Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Community Voice <> Innovation?

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

  • replied
    The middle ground just means you wont really satisfy either sides

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    If it's an improvement, I'd call it innovation. Whether or not it's an improvement is subjective. You would say no, I would say yes, most definitely. So is innovation a subjective term? ~shrug~

    The game moves forward. That's what is important. If it was 2K4 with prettier graphics, what would it offer to anyone other than the die hard hitscanners? How would it draw new members to the community?

    IMO the game innovates in many areas. The hoverboard, weapon switching, vehicle balance, new (as yet unseen) game modes, new vehicles, new combat mechanics - all designed to provide solutions to old problems and push the game forward - regardless of your opinion or my opinion about the success of that goal.

    As I said in my OP, I think UT3 will be a resounding success, and I think the 'threats' of the 2K4 do or die crew are pointless. Especially when considering the same response by the 99 crew a few years ago, and the fact that the vast majority of them adapted and moved on anyway.

    I also think that this doom and gloom is pointless at this point, with only a fraction of the game in the form of a beta demo being all that people have played.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I'm not sure where this "innovation" is that the OP speaks about (aside from the graphical stuff) but I do agree that it is what it is. I'll probably play it anyway. I do hope Epic makes some adjustments based on feedback here rather than bury their heads in the sand of the console desert. My feeling is that where improvements could have been made that innovation actually went backward. The vehicles drive like poo (sorry, tanks don't stop on a dime, neither do hovercraft, and the helbender is almost useless), and the weaponry is basically a revert to UT99 gameplay (meh oh well, I liked that game too). There is nothing really new about this game.

    I really do get the vibe that the main focus was on PS3 play and the PC crowd left to deal with it. Not dissing Epic, if that's where the money is. Just don't tell us that the PC was a focus when it obviously was not. Look at the ability to set up a decent dedicated server (on a real server not a gaming machine) to see what I mean there.

    Anyway, I vented, gonna get another drink now

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Nice post, Felon

    I don't disagree with you, to be perfectly honest. My suggestions of compromise in my first post were more rhetorical - "Sure, they could do this... but then this might happen".

    Nothing divides a community like a sequel, and this mixed response is certainly nothing new - or as you've said, anything to be particularly worried about.

    Also, I welcome the evolution of the community itself that will come with the release of this title. New, fresh faces to frag

    All in all, my honest expectation, despite a few minor complaints about the demo, is that UT3 will be hugely popular. Maybe not for all of the existing community members, but in the end it's a repeat of what happened in 2002. Adapt, or be left behind.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by faultymoose View Post

    If the community voice was unanimous, the decision to make (or rollback) changes would be an easy one. But currently, the opinion is so drastically split that Epic is faced with a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation; a polarisation that clearly arose from the vastly different gameplay spanning the first two (2.5 to be pedantic) generations of the series.
    This current go-round is NOTHING compared to the absolute bedlam on the UT forums after the UT2003 demo was released. All in all, it's pretty tame around here now.

    But just to break it down:

    UT3 is was it is and is what it will be. There will be no LG, SG or dodge jumps no matter how much hand wringing there is on this forum. The people who complain about it and claim that they "already cancelled their pre-orders" and other claims know this and are in a self righteous crusade for one reason only: to get as many people to agree with their outrage so that they feel "vindicated" somehow.

    Which is fine and good, as I was one of the hand wringers when the UT2003 demo came out, and I was in an absolute tizzy when Descent 3 was released (that festering hunk of.... ah, but I digress).

    But this hope of compromise... don't get your hopes too high. Because there won't be a compromise. The movement, weapons and vehicles are different now. Fact. We will probably lose some UT2K players. But I think that this game will attract raw vets from outside of the franchise as well as some UT longtimers. And, I may be one of the few that think this, but I welcome console players into the mix. I can't wait to crush them live on television.

    The game is great, and I can't wait to get my hands on the full version (it has been a while since I have been so excited about a game). New tactics, fresh community. What's to hate?

    Felon

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Very intelligent op. I hope that a lot of gripes people have are actually more to do with the map than the actual game.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I, too, think that when a new game comes out, I should have to learn the new game. I don't expect it to be like the others, so changes in the feel of the weapons, pickups, armor, movement, and what have you are to be expected. That's all good.

    In fact, my concerns usually start when I find something is too easy. If I've got a skill that nobody can counter, there's a real problem, especially this early in the game's life. Thankfully, that's rearely a problems.

    I think that the game as it stands is really, really excellent, and my minor quibbles about things like the Hellbender are just that:L quibbles. I know that we've only used them in one map, so perhaps that environment isn't the best place for these vehicles (yeah, I'm talking about the Goliath, too).

    After that, it's more a question of functionality. The UI doesn't bother me for its looks (I like the clean minimalism of it, as opposed to the gaudy 2k4 menu), but it just shouldn't take so much navigation to get where you need to be, and so on. It's just inefficient, at times.

    But I really dislike the "retro" crowd, who always plead with the designers (or worse yet, demand or threaten) to remake the same game they did four years ago. And then there are the reconstructionists, who modify the current game so it looks and plays as close as possible to the previous versions. I'm just not sure where these efforts are going. Anyone who's nostalgic can just reinstall the actual game UT1 or 2, and those who didn't play them won't understand the changes anyway.

    I hope the community rallies to this title, even if each of us disagree with some small aspect of the game's design. Playing your perfect vision of UT is a lonely thing after the community vanishes. Better we all learn to get along together, among huge crowds of online foes.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet View Post
    Looking good does not equal being functional. It's painful to use, partially due to it's poor use of screen space, it has way to few configuration options, and the options it does have are buried under unnecessary layers of menus. So, yeah, it's great, unless you might ever want to use it.
    As opposed to showing tons of options, check boxes and choices, which is user friendly to all different abilities and requirements.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by faultymoose View Post
    P.P.S. What the hell is with the complaints about the menu? It's streamlined, it's stylish, it's minimalistic, and it actually looks like it was designed by a designer. I don't get it. Do people need a billion menu options and tickboxes against a confusing background in order not to have their PC implode in the confusion that it's a console? Seriously, the new menu is HOT! The server browser is something else....

    Looking good does not equal being functional. It's painful to use, partially due to it's poor use of screen space, it has way to few configuration options, and the options it does have are buried under unnecessary layers of menus. So, yeah, it's great, unless you might ever want to use it.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by faultymoose View Post
    P.P.S. What the hell is with the complaints about the menu? It's streamlined, it's stylish, it's minimalistic, and it actually looks like it was designed by a designer. I don't get it. Do people need a billion menu options and tickboxes against a confusing background in order not to have their PC implode in the confusion that it's a console? Seriously, the new menu is HOT! The server browser is something else....
    I have to agree. They've kept it simple and accessible. I like.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    My thoughts, exactly!

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I don't have any problems with the menu. Looks kind on consolish but thats OK.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    P.P.S. What the hell is with the complaints about the menu? It's streamlined, it's stylish, it's minimalistic, and it actually looks like it was designed by a designer. I don't get it. Do people need a billion menu options and tickboxes against a confusing background in order not to have their PC implode in the confusion that it's a console? Seriously, the new menu is HOT! The server browser is something else....

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Good post... Intelligent...

    One problem though... I think weapon switch times are too fast as is... So I guess, middle ground, is right where it's at.

    Leave a comment:


  • started a topic Community Voice <> Innovation?

    Community Voice <> Innovation?

    If there is a large portion of the community that is vocally opposed to changes to the UT formula, should their plea have priority over any innovation in that formula?

    If the community voice was unanimous, the decision to make (or rollback) changes would be an easy one. But currently, the opinion is so drastically split that Epic is faced with a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation; a polarisation that clearly arose from the vastly different gameplay spanning the first two (2.5 to be pedantic) generations of the series.

    However UT3 had been developed, there was bound to be some community backlash. Either it'd be too similar, or too innovative; not enough evolution, or too much revoluton. Because there were two separate and equally vocal mindsets with high hopes for this next generation of UT. If they'd left it exactly the same as 2K4 but with prettier visuals just to avoid rocking the boat, then people would have complained that the game hadn't changed at all.

    It makes it awefully hard to filter the constructive feedback from the noise.

    Slow weapon switching: Noob friendly? Or more tactical combat choice? Spam happy? Or the cries of defeated hitscanners?

    Vehicles: Unbalanced and weak? Or facilitating viable foot combat? Mostly useless? Or optional rather than a necessity?

    Hoverboard: Gimmick? Or much needed easy transport? Too slow to recover from a fall? Or well balanced risk versus gain?

    Movement: Slow and clunky? Or heavy and grounded? Not reactive enough? Or less like Cirque Du Soleil on amphetamines?

    How do you identify which of the issues raised are game breaking, versus which of them simply don't sit well with people's play styles? At what point do you meet the community face to face, and at what point do you draw that line and say "Learn to adapt or get left behind"?

    It's fairly clear that the 99 purists are happier with UT3 than the 2K crew. The reasons are obvious - UT3 has a lot of the 99 'feel'. But because those 2K crew are currently the most vocal, does that necessitate (or justify) meeting the demands and disappointing the more silent section of the community (we all know the most vocal on the internet are those with a gripe)?

    Or should there be some effort to compromise?

    I think it'd be fairly safe to aim for middle ground. Take weapon swap times for example. A lot of people are complaining that they're too slow. A fair few people are saying they're happy with the way they are. But no one is complaining that they're too fast. Would it make sense then to find the middle ground and increase the speed of weapon switching a little?

    Perhaps, but so much fine tuning and meticulous attention to detail goes into balancing a game that the slightest change can ruin it.

    To use an apt example - with the disclaimer that I mean no offense to any who view this as a benefit rather than a fault - take hitscanning in 2K4. The shock/lg combo so outweighed any other weapon choice that the game was essentially broken. It didn't particularly worry the hitscanners - a skill that is definitely worthy of note and not the easiest thing to master - but it made the game increasingly less accessible, and a lot of the content totally redundent. Part of the community adapted to the imbalance and made their own game of it. The rest moved on.

    So perhaps even something as small as a slight change to weapon switching could result in clear favoritism towards one particular style of play. Perhaps it's going to happen anyway, as the community matures and learns to best utilise the mechanics of the game.

    But regardless of whether or not anything is changed before release - if any of those demands are met, or those making them are simply left by the wayside - claims that UT3 will be a dead fish are fairly baseless.

    The UT99 crew said exactly the same thing about 2K4. And they were given the same response - adapt, or be left behind.

    Hopefully, the community as a WHOLE, not just the purists and traditionalists, pick up the reigns of this next generation and make something of it. The UT community has always stood out amongst a plethora of online cess pits for its unique brand of light hearted community spirit and good natured jibing.

    Don't let your disappointment that you'll need to adapt and relearn anew in order to move into the next generation turn you off the challenge.

    UT3 looks great (yes, it does, shut up) and it plays great (not necessarily how you want it to, and not what you're used to, but it does) so give it a chance.

    Or stay with 2K4.

    Innovation is the one thing that keeps this industry moving forward, and without it, the Unreal Tournament series would become a mostly forgotten classic. Nothing is ever perfect, and innovation demands improvements and readaptations of dated concepts. Embrace it. Trust that Epic know what they're doing. Despite the preferences of 99'ers and 2K'ers alike, neither camp HATED the other camp. They just had different tastes in gameplay. But 2K4 was different to 99, and UT3 was always going to be different to 2K4.

    And if worst comes to worst, it's a short order for some code monkey to whip you up a mutator to make it just like the game you don't wanna leave behind.

    But just give it a go first. You might actually like it.

    P.S. I was a UT99'er, through and through. But when I actually PLAYED 2K4, and gave it a chance, I was a fan. I'm lucky enough to love both games in the series, so I'm excited about anything that Epic brings to the table, and I trust that if I don't understand it, or even if I don't want it, Epic has put everything together this way for a reason, and the game will be worth every last penny.

    Love,

    An unashamed fanboy
Working...
X