Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why is UT99 still the best in the series?

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

    Why is UT99 still the best in the series?

    Many consider UT99 the best (in the series) to this day, but I was always a fan of UT2004 and it was not clear to me until today.
    After many years I played both games and discovered that UT99 really brings me more pleasure. But why?

    This game has a relatively low dynamics of the gameplay in general.
    Have you noticed how slow the rocket launcher and rockets itself is in the game?
    God, it just ****** me off before, but now I find it surprisingly enjoying.
    Because I just have time to enjoy the game, notice funny moments, the game is not about naked reflexes.
    In this game, you always have more time to plan and improvise with weapons while in Quake 3
    or UT2004 you only have time to react quickly and run like crazy to get the frags.

    This is not the only reason why UT99 is better. Something in graphics, sounds, the design of maps is just perfect, and of course music.

    To summarize, I want to say that apparently it is not always worth chasing the dynamics in the shooter, slowness can also be fun.
    Not high dynamics allows you to notice events in the game, plan, and is simply available to more players.
    Perhaps a good example here can be Overwatch, it is also not very speedy and more about planning than about reflexes.

    #2
    I feel like I have more control over what happens in the game in UT99 and it isn't all about hitscan ability, but rather your ability to predict where players are going (shock rifle combo). In contrast, UT 2004 is floaty-dodgey which puts an emphasis on your hitscan ability. Overall, I think most players agreed based on how they voted with their feet - UT99 had far, far higher overall online multiplayer player counts than UT 2004 did as well as higher amounts of organized PUG match and clan match activity.
    UT4 CTF Maps: CTF-Whiplash | CTF-Sidewinder | CTF-Highpoint | CTF-Hardcore | CTF-Tubes-Of-Spam

    UT99 CTF Maps: CTF-DagnysBigAssMap-V2 | CTF-Dagnys-P****WhIpPeD | CTF-Dagnys-Dark-Delight-LE102 | CTF-Dagnys-Tubes-Of-Spam

    Comment


      #3
      In my opinion it are just the huger appearing figures!
      Future UT games could for me even extremize this
      with unrealistic perspective proportions ect. .
      (Character Viewability!)

      P.S.: There btw. exists a mutator for UT2k4 which allows to
      scale all players up but on some maps then spawns dont work as intented.
      (You can find it as part of the "Hammers Of Tourney 2017" Package!)
      https://www.moddb.com/games/unreal-t...f-tourney-2017
      Last edited by Kaal979; 05-31-2018, 08:29 AM.
      GOod STUff HERe << http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/h...psf9ca6a75.png

      Comment


        #4
        UT99 has a soul.

        Comment


          #5
          I like UT2003 the most. It has the best atmosphere (also the best intro I have ever seen for an arena shooter).
          But almost all UTs are enjoyable. I even liked UT3, which seems to be mostly hated.

          Comment


            #6
            Personally I imagine that UT2017 will become the most enjoyable one. There is immense satisfaction in mastering the new movement options :-]

            Comment


              #7
              Many consider UT99 the best because the majority of UT99 players are zealots who refuse to adapt or discover new things.
              If you actually spend time playing other arena fps games, you will discover UT99 to be a barely above average game with very weak weapon balance and a non-existent movement system.
              For example, here you are wanting planning and depth in your game and then saying Q3 (most brain heavy afps game alongside QL) is all about running fast and shooting? Makes me think you never played it...

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by FrankNg
                Many consider UT99 the best because the majority of UT99 players are zealots who refuse to adapt or discover new things.
                If you actually spend time playing other arena fps games, you will discover UT99 to be a barely above average game with very weak weapon balance and a non-existent movement system.
                If the other UT games are better than UT99, why did UT99 completely trounce the other games in terms of online player counts and amounts of clan match and organized PUG match activity? If the other games were better, shouldn't more people have been playing them?
                UT4 CTF Maps: CTF-Whiplash | CTF-Sidewinder | CTF-Highpoint | CTF-Hardcore | CTF-Tubes-Of-Spam

                UT99 CTF Maps: CTF-DagnysBigAssMap-V2 | CTF-Dagnys-P****WhIpPeD | CTF-Dagnys-Dark-Delight-LE102 | CTF-Dagnys-Tubes-Of-Spam

                Comment


                  #9
                  I'll debate you when you can back up your claims of "higher player counts". Not to mention that it's a completely irrelevant metric to judge a game by.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Another simplest fact also is - too much details somehow
                    overtax possibly more players than expected.
                    You know - eyes>brain>ability ... .
                    GOod STUff HERe << http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/h...psf9ca6a75.png

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Q3A/L weapon skill ceilings were pretty low, and this basically caused arena control to carry the game in terms of depth. This worked because the armor system was the one thing they got very right, and it wasn't as crazy steep a departure from realism shooters.

                      The weapon balance in UT was designed for triple digit modem pings. Taken in context, it was great for the time. Now, of course it's trash, because low latency favors the high velocity weapons heavily.

                      With today's pings and compensation, a move back to Unreal™ weapon balance numbers would be far better. This, however, would still do nothing for the control responsiveness of UT, which has been deluded severely in UT4 to reduce rubberbanding in the amped up interpolation model we have currently, and would require even further reductions to overall weapon efficacy - even from the Unreal™ starting point - due to target predictability.

                      The problem isn't UT "zealotry." The problem is that any time the franchise, or another shooter offered something new, they also abandoned other aspects of UT that were at the core of it's appeal. I am confident there isn't a single movement mechanic in UT4 that would be off putting to any "UT zealots." Most of the opposed weapon mechanics (link overheat, seeking goo, aggressive lox, massive mini2) are agreed upon on all sides. What's seems to not be agreed upon is the detrimental effect of "visceral" or "high efficacy" weapons, how they destroy counter play, and essentially are presenting players with a "worst of both worlds" in terms of historical Q3 vs UT. Lower skill ceiling weapons being the less appealing aspect of Q3, and lower depth in the armor system being the biggest issue in UT. They should be doing the opposite. Low efficacy weapons, longer engagements, and a more varied armor system. Starting with spawn times that aren't factors of each other, notably like the relationship between the MH and RA.

                      The ability to dodge incoming projectiles reactively is satisfying. It's also inherent counter play, which is paramount to a mutiplayer game. It has inherent depth, as you have to be craftier to hit your opponent with them, and it helps balance as being aggressive is more viable when you know you can avoid incoming fire out in the open, and don't require cover. This is what fueled to "in your face" nature of UT. The fact that you could get "in someone's face" without getting clicked the second you left cover.

                      Too many weapons in this game offer what feels like guaranteed damage. Might as well be cover based.
                      Originally posted by Mysterial
                      An instant hit, accurate, instant kill weapon is overpowered. There's no skill ceiling. It's limited only by the shooter's accuracy. It also severely impairs the defensive side of the game - ignoring ping, it is nearly irrelevant what your opponent does - click the right pixel and you win. Even non-instant kill instant hit weapons are often problematic - the Shock Rifle example is obvious before even getting to other games.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by FrankNg
                        I'll debate you when you can back up your claims of "higher player counts".
                        I would suggest perhaps asking other people who were active with Unreal Tournament from, say, 2000 - 2003 and who also played UT 2004. I never collected server browser screenshots or clan ladder webpage screenshots with the intention that years later I would be engaged in a debate over player counts and amounts of activity, so you'll just have to accept my testimonial evidence at face value. I bought UT 2004 in 2006 (2 years after release) and I can tell you that if you compare player counts for each game 2 years after release that UT99 completely trounced UT 2004's player counts. It's not even competitive. In 2006 the UT 2004 Capture-the-Flag and Bombing Run servers were almost completely empty (I don't play Deathmatch, but I don't remember the UT 2004 DM servers being particularly well populated, etiher) and the most popular game types UT 2004 game types (having failed for non-vehicular PvP on-foot games), Onslaught and Invasion RPG, had perhaps a couple hundred people at any one time. In contrast, in 2001 or 2002, you could have found thousands of people online playing UT99 CTF (think 3000+) at a given time, and that's just one game type. UT99 had hundreds of clans and at one time the Proving Grounds CTF ladders had 200+ clans on the CTF ladders. PUG match activity organized on IRC channels was thriving and continued on for years, and MLUT maintained an active UT99 CTF draft league up until a few years ago. I haven't seen any indications that UT 2004 ever had anything like that.

                        Did you play UT99? What are your memories of the UT99 server browser in 2001 and 2002? What are your memories of the UT 2004 server browser in 2006?

                        Originally posted by FrankNg
                        Not to mention that it's a completely irrelevant metric to judge a game by.
                        Why are online player counts and amounts of clan match activity - the best measure of how much people like a game - an irrelevant metric to judge a game intended for online multiplayer by? Logically, if people like a game they will play it, and if they do not find a game compelling they will not play it much. So why would online player counts and amounts of clan match and PUG match activity be an irrelevant metric? Can you propose a better metric?
                        Last edited by WHIPperSNAPper; 06-01-2018, 01:09 PM.
                        UT4 CTF Maps: CTF-Whiplash | CTF-Sidewinder | CTF-Highpoint | CTF-Hardcore | CTF-Tubes-Of-Spam

                        UT99 CTF Maps: CTF-DagnysBigAssMap-V2 | CTF-Dagnys-P****WhIpPeD | CTF-Dagnys-Dark-Delight-LE102 | CTF-Dagnys-Tubes-Of-Spam

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Lets get realistic - all the 3d structures are quite impressive
                          but somehow a polygonal surface actually cannot(!) supercede
                          a simple but eye-adjusted 2d sprite graphic and thats probably
                          also another fact which our brains though not knowing
                          it always remember and calculate.
                          GOod STUff HERe << http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/h...psf9ca6a75.png

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Thanks - but what it (maybe) really means is that the UT99
                            and its precedessor U1 were some sort of unseen weird graphical
                            insanities what again made them thus fascinating actually!
                            Remains the question why Quake2 still looks way better than Q1 e,g,.
                            GOod STUff HERe << http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/h...psf9ca6a75.png

                            Comment


                              #15
                              I can tell you that if you compare player counts for each game 2 years after release that UT99 completely trounced UT 2004's player counts. It's not even competitive.
                              And we have to believe this outlandish, bizarre claim because......
                              The thing is that you may even have a point (who knows exactly?), but you go about it in such a ******** way effectively stating that 2k4 was a graveyard when it was one of the most active fps games right up until 07/08.
                              having failed for non-vehicular PvP on-foot games
                              Sure, if you casually decide to ignore modes like DM, TDM, and TAM. If anything, UT2k3 and 2k4 improved on-foot gameplay by giving the player a fluid movement system beyond grid-like small dodges. Those games actually required you to master movement for map navigation instead of performing the same double tap action repeatedly at the same speed as everyone else. Are you aware that there were players with average aim but could compensate it through movement in those games? The main culprit of what you perceive to be "floaty movement and hitscan heavy gameplay" has always been the messed up map scale which was largely solved by playing on good community made maps (and of course shock, that gun can't be balanced in any game).
                              Why are online player counts and amounts of clan match activity - the best measure of how much people like a game - an irrelevant metric to judge a game intended for online multiplayer by?
                              For a number of reasons. Market shifts. Heavy marketing vs no marketing. Being the right thing at the right time vs being the right thing at the wrong time. User QoL. There are many parameters that influence the playercount beyond the quality of a product.
                              As for an alternative method, how about judging a game based on its mechanics and gameplay? Even though its highly subjective, I would rather hear your thoughts on the game itself. Which specific mechanics did UT99 do better? Which other games can you use as a reference or comparison? Did you ever play any of them at a high level that solidifies your degree of knowledge about them?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X