PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
MP in U2 ... or - Why?
July 7th 2003, 19:33 CEST by VeeSPIKE

Legend has announced that they are working on a multiplayer component for Unreal II. My question is - Why?

It is supposed to be released as a free download, which somewhat takes the edge off the question. But I want to know - Why bother? It does not need multiplayer. The game was fine without it.

Are there still enough people playing/buying U2 to justify the expense of a free add-on? Would YOU play U2 MP?
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: MP in U2 ... or - Why?

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by jjz
2003-07-07 19:35:26
No.
#2 by m0nty
2003-07-07 19:37:21
http://tinfinger.blogspot.com
Ah, a return to traditional values at PlanetCrap with a gratuitous Unreal topic.
#3 by Sgt Hulka
2003-07-07 19:42:35
One Way or Another I'm gonna find ya
I'm gonna getcha, getcha, getcha

Doomed! the Movie - Videogames Turn Deadly...
#4 by Chunkstyle
2003-07-07 19:48:54
Sure, I'd try U2 multiplayer.  It's like getting a professional UT2K3 mod, with new weapons and maps.

I like cheese.
#5 by Shadarr
2003-07-07 19:50:06
shadarr@yahoo.com http://digital-luddite.com
I have no opinion.
#6 by m0nty
2003-07-07 19:51:13
http://tinfinger.blogspot.com
I didn't buy U2 when it came out, mostly because I have very limited disposable income, but also because I was turned off with the excessive amount of cleavage used to promote the game.
#7 by BarneyQue
2003-07-07 19:52:33
The argument is not compelling.
#8 by Ergo
2003-07-07 19:54:26
Turned off by the cleavage? Jesus, m0nty, I worry about you...

#9 by Russ
2003-07-07 19:55:00
Wait. You mean there's a game being promoted?

There's two kinds of people in the world. People with guns and people who dig.
#10 by m0nty
2003-07-07 19:56:28
http://tinfinger.blogspot.com
I think it was the topknot in the girl's hair that put me off. I can't stand vertical pigtails on a woman, heaving bosom or no heaving bosom.
#11 by Warren Marshall
2003-07-07 20:14:29
http://www.wantonhubris.com/
Heaving bosom can offset quite a lot.

#12 by Creole Ned
2003-07-07 20:34:35
I don't get this, myself. It's probably too little too late to spark renewed retail interest in the game. Is Legend not working on anything else right now? Won't this collide with the impending release of UT2004? Are they just being nice? That would seem...curious.

"I don't bemoan the great paste" - LPMiller
"i'm just pump gas." - Leslie Nassar
#13 by Matt Perkins
2003-07-07 20:35:49
wizardque@yahoo.com http://whatwouldmattdo.com/
Sure, I'd try U2 multiplayer.  It's like getting a professional UT2K3 mod, with new weapons and maps.


But that's not all the questions.  The more important question is, on a game already released, will it generate more sales to add a multiplayer component to it...  And if not, are doing this as brand thing, buying getting the UT name out there again, will it generate more sales in the future?

My guess would be not enough to count, especially when UT2 and UT2k3 were supposed to be complementary, not competitors.  So people that liked the original UT, probably already bought both.

Though, I am no market genius, I have not read teh supar marketing books.  I would only think having a team, however many, working a product that has already been released is not great time managment.  Again though, I can't seen inside the studio...  maybe they have time kill, maybe they know something I don't (that wouldn't be hard) or maybe this free expansion is like ET's in nature, it was going to be a pay product and now it's not.

"There are two things I've observed about Warhammer during my trips to the comic shop. A) The players send off strong pheremonal signals to mark their territory and warn off rival M:TG alpha males....." - Bailey
#14 by m0nty
2003-07-07 20:37:05
http://tinfinger.blogspot.com
I fully applaud late add-ons to a game to spice it up. SoF2 was my recent experience of this, and it was all good. The last couple of patches before the final gold release added extra weapons, play modes, Punkbuster support that actually worked, and extra maps. It was all good, and all free. Don't look a gift pony in the mouth, my friends.
#15 by m0nty
2003-07-07 20:38:42
http://tinfinger.blogspot.com
Oh, and this approach is light years better than Firaxis's money-grubbing multiple retail expansion attitude. I may not even buy Conquest, even though I'm addicted to all things Civ.
#16 by Your Friend
2003-07-07 20:47:31
I hate to turn this into a marketing thread, but Epic/Legend sure are muddying up the brand here.

It seemed for a second they had done the right thing and kept a clear separation between single-player (Unreal X) and multi-player (Unreal Tournament YYYY) but not anymore.

When can we expect Unreal Kart Racing GP?

"Take Two needs to STFU imo." - G30rg3 Br0uzz4rd
#17 by Your Friend
2003-07-07 20:50:00

I fully applaud late add-ons to a game to spice it up. SoF2 was my recent experience of this, and it was all good. The last couple of patches before the final gold release added extra weapons, play modes, Punkbuster support that actually worked, and extra maps. It was all good, and all free. Don't look a gift pony in the mouth, my friends.


The SoF2 add-ons were indeed cool, but you're forgetting one thing:

SoF2 didn't suck to begin with.  Unreal 2 did.

"Take Two needs to STFU imo." - G30rg3 Br0uzz4rd
#18 by Shadarr
2003-07-07 20:52:20
shadarr@yahoo.com http://digital-luddite.com
I would happily buy the Civ 3 expansions if I heard from people that it made the game more fun.  As it stands, though, I always find the beginning of the game fun and the late game incredibly frustrating, even on a lower difficulty setting.  What I've heard instead is that the expansions are just as buggy and fundamentally flawed as the original.  Ah well, there's always the trustworthy Alpha Centaur.
#19 by Your Friend
2003-07-07 20:54:51
Capt. Obvious says:

Someone should write a topic about how the media industries (and this includes the game industry) have managed to set up a system in which it quality just doesn't matter.  

With all the pre-release hype and conditioning of consumers that To Be Cool They Need To Be First, we live in a world where xXx and Black & White 2 make enough money in the first weekend or through pre-orders (respectively) that they go and make sequels despite a virtually universal consensus from the public that they suck.

"Take Two needs to STFU imo." - G30rg3 Br0uzz4rd
#20 by Charles
2003-07-07 20:55:47
www.bluh.org
Someone should write a topic about how the media industries (and this includes the game industry) have managed to set up a system in which it quality just doesn't matter.  


What, did you miss the one I did?

Whating the what?
#21 by Your Friend
2003-07-07 20:57:49

What, did you miss the one I did?


I thought yours kinda sucked, so I'm looking forward to a sequel of it.

"Take Two needs to STFU imo." - G30rg3 Br0uzz4rd
#22 by Your Friend
2003-07-07 21:00:35
Also, I of course meant Black & White, not Black & White 2...which would be the sequel, not that which is being sequeled.

"Take Two needs to STFU imo." - G30rg3 Br0uzz4rd
#23 by Matt Davis
2003-07-07 21:02:33
http://looroll.com
It's a free extra, whats the problem?

Troll, troll, troll your post, gently down the page...
#24 by zimbardo_ugly
2003-07-07 21:03:47
zimbardo_ugly@hotmail.com
#4 by Chunkstyle

Sure, I'd try U2 multiplayer.  It's like getting a professional UT2K3 mod, with new weapons and maps.


Except that UT2003 reigns supreme from atop the game quality tower, while Unreal 2 just lost a job cleaning the alligator shit from the trenches surrounding said tower.

Unreal 2's designers are clearly not capable of designing great DM levels - it is much more difficult than the last job they half fucked-up: desigining mediocre levels for a on-a-rail shooter. Not to mention that even some textures on some weapons are extremely shitty. Whatever they do at this point, I doubt it can save Unreal 2's sales.

"...case 6 of the bad consequences from a wrong guess function references Seth|Violet when it should be Warren Spector in a dress (I think)." - G-Man
#25 by Hugin
2003-07-07 21:06:01
lmccain@nber.org
I'm not sure the right word is problem Matt.  But it does feel odd.  How much has Unreal 2 sold thus far?  Do people care about it?  I was under the impression it was sort of mediocre and that the energy of the franchise was really going towards Unreal Tournament.  And as YF said, after going to all the trouble to sucessfully split the brand/gameplay types, they now go back and add MP to Unreal?  It's just sort of perplexing.  And it doesn't make me want to play the game more.  *shrug*
#26 by Chunkstyle
2003-07-07 21:06:59
It's free.  I have a Fileplanet subscription.  I'll download it and give it a try.

I like cheese.
#27 by Charles
2003-07-07 21:16:35
www.bluh.org
Except that UT2003 reigns supreme from atop the game quality tower


UT2k3 is no Battlefield.

Whating the what?
#28 by Warren Marshall
2003-07-07 21:18:10
http://www.wantonhubris.com/
UT2k3 is no Battlefield.

Could be twisted around and a snide comment made, but I refrain ...

#29 by zimbardo_ugly
2003-07-07 21:28:40
zimbardo_ugly@hotmail.com
#27 by Charles
  
UT2k3 is no Battlefield.


I own and play them both. While you might prefer the (vastly different) style of play BF offers, its quality doesn't touch UT2003, however (short of idiotic) you define quality. The graphics, sound, level design, balance, net code, editing tools and pretty much every aspect of UT2003 is the highest quality you'll currently find in videogames industry. Battlefield still has serious issues with both graphics and sound, still has bugs aplenty and many of the maps are so much off-balance that you have to ignore and never play them or you'll very likely break your keyboard over the smoldering remains of the monitor you just used to crush your PC's case.

"...case 6 of the bad consequences from a wrong guess function references Seth|Violet when it should be Warren Spector in a dress (I think)." - G-Man
#30 by Your Friend
2003-07-07 21:34:10
The problem there is fun factor and overall quality/polish don't always go hand in hand.

Many of the recent games I find to be the most fun (including Planetside, GTA3/VC, etc) have many frustrating...quirks... and yet I still find them vastly more entertaining than UT2k3, which unlike U2 didn't suck but it also never really grabbed me at all.  Not a bad effort, but nothing new there gameplay wise.

"Take Two needs to STFU imo." - G30rg3 Br0uzz4rd
#31 by Matt Perkins
2003-07-07 21:35:56
wizardque@yahoo.com http://whatwouldmattdo.com/
I will agree, much to my shame, with YF.

Though PS didn't "grab" me either.

"There are two things I've observed about Warhammer during my trips to the comic shop. A) The players send off strong pheremonal signals to mark their territory and warn off rival M:TG alpha males....." - Bailey
#32 by Shadarr
2003-07-07 21:36:44
shadarr@yahoo.com http://digital-luddite.com
The graphics, sound, level design, balance, net code....


Now I know you're lying.  There's no such thing as good net code.
#33 by Charles
2003-07-07 21:37:10
www.bluh.org
I own and play them both. While you might prefer the (vastly different) style of play BF offers, its quality doesn't touch UT2003, however (short of idiotic) you define quality. The graphics, sound, level design, balance, net code, editing tools and pretty much every aspect of UT2003 is the highest quality you'll currently find in videogames industry. Battlefield still has serious issues with both graphics and sound, still has bugs aplenty and many of the maps are so much off-balance that you have to ignore and never play them or you'll very likely break your keyboard over the smoldering remains of the monitor you just used to crush your PC's case.


Sure.  I can't argue on any of those points.  But BF is still more fun.

Whating the what?
#34 by zimbardo_ugly
2003-07-07 21:41:26
zimbardo_ugly@hotmail.com
#33 by Charles

Sure.  I can't argue on any of those points.  But BF is still more fun.


And where did I mention any fun towers?

"...case 6 of the bad consequences from a wrong guess function references Seth|Violet when it should be Warren Spector in a dress (I think)." - G-Man
#35 by Charles
2003-07-07 21:41:30
www.bluh.org
Oh, and I should add that I loved UT, and played it far, far too much.

Whating the what?
#36 by Charles
2003-07-07 21:44:34
www.bluh.org

And where did I mention any fun towers?


As far as I'm concerned, quality is worth nothing if the game isn't fun.  Technical achievements have little impact on the total outcome of how good a game is.  

It is interesting to note, that according to gamespy, at this moment twice as many people are playing battlefield as UT2k3.

Whating the what?
#37 by Charles
2003-07-07 21:45:28
www.bluh.org
Oh, whoops.  Twice as many people are playing BF as UT...  More people are playing UT than UT2k3...

I find that pretty interesting.

Whating the what?
#38 by zimbardo_ugly
2003-07-07 21:51:12
zimbardo_ugly@hotmail.com
While on a subject of UT2003, some of my friends recently found that these guys:
http://www.3dbuzz.com

Have some über-incredible video tutorials for UT2003 editing. And I'm not talking of the level of quality one would expect from something available on teh intraweb for free, either. This is didactic heaven: dynamic, redundant in all the tight spots, high-res and even funny now and then. A couple of gigabytes of this stuff (which they have, since only the first lesson in 10 parts is 1,2 gigs unrared) with coffee and you are ready to start cranking quality content. They even do static meshes - and the guy's max-fu is stunning. Just register your fake nick for free and go - if knowledge is power, this shit is the atom bomb.

"...case 6 of the bad consequences from a wrong guess function references Seth|Violet when it should be Warren Spector in a dress (I think)." - G-Man
#39 by Neale
2003-07-07 21:59:44
neale@pimurho.co.uk www.pimurho.co.uk
zimbardo_ugly:

Couldn't agree more. Fantastic videos - they've helped me loads.

You can't derail this train of idiocy, Shadarr. Not even with a big fat cow of logic on the tracks. - Bailey
#40 by zimbardo_ugly
2003-07-07 22:00:53
zimbardo_ugly@hotmail.com
#36 by Charles

As far as I'm concerned, quality is worth nothing if the game isn't fun.  Technical achievements have little impact on the total outcome of how good a game is.  

It is interesting to note, that according to gamespy, at this moment twice as many people are playing battlefield as UT2k3.


OK, yes. I wholly agree with the first sentence. I don't agree with the qualifier in the second one, but I see where you are going.

And, as an UT2003 player, that puzzled me as well, for some time. I guess the answer lies in some weird mixture of UT2003's steep hardware requirements, the skill it requires to enjoy the game online and the mental discipline required to cultivate that skill. If anything, the game is TOO good - and I would start looking for why it's not played more online at that very fact.

To get back on topic, Unreal 2's multiplayer will not last a month online before it is condemned to a Red Faction-esque community of 50 weirdoes.

"...case 6 of the bad consequences from a wrong guess function references Seth|Violet when it should be Warren Spector in a dress (I think)." - G-Man
#41 by Bailey
2003-07-07 22:01:25
MattD

It's a free extra, whats the problem?

Everything is free, but that never stopped my grousing about it.

I can hold complex conversations with you in two distinct intonations.
#42 by Warren Marshall
2003-07-07 22:11:28
http://www.wantonhubris.com/
zimbardo

The UT community is pretty resistant to change.  They don't like the static meshes in the levels (even though they asked for more polys), the the player acrobatics (even though they asked for more mobility), the announcer (even though can turn him off), etc.

I think UT2003 is superior to UT in every way, but not all the old fans feel that way.  It isn't like UT2003 is hurting for sales, so whatever makes them happy.

#43 by Charles
2003-07-07 22:11:43
www.bluh.org
I might have liked UT2k3 if you had a reasonable starting weapon.  IMO, the lack of a proper starting weapon made the game inferior to UT for me.  I fucking owned with the enforcer in UT, and whenever I snagged a second, I rampaged.

Whating the what?
#44 by Eric T. Cheng
2003-07-07 22:12:17
erictcheng@hotmail.com
UT2k3 is no Battlefield.


What's UT2k4 then?

Kilt Wearing Pixel Pushing Monkey Boy
IMDB Entry
DVD Collection
#45 by Charles
2003-07-07 22:15:04
www.bluh.org
What's UT2k4 then?


An attempt to lure BF players?

Whating the what?
#46 by Eric T. Cheng
2003-07-07 22:15:50
erictcheng@hotmail.com
Aren't you guys at DE working on UT2k4?

Kilt Wearing Pixel Pushing Monkey Boy
IMDB Entry
DVD Collection
#47 by Greg
2003-07-07 22:15:56
UT2k3 could have come with a single weapon, and I'd have been happy enough.

The Instagib shock rifle.

We are OK in a misguided, sadist way.
We are OK in a disabled veteran's way.
We are OK.
#48 by Chunkstyle
2003-07-07 22:20:30
Agreed.  Instagib rocks.

I like cheese.
#49 by Eric T. Cheng
2003-07-07 22:21:06
erictcheng@hotmail.com
Instagib shock rifle only servers suck.

Kilt Wearing Pixel Pushing Monkey Boy
IMDB Entry
DVD Collection
#50 by Your Friend
2003-07-07 22:22:25

I guess the answer lies in some weird mixture of UT2003's steep hardware requirements, the skill it requires to enjoy the game online and the mental discipline required to cultivate that skill.


IOW, "People just don't get it.  Stupid people!"

"Take Two needs to STFU imo." - G30rg3 Br0uzz4rd
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: MP in U2 ... or - Why?

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]