Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UT vs UT2004 at Lans

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    UT vs UT2004 at Lans

    Here goes my rant...

    We're having lan parties maybe once a month and we've had two so far. At the first lan party I pulled out UT. Everybody was instantly hooked. I promised a guy that we would play some Q3 but nobody wanted to stop playing UT to play anything else.

    Ok so at the second lan party I pulled out UT2004. Everybody got bored pretty fast. I kept telling people how to dodge jump and how to shock blast but nobody would listen. They just ran around like newbies do, trying to shoot me while I fly all over the place(dodge jumping, wall dodging, bleh bleh bleh). Anyways I finaly decide to make things even by not dodge jumping. Man that was boring. Running around makes the game feel slow.

    What did I learn? People don't want to have to learn anything when they sit down to play a game. Maybe once they get into a game they'll want to learn stuff. So bring UT to the lan unstead of UT2004.

    In the end somebody started up call of duty and I ended up beating up some poor guy in tekken 5.

    I asked everybody which they liked best UT or UT2004. They all said UT, and they didn't even realise that it's an old game.

    I hope UT2007 appeals to both noobs and old players. It's got to compete with all the realistic **** out there.

    RD

    #2
    I'm not at all surprised by this.

    Comment


      #3
      I probably wouldn't mind not having dodgejumps. I barely ever use those anyway, I only use them when nobody's around.

      Comment


        #4
        although 2k4 can be fun on a lan. instagib is your only option, cause the skillgab between a regular and a new player is really big. isntagib levels that to an amount(this way we played a lot of ictf). though i understand UT is better for a lan it doesnt mean ut is a better game then 2k4 is. i mean serious sam is a real fun game for a lan, but comon that game is just plain awfull when you play it anywere else then a lan.

        Comment


          #5
          I've used this analogy before but it's like this IMO...

          When you go to a party full of people who don't know how to play either, are you gonna bring out the checkers or chess?

          I'm not surprised either...

          Comment


            #6
            UT is less advanced so newbies can pick it up faster, and the spammy nature of the game means they can get kills on a long time player more easily.

            UT2004 however is more developed and takes some time to get good at.

            No surprise. But does it mean UT is a better game? I don't think so personally. The only thing UT has over UT2004 is better a visual style and better sounds.

            Gameplaywise (I know that's not a word) UT2004 is significantly better (just a bit ****ed up scale).

            Comment


              #7
              If a multiplayer game takes time to get good at, it's not a good game.
              In a multiplayer game, the only thing that should take time is getting better than your opponent. UT was like that, just as UT2k4, the difference however is that UT2k4 just isn't fun unless you've been doing it for a while (i.e. you've "gotten good at it"). So yes, in that sense I think UT2k4 is not as good as UT.

              Comment


                #8
                Boksha, I'll refer you to EggSuckingLeech's analogy to checkers and chess.

                If you think checkers is the better game; good for you enjoy what you like. Personally I prefer chess (well, Go actually, but nvm).

                Yes getting better than your opponent is part of it, but certainly not the only part. UT2004 is not a lot more complex than UT anyway.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by =XM=
                  UT is less advanced so newbies can pick it up faster, and the spammy nature of the game means they can get kills on a long time player more easily.

                  UT2004 however is more developed and takes some time to get good at.

                  No surprise. But does it mean UT is a better game? I don't think so personally. The only thing UT has over UT2004 is better a visual style and better sounds.

                  Gameplaywise (I know that's not a word) UT2004 is significantly better (just a bit ****ed up scale).
                  It may not mean that UT is better. But lets say we were talking about addictiveness, or the game's ability to capture an audience. In my case UT wins. That IMO makes UT better then UT2004. It's great to get a chance to play people face to face vs playing online, but it sucks when nobody plays the game you play. UT2004 doesn't have what it takes to compete with the realistic games out there yet UT does. That sucks.

                  RD

                  Comment


                    #10
                    UT is the better choice when most of the people present haven't played UT nor UT2004.

                    I was hooked the first time I tried UT (at a LAN with some friends actually ^^). It's like Armagetron, Serious Sam etc... very arcade-style, easy to get into and make it a good LAN game.

                    But now consider if your LAN consisted of players who have played both games a lot, which game would be more fun/challenging? To me it would be UT2004.

                    You could take any example like that, a simple RTS like any one from the CnC series v/s starcraft or even warcraft3. The easier one to get into will be more popular because people are just playing at a LAN to have some quick fun. You're not going to be spending a lot of time on the game so it can't be something that takes time. Ofc this is further exacerbated when you have a player who has played the game for longer present.

                    I don't think it's very surprising, you could pick any two games with a similar set of differences. And the choice would be easy to predict each time. Yet it might well be different if all players present were familliar with both games.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      If UT99 had ONS, I'd see no reason to play UT2004.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by =XM=
                        UT is the better choice when most of the people present haven't played UT nor UT2004.

                        I was hooked the first time I tried UT (at a LAN with some friends actually ^^). It's like Armagetron, Serious Sam etc... very arcade-style, easy to get into and make it a good LAN game.

                        But now consider if your LAN consisted of players who have played both games a lot, which game would be more fun/challenging? To me it would be UT2004.

                        You could take any example like that, a simple RTS like any one from the CnC series v/s starcraft or even warcraft3. The easier one to get into will be more popular because people are just playing at a LAN to have some quick fun. You're not going to be spending a lot of time on the game so it can't be something that takes time. Ofc this is further exacerbated when you have a player who has played the game for longer present.

                        I don't think it's very surprising, you could pick any two games with a similar set of differences. And the choice would be easy to predict each time. Yet it might well be different if all players present were familliar with both games.
                        I prefer playing UT2004 but I think the fact that new people have a hard time getting into it cripples the growth of the community. UT had a domino effect gowing. I heard it was good, tried it, loved it. People saw me playing so they tried it and loved it too. Now people see me playing UT04, they try it, get bored, and go play something else. It gets dissapointing after a while.

                        RD

                        Comment


                          #13
                          IMHO, the solution is to tier the game. Have two modes which allow the newcomer to just get in there and frag (UT99 style). Then have another tier which complicates the game while rewarding those that put the time into it making a game variant that is more challenging giving the game more longevity. This has the side benefit that it potentially gets the game into the competitive realm. I don't see a technical reason why this approach wouldn't work and my hope is this is what EPIC has in mind when they are talking about matching those with similar skills.

                          I have a question for the original poster... In this LAN, why exactly did they find 2k4 boring? Were they bored because you were raping everyone before they would grab a weapon or were they bored even when they just played amongst themselves? I can understand the former but the latter isn't intuitive to me.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by EggSuckingLeech
                            IMHO, the solution is to tier the game. Have two modes which allow the newcomer to just get in there and frag (UT99 style). Then have another tier which complicates the game while rewarding those that put the time into it making a game variant that is more challenging giving the game more longevity. This has the side benefit that it potentially gets the game into the competitive realm. I don't see a technical reason why this approach wouldn't work and my hope is this is what EPIC has in mind when they are talking about matching those with similar skills.

                            I have a question for the original poster... In this LAN, why exactly did they find 2k4 boring? Were they bored because you were raping everyone before they would grab a weapon or were they bored even when they just played amongst themselves? I can understand the former but the latter isn't intuitive to me.
                            I tried not to be too hard on them. I was harder on them in UT99 I think because they were all trying to team up against me.

                            People would get up and go get food and stand around talking in the middle of matches. After a few matches they were ready for a new game. Then I asked them which game they liked the best 2k4 or UT99. They said UT99. I tried to be fare by not dodging or dodge jumping or anything like that. Even I got bored then since the game seems slow and sluggish without the fast movement you get from dodging. Not to mention the size of the maps which were designed with dodge jumping in mind.

                            RD

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Play ONS...

                              Having been in a similar situation with players that had not played the UT series, playing Onslaught greatly eases the 2k* learning curve, and gives everyone a chance to have fun.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X