Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Eug · May 9, 2003, 09:50 AM

Call me strange, but I still prefer UT to UT2003. I haven't played UT2003 all that much, but I do own the full version for my PC and overall even with the maps that play really smoothly, I just like the feel of UT better. (Some of the outdoor maps don't play so well on my PC.)

Mind you, I still haven't mastered the art of those adrenaline powerups - really changes the dynamics of the game. ie. Maybe I don't like it as much because I just suck at it.

Actually, I'd hazard to say that I prefer QIII to UT2003 too, but the original UT is still my fave.

Beer Penguin · May 9, 2003, 10:30 AM

UT>UT2k3>Q3

Buck_Naked · May 9, 2003, 10:45 AM

For me, it's still to early to judge.
The games are both good for different reasons.

::maroma:: · May 9, 2003, 10:48 AM

They are really two different games. I mean, when I play UT2k3 I don't feel like I'm playing a UT game. I feel like it's a whole different FPS. The "feel" of UT was just too good. And didn't someone else develop UT2k3? That would explain the difference between the 2 games. It's almost like they didn't even take the UT experience into account.

Well, they did give us the voice taunts. But I think they suck in this version. Too robotic, not clear and loud enough.

Overall reaction to UT2k3 (so far): eh.

reader50 · May 9, 2003, 12:12 PM

Both UT and UT2003 were developed by Infogrames (now Atari). UT was ported by Westlake, UT2003 was ported in house by Infogrames.

I am somewhat dissappointed with UT2003 so far, and not because of the low frame rates - CPU upgrades are needed now and then. No, they built a game engine that can handle 100x the detail level of UT. Very good. But ...

The bots look less realistic despite higher poly counts. They all have fatsuits on, or whatever those things are. UT bots look much more human despite the lower poly counts and simpler textures. 3rd-party modelers should be able to fix this.
The weaphons look like comic-book toys. To look realistic, weapons (and most other machines) should be drawn by engineers. The bio gun looks like a handheld spotlight. The redeemer would flame the user with rocket exhaust during launch.
The structures that I've seen so far look unworkable. Oni hired real architects to design the levels. Whoever did the UT2003 indoor levels wasn't an architect. Detail was added for the sake of detail, not to make it look believable. Star Trek worked on the Believability Factor from the start. UT2003 added flashing lights and room trim for the sake of eye candy.
Voices. Hurry up and clear your throats, guys. Not everyone has a cold.

nforcer · May 9, 2003, 01:55 PM

My problems with UT2003:

- All of the guns feel like nerf toys. Everything seems so underpowered and cheesy compared to the equivalents in UT. Alternative fire modes have been changed for the worse for a lot of weapons. Most guns don't fire fast enough. No gun has any innovative reload or firing schemes. Most guns also look too large and comical. Cheesy weapon sound effects to boot.
- Sound effects are a step down. Everything sounds so fake and overpowered, that it just contributes more to the "nerf effect". The announcer was kinda cool in UT, but now he's just annoying and over-dramatic. Same thing with the bot taunts.
- New menu system is cluttered any just not very well done.
- All of the human character models in the demo have some kind of clunky, stupid looking armor suit that just makes them look fat and immobile. It's a real step down, just because it looks so stupid and worthless. Especially because the weapons are so cheap and underpowered, compared to the first UT. I also dislike the stupid "fade to green matrixian outline" dying effect. And the physics effects aren't as great as I expected them to be.
- Nothing is as nearly as interactive as it should be. All levels feel so bland and lifeless. Shooting lights and having nothing happen is so 1998.

I like a few of the changes. The double jump thing, for example, is kinda neat. Although it's not as well implemented as the double jump in Metroid Prime, where you can double jump at any point in your first jump, not just at the maximum height of the first.

The music, as with that of the first version, is still excellent.

The level architecture for most levels also looks good. But of course, all the extra detail (especially in a lot of the large ceilings) just makes things slow down horribly. I probably shouldn't blame the guy who ported it as much as I should blame Apple for not keeping Mac CPU/GPUs up to date with PC CPU/GPUs. But then again, I have some Quake 3 maps that have quite a bit of detail and play around 10 FPS faster with more bots, and look better than a lot of the UT2003 maps from the demo. Something is up (yes I am running 10.2.6 on a 700Mhz G4/Geforce2MX so I meet the system requirements).

If I had to choose, I like the original UT better.

AssassyN · May 9, 2003, 04:29 PM

I think I like UT 2003 better by *just* a tad, however, I still find myself playing SoF II more than any of them.

THE MAC GOD · May 9, 2003, 05:37 PM

im with you on SOF2... also Ghost Recon is taking some of my time up...

Adam Betts · May 9, 2003, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Beer Penguin:
UT>UT2k3>Q3

a2daj · May 9, 2003, 07:29 PM

I'm mostly excited about having the UT2K3 version of the Unreal Engine ported.
Oh, the retail version has better models.

mac freak · May 9, 2003, 10:58 PM

reader50 --

I think you missed the "unreal" part of the title; it's not SUPPOSED to be realistic. Who cares if the guns don't look like they can from a war movie, or if ths structures make little logical sense? It's game, made to be entertaining, afterall. Anyway, I own it on the PC side, and it's definitely my favorite online FPS.

I do agree though that the original UT had a better "feel." It's just that I'm like 3x better at UT2003 than I ever was at UT.

GlobalNomad · May 10, 2003, 01:49 AM

I also like UT better than UT2k3

Some of the wepons have just become stuiped... Its anyoing to play.

I have nemorus examples but the one I hate the most is:
The Flack Cannon is piss weak. It should be 1 shot 1 kill at point blank range.

The fat man suits just look stuiped... The eye candy is overrated... I would rather enjoy UT type eye candy and have UT type game play.

You should be able to turn down everything in UT2k3 to make it look like UT.

Or maybe I would just like to be able to play UT2k3 as well as UT on my computer. (50 fps)

eevyl · May 10, 2003, 03:32 AM

Originally posted by GlobalNomad:
You should be able to turn down everything in UT2k3 to make it look like UT.

The PC retail version have been out there for months, and they already released three bonus pack, the last of them includes some tweaks and tips to make UT2003 look as similar as posible to UT. Just hope they port the bonus pack or that they are cross compatible.

awcopus · May 10, 2003, 10:43 PM

I always liked UT far better than Quake 3 in terms of game play and weapons....and UT2003 resembles Quake 3 more that UT in those respects.

Incredible that the creators didn't realize what made UT "click" and build on that foundation. Feels like they mistakenly had some kind of Quake 3 inferiority complex (baseless) and sought to emulate it to their detriment.

I agree that it feels like eye candy has been added "just because". I expect the MOD community to make something of a positive difference for this game, but honestly, the beta (preview 3, whatever) of UT for OS X runs so damn well...it will be a while before I really spend much time with UT2003.

BTW, anyone else notice how the translocator is SO much more powerful now...maybe because of the increased size of players.

UT>UT2003>Quake3

I agree completely and sadly. Where the heck is AvP2?

The Sheik · May 11, 2003, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Beer Penguin:
UT>UT2k3>Q3

Really?

I would have said the complete opposite. (Quake 3: Team Arena though, not normal Quake 3)

Peter · May 11, 2003, 08:35 AM

UT is far better IMO than UT2003. The graphics are good and it is very very speedy

Thor · May 12, 2003, 03:28 AM

Since I still can't get broadband at home

, I'm just hoping that UT2K3's single player will be as good as UT's.

joe · May 12, 2003, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by The Sheik:
Really?

I would have said the complete opposite. (Quake 3: Team Arena though, not normal Quake 3)

Ditto. But I'd include Q3 over Q3TA because of smoother/faster overall performance (most important to me anyway).

I disagree with earlier posts that UT2003 is "Quake-like." Q3 doesn't have anywhere near the level of detail in the bots or level design as UT2003. Nor do the 2 games look or play the same (based on the UT2003 demo). Except maybe that all FPS games have at least some similarity since they're the same genre.

I've only tried the UT2003 demo a few times so far. My 1GHz G4 / GeForce3 setup is really choking on this game. It's fine when there aren't any bots nearby. But when I try to hone in on a bot I get severe stuttering and a lazy mouse. The bot's gravity seems to be off too - like it's got invisible thrusters or something. With the positive reports from other posters with slower Macs I'm starting to wonder if the GF3 drivers are crap. Or maybe I just need to reduce quality on some of the settings?......joe

Eug · May 12, 2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by The Sheik:
Really?

I would have said the complete opposite. (Quake 3: Team Arena though, not normal Quake 3)

I prefer UT to Quake III. I like them both better than UT2003.

Anyways, I don't really care about the fat suits or the lame look of the weapons of UT2003. Even the sore throat voices isn't the issue (although I agree it sounds like they all have bad colds or something). What bothers me is the feel is totally different feel, partially because of the changed weapons' firing modes, and partially because so far I'm not enamoured with the adrenaline pills.

Also, it seems to me that a few of the maps have thrown polygon restrictions out the window. Some maps like DM-Inferno (sorry Macheads - wait for the release version) just run like absolute garbage even on my PC, when compared to most of the other maps. In the old days, such a poorly performing map (despite how good it looks) would simply have been called a poorly designed map.

The sniper campers of UT did p!ss me off though.

DrBoar · May 16, 2003, 02:57 AM

If I would remake UT just to make it sell toys, small crude action figures and then paste some Quake 3 grunts and blood clouds onto that I would get very close to UT2k3

But the improved engine can be the basis of good games, I hope

The Sheik · May 16, 2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by DrBoar:
But the improved engine can be the basis of good games, I hope

Yeah, I thought that too. I'm really looking forward to Deus Ex 2 (whatever platform) the graphics should be great.

I hear the physics engine has been beefed too but I haven't really been able to appreciate this from the UT2K3 demo (apart from maybe the death animations).

Graphics-wise UT2K3 is obviously a generation away from Quake 3 and its derivatives but I still find the multiplayer options for Q3:TA to be much more enjoyable than UT's.

Also, what's up with the annoying announcer's voice in UT2K3? Sounds kind of odd for the style of game, no?