Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cliffyb Interview w/ new vehicle footage!

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

    Originally posted by Mr. Brownstone
    I see what you’re saying: You can never have too much of a good thing.

    But there are more DM maps than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of the World — it’s time to give the newer game-types some breathing space.
    +1

    Comment


      Originally posted by beta tester
      ...
      While I'm certain you're an industry insider who closely monitors the pulse of online gaming trends . . . .

      You're totally full of ****. There's more game content in UT2004 than in most releases of the past 10 years. It's hardly a "tech demo," as you call it. Don't be pissy just because it didn't ship with bright skins and hit sounds for you ex-Quake pro gamer wannabes.
      As for the insider thing -- I think it's a thing everyone can notice if they give it some deeper thought and realise what games are popular online nowadays.

      And as for your other paragraph -- Please read more carefully next time. I was talking about UT2003 when I talked about "tech demo" that (imho) is UT2003. What I meant by that statement is that a lot of the maps shipped with UT2003 and provided in the bonus packs were meant to show off their new engine rather than designed for smooth gameplay. Hand on heart now, do you really think that maps like DM-IceTomb, CTF-December or DM-IronDeity were maps with smooth gameplay?

      Of course, I agree that UT2004 is probably the biggest game content-wise that has been released in the last few years, and that it has way more maps designed for players rather than potential engine licensees. No question about it.

      Oh, and if somebody misse brightskins and hitsounds, it's definitely not me.

      To CatShaver: I fully understand your frustration. I too would like to see some more nice maps for other gametypes, but I also think that we should accept the reasons behind this Epic's move regardless of whether we like it or not. As I said in my post above, there will be quite a large gap between UT2004 and the next *true* sequel to UT, and they probably will have to put out some new stuff to keep players interested so I'm fairly certain that we'll see bonus packs that will make people like you happy.

      Oh, and good morning everybody.

      Comment


        [SIZE=4]OMG[size]

        edit: dunno how to size

        Comment


          Why do so many people hate ONS. I mean, AS is by far worse

          AS doesnt work in UT2004. I blame the maps, in that they are all so long and repetitive, completely destroyed by their necessity to have a story that ties into the UT2004 races. Where is the quality of UT99 where almost every map had loads of different paths to take and could be won in less than a minute by a decent player. UT2004 AS just feels like single player all the time.

          The AS maps are enjoyable to play, but racing against time on them just makes you feel like your on the Travelator off Gladiators.

          OMG

          you missed out the "/" from the /size suffix

          Comment


            Originally posted by Shizna
            ...and could be won in less than a minute by a decent player. UT2004 AS just feels like single player all the time.
            So now that a single player can't finish a map in under a minute, it feels like single player? I'll have to take your word on that one.

            Comment


              Originally posted by Mr. Brownstone
              I see what you’re saying: You can never have too much of a good thing.

              But there are more DM maps than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of the World — it’s time to give the newer game-types some breathing space.
              :up:

              Seriously, while I'm all for more DM and CTF and other game maps, how many possible DM maps can possibly exist?

              Comment


                'as' (lol) we're on the subject of new gametypes and such the like, what will be done with the spacefighters next? I know they're not everyones cup of tea (pretty much like ONS there then) but it is surely a part of the game that can now be experimented with and expanded. I personally would like to see some sort of official space deathmatch gametype (and not one that's attempted by an apparantly dodgy guy called 'Xan'), of course performance could do with tweaking but atleast it has been made a little easier to follow in the latest patch with more missile lock warnings etc. Or will this be experimented with in the far future? a 2005 game maybe?

                Comment


                  well just call me the thread killer :bulb: :cry: :weird:

                  Comment


                    i have no reason to buy ECE if bots still lazy at building nodes, cuz playing ONS with bots is REALLY boring.i hope Epic do something about it

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by CatShaver
                      *plz engage brain before posting*!!!!

                      ONS that has been around for what less then a year made this game big, makes me laugh really hard (can you hear it!?!?), sorry to say that you obviouslly have no clue what you are talking about.


                      p.s. I am not a ONS hater, on the contrairy, to each his own.
                      Actually, if you had bothered reading his post, you'd understand.

                      ONS was, at least in the first 3 months of the demo, the most played gametype by a vast margin. ONS drew people into the demo, where they then discovered that ONS wasn't the only fun gametype. Sure, now ONS isn't the only gametype played, but when the demo first came out, it practically was.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by placebo
                        ONS was, at least in the first 3 months of the demo, the most played gametype by a vast margin. ONS drew people into the demo, where they then discovered that ONS wasn't the only fun gametype. Sure, now ONS isn't the only gametype played, but when the demo first came out, it practically was.
                        I play mostly ONS to in demo time :sulk:, hell we were even in the top 3 on Clanbase ONS demo-ladder :haha: :sulk:

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Kr4zed
                          I was talking about UT2003 when I talked about "tech demo" that (imho) is UT2003. What I meant by that statement is that a lot of the maps shipped with UT2003 and provided in the bonus packs were meant to show off their new engine rather than designed for smooth gameplay. Hand on heart now, do you really think that maps like DM-IceTomb, CTF-December or DM-IronDeity were maps with smooth gameplay?
                          I feel 2003 was a big package game, too -- not a tech demo at all. Some of the maps that came along after the retail release sucked, but then they were free, too.

                          Nobody got cheated when they bought 2003. 2004 is an even better bargain.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Saito
                            only a small percentage play allot of the mods they are marketing, a large amount of people use UTcomp, I don't see how including it would be bad.
                            Because everyone who wants it already has it. And, as priorly noted, it appeals to a miniscule market segment.

                            Comment


                              Hmm after looking at this video for the hojionith time,I noticed the node layout in the upper right hand corner,ITS THE SAME AS ARCTIC STRONGHOLDS!!!

                              That means that if there's a redeemer in the map (which the most likely will be,there's one in 5 of the 9 stock maps) it will be another otherwise good map which will be ruined by a poor link setup and superweapon.Most artic stronghold games are decided within the 1st minute,this will be the same if that link setup and the redeemer are in there.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X