🚀 go-pugleaf

On Friday 27 January 2006 09:21 mike wrote:

> Alright some response to all this.... UT2007 may totally shock
> me. The first UT was a good game in it's own right, but even
> quake 1 blew it out of the window for fluidity, gameplay, balance
> ... everything. Quake 3 just pissed on it and laughed. UT2003 was
> very nice to look at and probably the only contender to the
> throne in a long time. I liked it, but compared to Q3 it's still
> no competition. Someone who I used to LAN with called XEN
> religiously played UT2003 and was in a clan, loved the game and
> thought he was the bee's knees. My friend Kris is great on games
> in general, you name it (driving games, RTS, FPS) he is a skilled
> player. He had hardly ever played UT2003 and he used to whoop
> XEN's ass all the time. No one at the lan could even kill me in
> Q3. The level of competition is what drives the game and why I
> play it. So I hope UT2007 will shock me and be great but guess
> what - it WONT be because it is for the XBOX 360. We will be

I agree that the Q series were always technically slicker than the
UT releases. The integration of network packets and player
refreshes is done perfectly and makes optimal use of the available
hardware, unlike UT which uses only part of the GPU, eg.

That said, and being a longtime Q fan, I have to admit that I have
been playing UT2004 now for over a year, and I find it tremendous
fun! In the end that is what counts for me (thats why I preemted
my short foray into BF2).

The UT2007 engine is a totally new one and I have the impression
that GPU-integration and hardware optimaization in general are
much higher on the agenda. Also, I still have the feeling that the
game is targeted mainly towards the PC, and a special edition for
the consoles will be available. I have my hopes high, nut thanks
for the headsup to QuakeWars; could be interesting too and maybe a
good 'second path' besides all the comercial rimram nowadays.

Ursa..