🚀 go-pugleaf

"Todd" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:l5vuh4h9tstfnbg7vc7edmqpgqa3sck2ss@4ax.com...
> The first Unreal Engine was first used for Unreal, then they decided
> to release the multiplayer as a stand alone, and Unreal Tournament was
> born.
>
> For Unreal Engine 2, they released both the single player Unreal 2,
> and the multiplayer 2003 pretty close together.  (I always said it was
> one game for the price of two, and the fact that they added game types
> and rereleased the game as 2004 proves that 2003 was only half a
> game.)
>
> Now we're up to Unreal Engine 3, and we have Unreal Tournament 3, but
> there's no single player game with the Unreal name.
>
> So, is there a game (other than UT3) that is the reason they built the
> engine?
>
>

In some ways UT3 is a showcase for the engine to be licensed by third 
parties. I think they have seen that there is not a lot of money to be made 
directly with a released game. 

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:12:40 -0800, "goPostal"
<agutgopostal@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Todd" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
>news:l5vuh4h9tstfnbg7vc7edmqpgqa3sck2ss@4ax.com...
>> The first Unreal Engine was first used for Unreal, then they decided
>> to release the multiplayer as a stand alone, and Unreal Tournament was
>> born.
>>
>> For Unreal Engine 2, they released both the single player Unreal 2,
>> and the multiplayer 2003 pretty close together.  (I always said it was
>> one game for the price of two, and the fact that they added game types
>> and rereleased the game as 2004 proves that 2003 was only half a
>> game.)
>>
>> Now we're up to Unreal Engine 3, and we have Unreal Tournament 3, but
>> there's no single player game with the Unreal name.
>>
>> So, is there a game (other than UT3) that is the reason they built the
>> engine?
>>
>>
>
>In some ways UT3 is a showcase for the engine to be licensed by third 
>parties. I think they have seen that there is not a lot of money to be made 
>directly with a released game. 
>

" I think they have seen that there is not a lot of money to be made 
directly with a PC game."

Fixed.

"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message 
news:fkh3i4tb1i4ju6q7aiss65vsv8rrlmaqa7@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:12:40 -0800, "goPostal"
> <agutgopostal@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Todd" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>news:l5vuh4h9tstfnbg7vc7edmqpgqa3sck2ss@4ax.com...
>>> The first Unreal Engine was first used for Unreal, then they decided
>>> to release the multiplayer as a stand alone, and Unreal Tournament was
>>> born.
>>>
>>> For Unreal Engine 2, they released both the single player Unreal 2,
>>> and the multiplayer 2003 pretty close together.  (I always said it was
>>> one game for the price of two, and the fact that they added game types
>>> and rereleased the game as 2004 proves that 2003 was only half a
>>> game.)
>>>
>>> Now we're up to Unreal Engine 3, and we have Unreal Tournament 3, but
>>> there's no single player game with the Unreal name.
>>>
>>> So, is there a game (other than UT3) that is the reason they built the
>>> engine?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>In some ways UT3 is a showcase for the engine to be licensed by third
>>parties. I think they have seen that there is not a lot of money to be 
>>made
>>directly with a released game.
>>
>
> " I think they have seen that there is not a lot of money to be made
> directly with a PC game."
>
> Fixed.

Thank you Big F. As always you are spot on  :)

Think about it for just a moment. What if it was 2003 and I told you what 
has happened in the last couple of years was going to occur? You'd have 
thought I was insane. A version of UT that has a ghosttown of servers? 
Console designed game? It boggles the mind... 

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:26:07 -0800, "goPostal"
<agutgopostal@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message 
>news:fkh3i4tb1i4ju6q7aiss65vsv8rrlmaqa7@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:12:40 -0800, "goPostal"
>> <agutgopostal@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Todd" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>news:l5vuh4h9tstfnbg7vc7edmqpgqa3sck2ss@4ax.com...
>>>> The first Unreal Engine was first used for Unreal, then they decided
>>>> to release the multiplayer as a stand alone, and Unreal Tournament was
>>>> born.
>>>>
>>>> For Unreal Engine 2, they released both the single player Unreal 2,
>>>> and the multiplayer 2003 pretty close together.  (I always said it was
>>>> one game for the price of two, and the fact that they added game types
>>>> and rereleased the game as 2004 proves that 2003 was only half a
>>>> game.)
>>>>
>>>> Now we're up to Unreal Engine 3, and we have Unreal Tournament 3, but
>>>> there's no single player game with the Unreal name.
>>>>
>>>> So, is there a game (other than UT3) that is the reason they built the
>>>> engine?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>In some ways UT3 is a showcase for the engine to be licensed by third
>>>parties. I think they have seen that there is not a lot of money to be 
>>>made
>>>directly with a released game.
>>>
>>
>> " I think they have seen that there is not a lot of money to be made
>> directly with a PC game."
>>
>> Fixed.
>
>Thank you Big F. As always you are spot on  :)
>
>Think about it for just a moment. What if it was 2003 and I told you what 
>has happened in the last couple of years was going to occur? You'd have 
>thought I was insane. A version of UT that has a ghosttown of servers? 
>Console designed game? It boggles the mind... 

I can't blame Epic for building on their success with Gears.  It's a
shame though that their talent pool is so shallow that pulling Cliffy
B. off to do Gears killed UT.

Either that or possibly the original UT was just a stroke of luck or a
fluke for Epic, since nothing they've produced since then for the PC
has been as solid or enjoyable.  

"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message 
news:1u8bi4lricet12i1upqtibi6oh7t5o7j0o@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:26:07 -0800, "goPostal"
> <agutgopostal@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message
>>news:fkh3i4tb1i4ju6q7aiss65vsv8rrlmaqa7@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:12:40 -0800, "goPostal"
>>> <agutgopostal@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Todd" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:l5vuh4h9tstfnbg7vc7edmqpgqa3sck2ss@4ax.com...
>>>>> The first Unreal Engine was first used for Unreal, then they decided
>>>>> to release the multiplayer as a stand alone, and Unreal Tournament was
>>>>> born.
>>>>>
>>>>> For Unreal Engine 2, they released both the single player Unreal 2,
>>>>> and the multiplayer 2003 pretty close together.  (I always said it was
>>>>> one game for the price of two, and the fact that they added game types
>>>>> and rereleased the game as 2004 proves that 2003 was only half a
>>>>> game.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Now we're up to Unreal Engine 3, and we have Unreal Tournament 3, but
>>>>> there's no single player game with the Unreal name.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, is there a game (other than UT3) that is the reason they built the
>>>>> engine?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In some ways UT3 is a showcase for the engine to be licensed by third
>>>>parties. I think they have seen that there is not a lot of money to be
>>>>made
>>>>directly with a released game.
>>>>
>>>
>>> " I think they have seen that there is not a lot of money to be made
>>> directly with a PC game."
>>>
>>> Fixed.
>>
>>Thank you Big F. As always you are spot on  :)
>>
>>Think about it for just a moment. What if it was 2003 and I told you what
>>has happened in the last couple of years was going to occur? You'd have
>>thought I was insane. A version of UT that has a ghosttown of servers?
>>Console designed game? It boggles the mind...
>
> I can't blame Epic for building on their success with Gears.  It's a
> shame though that their talent pool is so shallow that pulling Cliffy
> B. off to do Gears killed UT.
>
> Either that or possibly the original UT was just a stroke of luck or a
> fluke for Epic, since nothing they've produced since then for the PC
> has been as solid or enjoyable.

I'm with you. I went back to UT99 and I am happily coding away and enjoying 
the hell out of myself. I liked 2K4, just not nearly as much. I still play 
occasionally and admin MonsterExtreme invasion server but most of my time is 
spent in 99. 

Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote:

>I can't blame Epic for building on their success with Gears.  It's a
>shame though that their talent pool is so shallow that pulling Cliffy
>B. off to do Gears killed UT.
>
>Either that or possibly the original UT was just a stroke of luck or a
>fluke for Epic, since nothing they've produced since then for the PC
>has been as solid or enjoyable.  

When you get so close to perfect, the best you can do is minor
tweaking.  The only thing 2004 did was add vehicles.  Everything else
was just pointless eyecandy.  Although, it's fun to run around some of
those huge maps just to look at the scenery.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:34:46 -0800, Todd <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

>Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote:
>
>>I can't blame Epic for building on their success with Gears.  It's a
>>shame though that their talent pool is so shallow that pulling Cliffy
>>B. off to do Gears killed UT.
>>
>>Either that or possibly the original UT was just a stroke of luck or a
>>fluke for Epic, since nothing they've produced since then for the PC
>>has been as solid or enjoyable.  
>
>When you get so close to perfect, the best you can do is minor
>tweaking.  The only thing 2004 did was add vehicles.  Everything else
>was just pointless eyecandy.  Although, it's fun to run around some of
>those huge maps just to look at the scenery.

I don't see it that way.  UT2004 introduced ONS, which was a
completely different gametype.  ONS managed to inject some enthusiasm
into UT where there was none before.  

Then came UT3, which effectively pushed a pin into the enthusiasm
bubble.

I commented:

>>When you get so close to perfect, the best you can do is minor
>>tweaking.  The only thing 2004 did was add vehicles.  Everything else
>>was just pointless eyecandy.  Although, it's fun to run around some of
>>those huge maps just to look at the scenery.

Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote:

>I don't see it that way.  UT2004 introduced ONS, which was a
>completely different gametype.  ONS managed to inject some enthusiasm
>into UT where there was none before.  
>
>Then came UT3, which effectively pushed a pin into the enthusiasm
>bubble.


Onslaught is the vehicles and huge maps.  Is there really anything
else new about it?  Attack this, attack that, attack the other thing.
Or defend all of the above.  Mind you, I'm not attacking the game.  If
I played online more, I'd probably mix it up with Onslaught as much as
ctf or bombing run.

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:19:42 -0800, Todd <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

>I commented:
>
>>>When you get so close to perfect, the best you can do is minor
>>>tweaking.  The only thing 2004 did was add vehicles.  Everything else
>>>was just pointless eyecandy.  Although, it's fun to run around some of
>>>those huge maps just to look at the scenery.
>
>Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote:
>
>>I don't see it that way.  UT2004 introduced ONS, which was a
>>completely different gametype.  ONS managed to inject some enthusiasm
>>into UT where there was none before.  
>>
>>Then came UT3, which effectively pushed a pin into the enthusiasm
>>bubble.
>
>
>Onslaught is the vehicles and huge maps.  Is there really anything
>else new about it?  Attack this, attack that, attack the other thing.
>Or defend all of the above. 

There's quite a bit of strategy involved when playing with good
(intelligent) teams, but finding good teams these days is difficult.

-  Each vehicle has different strengths/weaknesses.  Deciding
   whether to grab a Manta or Raptor when you have a choice completely
   depends on which node you're heading for, whether you're trying 
   to capture or defend it, and what vehicles the opposing team
   has already deployed.  For example, if you're trying to take out a 
   Goliath (tank) then you want a Raptor, since a Manta flies too
   close to the ground and can be easily shot down by a Goliath.  The
   Raptor can hover directly overhead which is a much more difficult
   shot for the Goliath.

-  Knowing which node to attack depends on map knowledge and what the
   opposing team is doing at that moment in time.  It's sometimes
   wiser to defend node "A" than to attack node "B", depending on
   your proximity to each.

-  You cannot attack the enemy core unless you control their primary 
   (or one of their primary, when there are more than one) node.  So
   there's no way to immediately get to the end-game without first 
   connecting the dots (nodes).  

-  This game demands more team coordination than other gametypes.
   That's why playing with a bunch of noobs (or bots) is not
   satisfying.

Since you only play with bots, it would be very difficult to get a
feel for the game as it should be played.  But given the quality of
on-line play these days, you're pretty much doomed to frustration.

Todd wrote:

> So, is there a game (other than UT3) that is the reason they built the
> engine?

Gears of War?

Todd wrote:

> Onslaught is the vehicles and huge maps.  Is there really anything
> else new about it?  Attack this, attack that, attack the other thing.

There's a lot of tactics involved in onslaught and it benefits hugely 
from good teamplay and comms. I imagine it's pretty rewarding to play as 
part of a good team in a clan game. BlackCheetah's even done a ut99 
version of onslaught.

vCtf adds a lot of strategy to CTF too, which is probably why it's the 
one part of UT3 that still gets any notice at all. Alas, it bought a 
whole new world of exploits and dirty play (overpowered spawnkilling 
weapons, planting a tank on a flag etc, and exploits involving vehicles 
which unbalance things hugely) but you can't really blame the game for 
that - the determined always find a way to lame, that's why there's 
humans adminning :)

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:38:32 +0000, Flash <NOSPAM@digdilem.org> wrote:


>the determined always find a way to lame...

Heh.