Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It's time to stop.

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

    #61
    Maybe its one of those cases where 'technology isn't where we want it yet so why bother with it now' like Bethesda was with TESVI

    I don't think they would let Unreal completely die off. Could be its better to take a step back and see where the game could go with VR, raytracing etc...

    Its unfortunate but look at other older franchises that tried to make a comeback, they fail miserably, Duke Nukem Forever being the prime example that comes to mind, Doom was okay but still felt dated compared to other newer games.

    I'd rather wait for a good unreal than get some clone of another project with 'Unreal Flavor'.
    Last edited by BobbyJindal; 07-11-2018, 05:27 AM.

    Comment


      #62
      Carbon, we the community had no control over anything directly related to official content. That distinction belonged to Epic. The fact that they seemed to initially elude to a co-creator status to the community only muddied the waters. Even more so, it turned off a major portion of the creative community when we found out that we would end up having NO input to the game's direction or core content after being initially told we would. If nothing else, small team of Epic developers who volunteered to build the game likely had no idea who this project would go down, since there was no funding set aside from the company. Development was originally based solely off of Unreal Engine subscriptions. It was gamble and somehow it didn't work out.

      Sure, there is some blame to throw around and I think doing so it counterproductive. Epic is no longer communicating with the fan-based community regarding development, so all we can do now is look at this in retrospect and either that confirms or negates how each of us looks upon this UT project.
      Last edited by Crotale; 07-11-2018, 11:28 AM.
      Promotional consideration brought to you by: Tarydium Shards, those neat little projectiles that remove unwanted flesh...from your opponents!

      Comment


        #63
        Carbon, we the community had no control over anything directly related to official content. That distinction belonged to Epic. The fact that they seemed to initially elude to a co-creator status to the community only muddied the waters. Even more so, it turned off a major portion of the creative community when we found out that we would end up having NO input to the game's direction or core content after being initially told we would.
        Well, I'm not sure how far you want to take that, but it begs the question - though it is a new one - as to how much 'control' the community expected to be granted. The terms of the 'agreement' were ambiguous and it seems to me that Epic would have to maintain the final word on many aspects. This is a business venture and one that was hoped to turn a profit at some point. At no point did I ever see this as being a 50-50 split and I think that it is naive to think that it ever was such a division.

        If nothing else, small team of Epic developers who volunteered to build the game likely had no idea who this project would go down, since there was no funding set aside from the company. Development was originally based solely off of Unreal Engine subscriptions. It was gamble and somehow it didn't work out.
        This is news to me. Not about the size of the team or the funding for the project, but that the project was to be based on UE subs. It isn't clear what you mean exactly, but I read it to mean that they assumed many members of the community would download and use UE4? I'm going to need more clarification on that point I'm afraid.

        Sure, there is some blame to throw around and I think doing so it counterproductive. Epic is no longer communicating with the fan-based community regarding development, so all we can do now is look at this in retrospect and either that confirms or negates how each of us looks upon this UT project.
        Counterproductive indeed. But I'm not going to sit back and watch the community wash its hands of responsibility. I am willing to engage in some counterproductive discussions in order to rectify absurdly deluded posting. Too many people crapped on this project regularly to let that nonsense stand uncontested. I am a very empathetic person and yes, some points raised by the community are valid, but the majority are not and are directed at a group of Epic employees whom I believe are not only good people, but were involved in bringing us many of the games that shaped our gaming lives for the last 20 years. I'm not willing to sacrifice that relationship over this project and the long row of miscues and misunderstandings that define it.

        WYSIATI. "What you see is all there is". I read a book called "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman and so many principles of that book apply to this situation. Many people have operated from a very narrow viewpoint and assumed they had a handle on all of the factors that went into making decisions at each step along the way of this project. The truth is they didn't and made many assumptions that were not only wrong, but myopic and again, naive. Anyhow, the book is almost a play-by-play guide to making a scenario exactly like what has played out over the last few years here and I really think that nobody is blameless in the end.

        So, when the "we didn't do anything wrong" claptrap ends, then so will my rebuttals.
        My Unreal game collection. Unreal series screenshots (2560x1440)

        Comment


          #64
          Well, I'm not sure how far you want to take that, but it begs the question - though it is a new one - as to how much 'control' the community expected to be granted. The terms of the 'agreement' were ambiguous and it seems to me that Epic would have to maintain the final word on many aspects. This is a business venture and one that was hoped to turn a profit at some point. At no point did I ever see this as being a 50-50 split and I think that it is naive to think that it ever was such a division.
          I feel that Epic left things a bit ambiguous in the very beginning, but they did start to elaborate more on who had control later on. It was a joyous time for all involved, and it would have been very easy for some far-fetched ideas about who could do what to take wing. I don't think anyone thought it to be some 50-50 split on development responsibilities or financial rewards: Epic made it fairly clear they were the final word on core content, but they also seemed to add in some unnecessary fog by saying that some community developed content might be added to a release.

          This is news to me. Not about the size of the team or the funding for the project, but that the project was to be based on UE subs. It isn't clear what you mean exactly, but I read it to mean that they assumed many members of the community would download and use UE4? I'm going to need more clarification on that point I'm afraid.
          There was no procurement of funding, as in a publisher who fronted an investment in development. From what was mentioned in the earliest discussions with the initial group of devs, to include Joe, Steve and some others, they were all involved in order to bring a fan favorite back to life in a new form, and that there day jobs still required their attention. Another key item was that UE4 subs would funnel monies towards development and that sales of community products would help to sustain the game. Remember the UT Marketplace? It was supposed to rival Steam, but that vision never came to fruition. Anyways, Epic ended up making UE4 free to use, with royalties tacked on to anything sold. To that end, why make mods and other content for a game when you can publish your own unique content? This might be where the community disconnect emanated.
          Promotional consideration brought to you by: Tarydium Shards, those neat little projectiles that remove unwanted flesh...from your opponents!

          Comment


            #65
            There was no procurement of funding, as in a publisher who fronted an investment in development. From what was mentioned in the earliest discussions with the initial group of devs, to include Joe, Steve and some others, they were all involved in order to bring a fan favorite back to life in a new form, and that there day jobs still required their attention. Another key item was that UE4 subs would funnel monies towards development and that sales of community products would help to sustain the game. Remember the UT Marketplace? It was supposed to rival Steam, but that vision never came to fruition. Anyways, Epic ended up making UE4 free to use, with royalties tacked on to anything sold. To that end, why make mods and other content for a game when you can publish your own unique content? This might be where the community disconnect emanated.
            Ok then, yes, I was aware of most of that, save the UE4 subs. Indeed, the marketplace was never fleshed out well at all. You know, I kind of feel bad for everyone in this frozen venture. I really believe that everyone started out with the best intentions, but despite having hearts in the right places, there were too many things that just weren't predicted or discussed. The whole thing was just half-baked, and I don't mean that to sound pejorative. New things surprise.

            And I guess that leads into what you said at the beginning of your last post: things simply weren't well-defined. A true shame, as I too recall the early days of the project being a very heady time for all. I guess that also explains why I am so intolerant of destructive criticism. At this point, with nobody having clean hands, it is just pointless to engage in pointing dirty fingers. We all need to shoulder this, learn and hopefully move on.

            Thanks for the discussion Crotale.
            My Unreal game collection. Unreal series screenshots (2560x1440)

            Comment


              #66
              Subject: It's time to stop.

              Body: 5 pages of continued retrospective sparked by the OP demanding to quell it.

              Bravo to everyone but OP author. *claps*

              Comment


                #67
                not so much of this chatter refers to the topic. and the things that seem refer do not understand me. I do not blame the community for the fact that "development does not continue." the game is just ... boring and all about what the community can is ask for to edit the balance or to offer amateurish trash ideas. What is the point? The game needs one regular game designer, not this community-oriented development.
                Last edited by MArS03; 07-13-2018, 08:29 AM.

                Comment


                  #68
                  Understandable dejection MArS, the point is, this community isn't dead yet and I have 178 custom maps loaded on my UT to back that up.
                  Adversity makes us stronger, live for today because tomorrow is not guaranteed.

                  Comment


                    #69
                    How about ability to play at least 3 consecutive matches in a row without getting disconnected? Or ability to access server browser AT ALL?

                    Comment


                      #70
                      The thing is, the game is NOT boring (not fundamentally - what's boring or frustrating is playing with wildly different skill levels lumped together), and the community could at least in theory do a lot more if it was allowed to. I say in theory because what is most needed is professional talent to address the core technology underlying the gameplay. It would take some unrealistically dedicated fans to donate that kind of work for free, if there are even any who can. Epic's leadership/direction has had no value or vision thus far, and the community's direction has had no agency thus far.

                      Open source/community driven game development has been a pretty unsuccessful model thus far, where the very best on offer still pales compared to similar for-profit game ventures. What should have made UT special was the already very well defined framework for a good, successful game that should have first guided the underlying technology which in turn should have been carefully designed by the paid professionals. For what does Epic hold the reigns if not that? After that, fleshing out modern variations on the existing gameplay model would have been easy, but not so much when exploring ideas and pumping out maps on a foundation of sand.

                      At this point the game wasn't even supposed to be fun, becuse it's still just a collection of experiments and about 3 major phases away from being ready for actual balance and playtesting. But since this is all we'll get, we want to at least polish it for what it is.

                      Top-down software development always produces a hot mess and just ends up costing more, which is the exact opposite of what you need on a shoestring budget that relies on volunteer contribution, and which is what you choose only when you don't really have any idea where you're going.
                      Last edited by HonoredMule; 07-13-2018, 04:42 PM.

                      Comment


                        #71
                        Carbon, I too enjoyed the discussion. I agree pretty much with everything you said.
                        Promotional consideration brought to you by: Tarydium Shards, those neat little projectiles that remove unwanted flesh...from your opponents!

                        Comment


                          #72
                          Carbon, just to clarify I personally do take a big part of the blame because I propagated a negative attitude early on in the process that was just unnecessary. I was also instrumental to the release of the very early pre-alpha builds that raxxy released that led to fatal1ty trying the game that led to Epic moving everything to the launcher and releasing their own builds extremely prematurely, which I believe are all contributing factors to the failure of this game.

                          What I completely disagree with is that the community at large was somehow responsible for the fate of the game. The community was hardly allowed to contribute other than a tiny scrape of people that were seen as "good enough" to contribute something. For the most part, the game design and ideas about how the game should be were basically ignored. As an example, early on there was a discussion about how shields should work that initially led to some really interesting conversations (mingled with toxicity). The conversation was started by Jim Brown and then basically abandoned for months. Then someone from Epic came back to the conversation and kicked it back up again and then it was abandoned again. Each time it led to more and more negativity and cat fighting in the conversation and devolved to the point where it wasn't relevant anymore.

                          This kind of thing happened with dozens upon dozens of conversations. Conversations about the HUD, about movement, about weapons firing rates and modes... just about any design thing you can think of. Not managing the community made the community worthless as a partner in development, and they were never really treated as a partner in development anyway in any different way than they were for UT2004 or UT3. Because the community was never treated as a partner, though, how could the community be to blame? You could say it's because of the attitude or something, but let's be honest: the problem is that the community was also never really allowed to help the project succeed in the way that people were expecting to be able to help. Even if you think the majority of people were clamoring for an exact replica of a previous game (hint: they were not), Epic wasn't listening to them anyway. The game in the state it's in right now isn't anywhere close to what people were asking for, whether you are happy with where it's at or not.

                          As you rightly indicated, the Quake Champions community acts probably worse than this community did about that game. But somehow that project isn't being buried under that weight like this one supposedly was. That's because an unempowered community really doesn't have that much of an affect on the success of a game, and UT didn't have an empowered community. It has a lot more to do with the developers and the marketing and the market it's in. The fact of the matter is that there won't ever be an arena shooter that is as popular and profitable as Fortnite BR, and a business that has a Fortnite BR isn't ever going to chase that tiny market. I think that lots of people recognized this at a higher level when the project started and were hoping that this would be a project that, once Epic lost interest, the community could continue carrying forward. But that dream was lost early on.

                          Regarding the UE subs thing, when UT4 first came out and announced, it was a partnership with UE4 subscribers in close communication with the community. When UE4 was made free, that probably affected their plans a bit.
                          HABOUJI! Ouboudah! Batai d'va!
                          BeyondUnreal - Liandri Archives [An extensive repository of Unreal lore.] - Join us on IRC [irc.utchat.com - #beyondunreal]

                          Comment


                            #73
                            Carbon, just to clarify I personally do take a big part of the blame because I propagated a negative attitude early on in the process that was just unnecessary. I was also instrumental to the release of the very early pre-alpha builds that raxxy released that led to fatal1ty trying the game that led to Epic moving everything to the launcher and releasing their own builds extremely prematurely, which I believe are all contributing factors to the failure of this game.
                            Well, don't take too much credit for the current situation. You're just one needle in a haystack in this regard. Which takes me to....

                            What I completely disagree with is that the community at large was somehow responsible for the fate of the game. The community was hardly allowed to contribute other than a tiny scrape of people that were seen as "good enough" to contribute something. For the most part, the game design and ideas about how the game should be were basically ignored. As an example, early on there was a discussion about how shields should work that initially led to some really interesting conversations (mingled with toxicity). The conversation was started by Jim Brown and then basically abandoned for months. Then someone from Epic came back to the conversation and kicked it back up again and then it was abandoned again. Each time it led to more and more negativity and cat fighting in the conversation and devolved to the point where it wasn't relevant anymore.
                            Again, I'm not saying the community is to blame wholly, but certainly partially. Yes, people whose content was up to par were taken in, and rightly so. Why would Epic bring in sub-standard work or ideas? There has always been lots of talk here, but very little action and those who actually did something tangible were listened to. Kaal is an extreme example, but look at the drivel he puts up here time and time again: he may be on one end of a continuum, but a good example of that continuum. That Epic began conversations is how they went about collecting ideas: maybe right or wrong, that's a different discussion, but that's how they went about gathering consensus or thoughts on ideas. That Jim wouldn't wade back into the mire after things inevitably turned nasty is natural as well...even I kept my ideas out of the vast majority of those threads simply because they quickly became utterly non-productive and circular. Why would Jim - or anyone - step into that kind of firing line? You said yourself that things got ugly.

                            This kind of thing happened with dozens upon dozens of conversations. Conversations about the HUD, about movement, about weapons firing rates and modes... just about any design thing you can think of. Not managing the community made the community worthless as a partner in development, and they were never really treated as a partner in development anyway in any different way than they were for UT2004 or UT3. Because the community was never treated as a partner, though, how could the community be to blame? You could say it's because of the attitude or something, but let's be honest: the problem is that the community was also never really allowed to help the project succeed in the way that people were expecting to be able to help. Even if you think the majority of people were clamoring for an exact replica of a previous game (hint: they were not), Epic wasn't listening to them anyway. The game in the state it's in right now isn't anywhere close to what people were asking for, whether you are happy with where it's at or not.
                            Again, I contend that babysitting a volatile, insatiable and highly reactive community wasn't in the game plan and I don't blame them one bit for not wanting to 'manage' (whatever that might mean) this motley bunch. They hadn't the manpower, will or time to do so anyhow. We were never offered partnership and the most vocal in the community were often the most toxic: the old-schoolers who thought they knew UT better than anyone (even those who made the previous titles) were the most belligerent and stubborn about new ideas and also complaining that they weren't being listened to (which to them means have their ideas taken wholesale and acted upon immediately). You keep claiming to be a voice for "people" and "they", and I can only assume that - with your aforementioned admitting to being a stick in the mud typically - refers to those very old-schoolers who made progression very difficult, even on the tiniest aspect. No, there was a group of highly vocal people who were not going to be satisfied until the game was made their way, and even within that group there was fracturing and dissonance: there was no unity even within the resistance. This schism would not only take threads into the toilet and drown out moderate discussion, but would also drag one another around, creating the adversarial toxicity that characterized those discussions.

                            As you rightly indicated, the Quake Champions community acts probably worse than this community did about that game. But somehow that project isn't being buried under that weight like this one supposedly was. That's because an unempowered community really doesn't have that much of an affect on the success of a game, and UT didn't have an empowered community. It has a lot more to do with the developers and the marketing and the market it's in. The fact of the matter is that there won't ever be an arena shooter that is as popular and profitable as Fortnite BR, and a business that has a Fortnite BR isn't ever going to chase that tiny market. I think that lots of people recognized this at a higher level when the project started and were hoping that this would be a project that, once Epic lost interest, the community could continue carrying forward. But that dream was lost early on.
                            I didn't say worse. It's hard to say which community is worse and it's subjective, so whatever. But they are both pretty ugly. That project isn't being buried because they aren't even pretending to listen. There was no mention of a co-opted development and the devs are just doing what they feel is right. Epic's 'fault' was being naive and giving too much authority to the community from the start. They never should have said they would listen to us as closely as they indicated they would.

                            AFPS games had their Fortnite days: they were in the 90's and early 00's. Those were the salad days of UT, when every other developer wanted to make a UT2004-level-of-success game. Things change. Selah. Yes, Epic were naive and hadn't considered all of the possible pitfalls of their adopted form of development. Maybe this is what happens when Epic let 5 or 6 people who really want to do right by the people who put them where they are sit in a back-room echo chamber; ideas don't get looked at from enough angles, problems don't get foreseen and overall positivity creates biases and heuristics that blind. I think they were simply too optimistic about just about everything, including how much the community could contribute. Turns out this 'family' is pretty broken.

                            Regarding the UE subs thing, when UT4 first came out and announced, it was a partnership with UE4 subscribers in close communication with the community. When UE4 was made free, that probably affected their plans a bit
                            Indeed, as did many things which popped up over time.

                            Anyhow, a postmortem is needed and would be highly instructive regarding how to go about this moving forward, but what we are doing right now is more of the same nonsense that got us here in the first place: necks cranked backwards, sniffing our own farts. The past is done and the only thing that matters is where to go from here. I'm officially done with these kinds of discussions: they are non-productive and ultimately only serve as more division between the few of us still sitting at the table. Peace.
                            Last edited by Carbon; 07-14-2018, 09:57 PM.
                            My Unreal game collection. Unreal series screenshots (2560x1440)

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X