been down since the beginning of this year.

Just because the movement is there doesn't mean you have to make everything use it. If they scaled the maps such that dodge-jumps weren't the move used to scale everything, then it wouldn't be usable or needed in many places.

Remember the original Curse]I[ ? I rest my case.

[=XM=]

Lol yeah last time I actually looked at csports was a long time ago to be fair.

I don't know. I won't really miss the dodge-jump that much in TDM or the shield gun (actually I would prefer a shield gun with a limited, non-recharging amount of dmg absorption but that's for another thread). Less defensiveness is good imo. However, I will definitely miss it in ONS if the speeds are what we have seen in the videos so far. Both vehicle movement speed and the retarded plasma fire rate on mantas.

While a reduced dodge-jump might not be as useful or used in TDM I'd still like the ability to have a range of movment options and not screwing one gametype by changing a common feature too much. My point is that a shorter dodge-jump, while longer than a dodge wouldn't be as powerful as it is now for map traversal. Especially if the maps are narrow and "in-your-face" as Epic have stated they want to make them. I don't think it would make dodges useless. Dodging would still be used more in combat, while dodge-jumps would give you the option of going a bit further when you need it. It doesn't have to be hugely longer than a dodge (screwing scaling), but enough to make the movements distinct and useful in different situations.

Saying that dodge-jump has no merit is easy to say if you only play DM/TDM. But my main complaint really isn't about those modes, but more about ONS. And you won't be using wall moves in ONS much either. The dodge-jump just always feels perfect in ONS in relation to vehicle movement (not too powerful and not as useless as dodging) and the maps themselves to get some cover. The hover boards will take care of travel, but travelling on foot even with dodge-jumps was never ideal in ONS to start with except in very specific situations. I guess I have to wait for the demo to see how it plays.

And I don't understand how the "complicated" argument that some people make is valid. Double Jump Wall Dodge is fine but not pressing spacebar after a dodge?

[Wulf Sternhammer]

I agree with all the previous posts.

Just had to say something to get my first post here up. Gone from an old boy at Atari to a noob here.

[WhipperSnapper]

I'm sorry but any time of the day I look at csports, I see UT2004 with more players than UT. And what is played in UT again these days apart from insta? And why are you comparing only CTF?

Ther comparisson was not between UT '99 today and UT 2004 today. The comparsson was between UT '99 player counts in 2001 (two years after its release) and UT 2004 (human) player counts (not bots) in 2006 (two years after its release). If I remember correctly, back in 2001 you could find 3000+ players (real humans, not bots) on the CTF servers 24/7.

Do those CSports numbers count bots? If so then you have to discard the numbers. (In the Original UT, bots were never counted.)

Why CTF? Because CTF is the premier team game type for Unreal Tournament, or at least it used to be before it was mucked up in UT 2003/2004.

[=XM=]

Well as Boksha said csports is not updated since the beginning of the year (2006) and are relaunching in september. But last time I was looking at player numbers (maybe a year ago?) they always showed more UT2004 than UT players. They discard bots by filtering known bot names. Ofc this filters players using bot names and doesn't filter custom bot names. It's reliable enough though.

The other main source of stats is Gamespy. Zeitgeist which data mines gamespy every hour shows UT2004 as having three times more players over the past year compared to UT. But gamespy counts bots (for both games I think).

Some people periodically claim to do their own manual measurements by using the in-game browser. This is weak because you need to do it at several times a day to get a reliable picture, you need to be careful about filters and most importantly you need to go through each server one by one. Looking at just numbers would include bots. For each server you look at you need to manually count players and bots. It's easy for mods and gametypes with less than 20 active servers at any given time, like Red Orchestra, Mutant, Bombing Run, vCTF, LMS etc...

But in any case. The age of sci-fi shooters is gone. The numbers for all UT games combined are dwarfed by the popular FPS games. For FPS games these days it's "realistic" "tactical" shooters. I was hoping (like many others) that Quake 4 would remedy that but it was crap. Tribes is dead. Hopefuly UT2007 will be good. UT2004 was nice, initially. Personally I liked UT, didn't like UT2003, but loved UT2004 after trying the demo. Mostly for ONS, it was a great mode with much promise. It brought a fresh approach to the UT series after many players (like me) had grown tired of the various incarnations of TDM and CTF in all the games of the series. The issue that killed it quick in less than a year was that the stock maps had design issues. But ONS is hard to map for (although not as hard as Assault), so by the time good custom maps were coming out, people were already going to other FPS games for their vehicular fix. Also Epic took a long time to patch many bugs and problems.

I don't play much UT2004 anymore myself. Only a bit of ONS/TDM/TAM from time to time when a match gets organised or there's a cup or something. I play more GW and rts games atm, waiting for a more polished vehicular mode to come out with UT2007. That's why I come whining in UT2007 threads, because I want the game to be good and playable. Fun movement, fun weapons, fun vehicles and good maps (that don't repeat the mistakes of UT2004 ones) are part of that.

[WhipperSnapper]

But last time I was looking at player numbers (maybe a year ago?) they always showed more UT2004 than UT players.

Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that UT '99 was released in 1999 and is no longer on store shelves and suffers from a complete absence of marketting whereas UT 2004 is on store shelves and had recent marketting? That's why the proper comparisson is to look at the player counts at a certain amount of time after each individual game's release. So if you were comparing UT 2004 player counts in 2006 (two years after its release) to UT '99 player counts in order to try to ascertain which game had more staying power and, by implication, which was the better game, you'd need to look at UT '99 player counts from 2001 (two years after its release)

They discard bots by filtering known bot names. Ofc this filters players using bot names and doesn't filter custom bot names. It's reliable enough though.

Hopefully it works.

Some people periodically claim to do their own manual measurements by using the in-game browser. This is weak because you need to do it at several times a day to get a reliable picture, you need to be careful about filters and most importantly you need to go through each server one by one. Looking at just numbers would include bots. For each server you look at you need to manually count players and bots. It's easy for mods and gametypes with less than 20 active servers at any given time, like Red Orchestra, Mutant, Bombing Run, vCTF, LMS etc...

I prefer to compare CTF since that was the premier gametype in UT '99 and on paper it seems like it would be the best team game type for any UT type of game. I know that when I've looked at the UT 2004 CTF servers, even during North American prime time (10 pm EST) that the numbers paled in comparisson to what I remember of the UT '99 player counts back in 2001.

But in any case. The age of sci-fi shooters is gone. The numbers for all UT games combined are dwarfed by the popular FPS games.

I kind of wonder if part of that might be that UT 2003 and UT 2004 just weren't as compelling and as successful as UT '99. My hypothesis is that people who were new the franchise tried UT 2003 or UT 2004, lost interest, and then moved on to other games. I tend to think that if the game were fun and really good that it would hold people's attention longer regardless of whether ot not "realistic" shooters are available.

I'm glad that we can agree to hope that UT 2007 turns out to be a huge success. Epic really needs to release one that will be as good as the original in order to keep the franchise going.

[Marius]

Well in my case I have to buy all new gear to run the next gen engine.

My crap heap lappy barely runs anything well anymore.

[UnrealGrrl]

"What we did remove are the dodge-jumps and we have increased the gravity to give the world a more “heavier”, less floating feel"

Still pisses me off every time I read it.

makes me very happy actually and from the sound of it will make alotta ppl happy which should = more players on some level.

and to those who keep saying non realism shooters are dead, i dunno, they may not be as pop as the ww2 style games now, but there sure seem to be a good amount of developers making non-realism fps' so unless they are all dense and trying to lose $ there must still be a market and hopefully UT2007 will claim it big time

[Shadow]I[]

I hope UT2007 movement won't be much like BF2142's

[ShredPrince]

Epic: Its not like we will remove all advanced movement modes from Unreal, but we are making substantial changes within these movements. The “dodge” from the original series and wall dodging and double jump will all still be there in Unreal Tournament 2007. What we did remove are the dodge-jumps and we have increased the gravity to give the world a more “heavier”, less floating feel. The changed gravity also has influence on how far you can go through the air. By doing so we have reduced the confrontation distance, creating more “in your face” battles. These changes will add to a more predictable player movement, in which less skilled players have a fair chance, but where the more experienced players still have a good set of movements to show their skills with. (fus: omg they noobified it! :gr: ) The skilled player will still be in control of the game, but the less experienced player will have the feeling of losing a fair fight, in stead of a chanceless battle where he feels he didn’t have any influence on the outcome. These changes have also greatly enhanced the “level flow”. Our designers are now able to come with much better and interesting levels. This way, the player will have a wider selection of tactical situations within a level.

^Boo

[Crotale]

^ No, boo to you. I like the idea of playing a more grounded game. UT was way more grounded than UT2003/4 and it felt more immersive. I think too many people put too much stock in the word "unreal". It does not have to mean "not real" but is more indicative of being more intense and a bit of fantasy. Trick jumps and moves are cool and all, but they work against what I think of as that "Unreal" gameplay. It is not as much fun trying to shoot someone who's constantly battling you from halfway across the map. If UT2007 bridges the gap between UT and UT2004, IMO, it will be awesome.

[Para]

Meh I liked how UT2k4 had dodge jumps...


The game felt more like "OMG IM GONNA GET HIT *JUMPS FAR OUT OF THE WAY*" instead of "oh something is going to hit me *makes a weak and rather retarded looking jump to get out of the way but still get hurt by splash damage*"

You play all the popular FPS games out there and don't you ever get the feeling that "omfg these controls are so weak... i should be able to like run and jump ****ing hard away or atleast dodge so I can avoid getting my ass handed to me like it was life or death"