King of Deathmatch: Quake 3 or UT?

[99.vikram]

What the thread title says. I know this has been done a hundred times before, but hopefully there won't be any fanboyism this time round since both these games are in the distant past.

I recently reinstalled both Q3A and UT and have been playing a LOT of deathmatch, on LAN and online. Here's what I think:

Movement feels much better in Q3A. It's also the prettier game. Higher poly counts, great use of shaders, sharp textures and lots of player models. Plus, every weapon feels different and useful - no redundant weapons at all. And the maps are works of art, with curves and decorations here and there, and most of them having theme - gothic, sci-fi etc. If id had released Quake 3 with more than 20 maps which didn't share the same look, then it's no contest. Q3A looks better, plays faster and feels more polished than UT.

HOWEVER that didn't happen. UT blows Quake 3 out of the water with it's varied set of slower paced maps and it's quirky, interesting weapons. Because of the weapons and mutators alone UT has more depth than Q3A. Thanks to UnrealEd, a noob like me can try his hand at mapping. And who doesn't like to hear "Rampage" while playing?

Winnar = UT.

[Lt. Drebin]

UT gets my vote. Quake 3 was great, but UT just had more variety in all aspects.

[repiV]

Varied sets of slower paced maps, "quirky" weapons and bloat like mutators do not a good game make.
"Quirky" weapons = unbalanced, unusual but shite weapons.

UT is only the winner if you value style and gimmicks over quality.

[repiV]

UT gets my vote. Quake 3 was great, but UT just had more variety in all aspects.

Not really, since Quake 3 had a mod community that's never since been equalled. Two years on from release, noone played ordinary Q3 anymore.

[Pi Mu Rho]

Not really, since Quake 3 had a mod community that's never since been equalled. Two years on from release, noone played ordinary Q3 anymore.

Never since been equalled? How about utterly surpassed by Half-Life?

[repiV]

Never since been equalled? How about utterly surpassed by Half-Life?

Hardly. Half-Life based multiplayer games were always terrible, the only reason they were so popular was because everyone had Half-Life and everyone's PC could run it. TFC is an abomination.
It's also based around a select few total conversions, whereas Q3 had both total conversions and mods that made the base game more competitive and playable. Half-Life's mods made the game something else entirely, Q3's mods merely enhanced the game.

[Loke]

UT hands down, been addicted to it ever since it launched in '99. Of course I've also played Quake III when it came out but never really got into it, prefer the more slow-paced gameplay of UT with all the different and very memorable maps.

[Stigmata]

Hardly. Half-Life based multiplayer games were always terrible, the only reason they were so popular was because everyone had Half-Life and everyone's PC could run it. TFC is an abomination.
It's also based around a select few total conversions, whereas Q3 had both total conversions and mods that made the base game more competitive and playable. Half-Life's mods made the game something else entirely, Q3's mods merely enhanced the game.

Well if we're going to include the "gameplay-enhancing" mods that take up 300KB of disk space, why not include every little weapon and enemy mod for Half-Life as well?

Or I could take your course of action and just call a bunch of Q3 mods "abominations", because we all know that's not a subjective and spurious argument. :rolleyes:

[99.vikram]

I guess I was wrong about the fanboyism part :P.
Varied sets of slower paced maps, "quirky" weapons and bloat like mutators do not a good game make.
"Quirky" weapons = unbalanced, unusual but shite weapons.
Oh come on, UT's gameplay was great in addition to having alt. fire modes for all weapons and announcer rewards etc. And which weapon exactly was unbalanced? An underpowered melee weapon, an accurate sidearm, slow moving rockets...it all seems balanced to me. Even the redeemer was too slow to be overpowered. The only weapon I would nerf a little is the pulse gun.

And isn't the BFG in Quake 3 the very definition of unbalanced?

I like Quake 3's minimalist approach too, but you don't have to like one and hate the other. :)

[Loke]

The only weapon that I would call unbalanced is the sniper rifle. 8x zoom, hitscan, fast firing rate, usually one-shot-kill in the head.

[repiV]

I guess I was wrong about the fanboyism part :P.

Oh come on, UT's gameplay was great in addition to having alt. fire modes for all weapons and announcer rewards etc. And which weapon exactly was unbalanced? An underpowered melee weapon, an accurate sidearm, slow moving rockets...it all seems balanced to me. Even the redeemer was too slow to be overpowered. The only weapon I would nerf a little is the pulse gun.

And isn't the BFG in Quake 3 the very definition of unbalanced?

I like Quake 3's minimalist approach too, but you don't have to like one and hate the other. :)

I never denied that UT is great. But you're judging the game on the wrong criteria - surely your main point of reference should be the balance and raw quality of the gameplay.
UT's weapons were really, really unbalanced - the minigun is obscenely overpowered, the Enforcers are way too powerful for a starting weapon, the shock combos are overpowered...then there's the skilless stuff like Ripper and rocket spamming. They rightly corrected both those issues in the next generation of UT games.
You can't spam your way to easy kills in Q3, but you can in UT. The BFG is just a joke weapon in Q3, it was removed from all competition maps so it's a non-issue really. It could have worked well if it spawned every 2 minutes like a powerup - god knows why they didn't think of that.
UT might be the better experience, but Q3 is the better deathmatch game. I might be inclined to agree that UT is a better game out of the box too, as retail Q3 is severely lacking in content - but I'm not sure that's particularly relevant. One of the great things about Q3 is it provided a very basic, perfect framework for the community to shape as it desired. It worked out well.

[Pi Mu Rho]

Hardly. Half-Life based multiplayer games were always terrible, the only reason they were so popular was because everyone had Half-Life and everyone's PC could run it. TFC is an abomination.
It's also based around a select few total conversions, whereas Q3 had both total conversions and mods that made the base game more competitive and playable. Half-Life's mods made the game something else entirely, Q3's mods merely enhanced the game.

Well, shit. Now you put it that way, obviously you're right. The HL mods were so abominable that they had far more players than Q3 and do to this very day.

[repiV]

Well, shit. Now you put it that way, obviously you're right. The HL mods were so abominable that they had far more players than Q3 and do to this very day.

Number of players doesn't equal quality, in any way, shape or form. If that were true, Halo would be the best FPS on the market.
There are many reasons why HL is so popular as a multiplayer game, and not one of them has to do with quality.

[Stigmata]

And lack of players does? I'd really like to see where you're going with this.

[Pi Mu Rho]

Wow.

You base your position on a very narrow and utterly subjective viewpoint - i.e. whether or not you thought they were good or not, and then you apply it generally, as if it were established fact. That's enormously impressive.

[repiV]

And lack of players does? I'd really like to see where you're going with this.

Where did I say that?

[repiV]

Wow.

You base your position on a very narrow and utterly subjective viewpoint - i.e. whether or not you thought they were good or not, and then you apply it generally, as if it were established fact. That's enormously impressive.

How on earth did you make that leap?

If ten million people played Daikatana, would that make it good?

[Stigmata]

That's not what I meant at all. Excuse me while I remove myself from this and watch Pi chew you out for being a retard.

[repiV]

That's not what I meant at all. Excuse me while I remove myself from this and watch Pi chew you out for being a retard.

Self-righteous cock.

[Pi Mu Rho]

I'm referring to your "all HL mods were crap" blanket statement.

[repiV]

I'm referring to your "all HL mods were crap" blanket statement.

No amount of modding will ever make HLDM or HLCTF a good game. It always was and always will be terrible.
As for HL total conversions, they change the nature of the game so completely that they aren't really HL anymore so for comparison purposes, they offer little. The engine is really badly put together though, it's like they took some bastard combination of Quake and Quake II and made something worse than both - and it makes the games feel just plain wrong.

[Pi Mu Rho]

Subjectively.
In your opinion.
As you see it.

Other people (I'd go so far as to say probably the majority of people) would disagree. That doesn't make them wrong.

[99.vikram]

then there's the skilless stuff like Ripper and rocket spamming.
Rocket spamming will always be a problem in DM games, even Q3. UT just magnifies the problem sixfold, I guess.

Q3 is definitely the tournament standard, but let's face it, a gun that spews wads of toxic goo is more fun than a regular ol' RL/shotty.

The engine is really badly put together though, it's like they took some bastard combination of Quake and Quake II and made something worse than both - and it makes the games feel just plain wrong.
Seriously, WTF? Did Valve rape you as a child? :|

Skeletal animation, beam technology, dynamic shadows (Uplink demo) - GoldSrc was not only better than Q/Q2 engines, it was better by a mile. It didn't get popular because of an unintuitive toolset.

[Narcolepsy]

UT is only the winner if you value style and gimmicks over quality.
Um, isn't style one measure of quality?

Case in point: Team Fortress 2. The style actively enhances the gameplay.

[repiV]

Subjectively.
In your opinion.
As you see it.

Other people (I'd go so far as to say probably the majority of people) would disagree. That doesn't make them wrong.

If noone can be either wrong or right, then this discussion is entirely redundant. What's the point in even participating in the thread if you're going to argue from a position of total neutrality?
If it was just in my opinion, it would be HL DM being used in serious competitions, not Q3 DM. The top players in the world would be playing Halflife, not Q3 and UT. They aren't, and never did.

[repiV]

Rocket spamming will always be a problem in DM games, even Q3. UT just magnifies the problem sixfold, I guess.

Q3 is definitely the tournament standard, but let's face it, a gun that spews wads of toxic goo is more fun than a regular ol' RL/shotty.

Well tournament standard is what I judge the game on primarily.

I can certainly see why most people would prefer UT, but I could not say that it's a better game.

[repiV]

Um, isn't style one measure of quality?

Case in point: Team Fortress 2. The style actively enhances the gameplay.

It means nothing in competition.

[Lt. Drebin]

Not really, since Quake 3 had a mod community that's never since been equalled.

Well, I guess I should add out of the box, UT was far more varied. Also, don't sell UT's mod community short. There were some OUTSTANDING variations on the gameplay that were released for several years.

Two years on from release, noone played ordinary Q3 anymore.

Thus my point.

[repiV]

Well, I guess I should add out of the box, UT was far more varied. Also, don't sell UT's mod community short. There were some OUTSTANDING variations on the gameplay that were released for several years.


Yeah, but UT mods have never really had a habit of taking off. People just prefer to play the base game, beyond the basic competition mutators and suchlike.
Whereas Quake III has OSP, CPMA, Rocket Arena 3, Threewave, to name but a few - all immensely popular. Dozens of UK servers constantly full - EACH, back in its heydey.
It was a completely different dynamic...UT thrived in spite of the mods, and Q3 thrived because of the mods.

[Lt. Drebin]

but hopefully there won't be any fanboyism this time round since both these games are in the distant past.


OMG...fail.

[Warbie]

Q3 for pure, skilled deathmatch goodness. UT for more accessible and casual dm. Q3 ftw.

[Musk]

for most fast paced Q3 takes my vote but for greater weapon variety and modes, ut takes it. hard to say which one i'd prefer but i'm leaning towards Q3 as i like the pace of the game and the weps are also awesome

[Pi Mu Rho]

If noone can be either wrong or right, then this discussion is entirely redundant. What's the point in even participating in the thread if you're going to argue from a position of total neutrality?
If it was just in my opinion, it would be HL DM being used in serious competitions, not Q3 DM. The top players in the world would be playing Halflife, not Q3 and UT. They aren't, and never did.

I'm not arguing from a position of neutrality. I think HL's mods far surpass those of Q3. However, I acknowledge that this is just my opinion. I won't just dismiss all Q3 mods as being crap and use that as the basis for my argument.

Also, don't the major tournaments play CS?

[repiV]

I'm not arguing from a position of neutrality. I think HL's mods far surpass those of Q3. However, I acknowledge that this is just my opinion. I won't just dismiss all Q3 mods as being crap and use that as the basis for my argument.


I think the fact that I played at a near-professional level for some years gives my opinion on the quality of games for competition purposes a degree of weight. Plus the fact that I've actually given reasons why Q3 is a superior game.


Also, don't the major tournaments play CS?

Yes, but again, CS is a total conversion. They don't play HLDM. Even then, it took many years for CS to become accepted as part of the CPL etc. It's very spectator friendly.
Q3 is still used as the main 1v1 game to this day.

[99.vikram]

I think the fact that I played at a near-professional level for some years gives my opinion on the quality of games for competition purposes a degree of weight.
I would argue that games are meant to be entertainment, not sport.
So tournaments and competition are a corruption of what games were originally meant to be.

[Pi Mu Rho]

But, like I said, you have an enormously narrow focus. You judge a game/mod's quality entirely on it's "tournamentness", a rating that generally means bugger all to practically everyone else. You dismissed HL and all it's mods as being abominations based on this premise, even though one of said mods is a major part of these tournaments, narrowing your focus even further to just DM.
So why you didn't just say that you think that HL and it's mods were abominations because they weren't DM, I don't know.

[repiV]

I would argue that games are meant to be entertainment, not sport. So tournaments and competition are a corruption of what games were originally meant to be.

Then our definitions of a good game will be inherently different - mutually exclusive, but neither wrong.
And that's fine.

But if you're talking about the competitive merit of a game, you don't look at the number of players it has, you look at what the best players are playing and which game has the highest level of skill amongst its playerbase.
Most of the top players play Warsow, which you've probably never heard of. It's a free FPS based on the Quake 2 engine, and it's really rather neat. But it will never be mainstream.
Two different demographics entirely.

[repiV]

But, like I said, you have an enormously narrow focus. You judge a game/mod's quality entirely on it's "tournamentness", a rating that generally means bugger all to practically everyone else. You dismissed HL and all it's mods as being abominations based on this premise, even though one of said mods is a major part of these tournaments, narrowing your focus even further to just DM.
So why you didn't just say that you think that HL and it's mods were abominations because they weren't DM, I don't know.

No, I think TFC is an abomination because it's slow, dull and the engine is terrible. Q3F was excellent. So was Tribes.

[Pi Mu Rho]

So you're asking people that generally don't play competitively about the relative merits of games that you only judge on their competitive merit? Interesting choice there.

[Raptor_Jesus]

UT imho

[Shamrock]

I've never played either! Go me!

I selected other.

Barbie Dreamland DM

[repiV]

So you're asking people that generally don't play competitively about the relative merits of games that you only judge on their competitive merit? Interesting choice there.

I'm not asking anyone anything - I didn't start the thread.
Nor was I aware that I'm not entitled to my own set of criteria from which to draw a conclusion because few people here use the same criteria.

[Pi Mu Rho]

There's nothing wrong with using your own criteria, but yours certainly take you to some funny places.

[Asuka]

Half-Life Deathmatch!

[repiV]

There's nothing wrong with using your own criteria, but yours certainly take you to some funny places.

Seems perfectly logical to judge a game based on competition by its competitive merit to me.

[Lt. Drebin]

No, I think TFC is an abomination because it's slow, dull and the engine is terrible.

You sir are one in a million.

[Pi Mu Rho]

I was referring more to your assertion that the Q3 modding scene surpassed that of HL. From your narrow focus of mods that don't really change anything major, sure.

[Lt. Drebin]

Plus the fact that I've actually given reasons why Q3 is a superior game.


Hang on...all I've seen is that you prefer the mods and you feel Q3 is far more competetive. You have not given "several" reasons. So which is it? Was Quake 3 really the better game? Or did it simply have an abundance of mods you prefered? And an added dose of competetive spirit...

You know...that may be a false positive. If people have to go out and create a shit load of variations on the game it could simply mean that the original wasn't overly good to begin with. Hell, you yourself admited that no one even touched Quake 3 a few years after release. I know I played UT for several years.

[ComradeBadger]

No amount of modding will ever make HLDM or HLCTF a good game. It always was and always will be terrible.


HLDM is the daddy of deathmatch games, it requires the most skill to play.. there's a reason why a lot of the top pro gamers started out on HLDM - it's the one game you can't pick up and be good at right away, it's got a fantastically high learning curve - bunnyhopping/gaussjumping etc.

Brilliant.
As a multiplayer experience it's never been bettered.

[repiV]

You sir are one in a million.

Hardly. The vast majority of people who've ever played the original TF or Q3F hold the exact same sentiment.

I was referring more to your assertion that the Q3 modding scene surpassed that of HL. From your narrow focus of mods that don't really change anything major, sure.

I see. The HL modding scene is inherently different, I'm not even sure comparison is appropriate. The only competitive mod of any real worth it's turned out is CS, and even that's debatable.
Like I said, these are all TCs. The actual game of HLDM is beyond dreadful.

Hang on...all I've seen is that you prefer the mods and you feel Q3 is far more competetive. You have not given "several" reasons. So which is it? Was Quake 3 really the better game? Or did it simply have an abundance of mods you prefered? And an added dose of competetive spirit...


OK:

#1 Quake 3 has near-perfect weapon balance. No game either before or since has been able to create such a well tuned, perfectly balanced set of weaponry.
UT has terrible weapon balance, and the starting weapon is far too powerful. It turns the game into something of a spamfest.
#2 Quake 3 is a much faster, and therefore more skilful game.
#3 The movement is more skilful - rather than doubletapping at appropriate moments to get around quickly, Q3 movement is complicated and full of subtle nuances. It takes years to master, and really separates the wheat from the chaff.
#4 Unlike UT, Quake 3 does not have redundant weapons. Redundant weapons means less emphasis on controlling particular weapons in TDM, and therefore UT is a less tactical game.
#5 Q3 has better netcode and a better engine. It runs more smoothly and just feels right - you can rely on utterly precise reactions from the game, it will do what you expect, every time.
#6 Q3 is much more tweakable.
#7 The armour system is much more tactical - you can stack armours, putting more emphasis on map control. Armour also does not provide you invulnerability from health damage, unlike in UT. This also reduces the depth of the game.
#8 Q3 doesn't have stupid, useless pickups like jump boots.

Q3 strips away all the crap and just leaves you with the bare bones. UT is full of pointless, redundant or ridiculous gimmicks that detract from the gameplay. It requires considerably more skill to play than UT, and it has a higher, longer learning curve.


You know...that may be a false positive. If people have to go out and create a shit load of variations on the game it could simply mean that the original wasn't overly good to begin with. Hell, you yourself admited that no one even touched Quake 3 a few years after release. I know I played UT for several years.

Loads of people touched Quake 3 a few years after release - and it's still more popular than all the UT games put together. The major Q3 mods don't alter the basic gameplay in any major way, they make a raft of minor tweaks. It's still the same Q3 under all of them.
OSP adds competitive functionality (brightskins, health-dependent hitsounds, better netcode, admin functions, modified maps etc.).
CPMA does much the same, except it modifies the movement and weapon balance. It's a much, much faster game - rather like the original Quake.
Threewave is a CTF mod - it brings fully-featured CTF to Q3, with loads of great maps aswell. The underlying gameplay is identical.
Rocket Arena 3 is just Quake III with no pickups, all weapons, small arenas and one life - fight to the death.

Those are the main ones, really. UT died long before Q3 was still burning.

[repiV]

HLDM is the daddy of deathmatch games, it requires the most skill to play.. there's a reason why a lot of the top pro gamers started out on HLDM - it's the one game you can't pick up and be good at right away, it's got a fantastically high learning curve - bunnyhopping/gaussjumping etc.

Brilliant.
As a multiplayer experience it's never been bettered.

What top pro gamers? I can assure you that Fatality never played HLDM.

The weakest aspect of Halflife was the combat, but to turn that into a multiplayer game? Yuk.

[AHA-Lambda]

UT gets my vote on this one.

[Lt. Drebin]

Hardly. The vast majority of people who've ever played the original TF or Q3F hold the exact same sentiment..

Disputed by the shear amount of people that still play the original TFC as well as TF2.


OK:

#1 Quake 3 has near-perfect weapon balance. No game either before or since has been able to create such a well tuned, perfectly balanced set of weaponry.
UT has terrible weapon balance, and the starting weapon is far too powerful. It turns the game into something of a spamfest.
#2 Quake 3 is a much faster, and therefore more skilful game.
#3 The movement is more skilful - rather than doubletapping at appropriate moments to get around quickly, Q3 movement is complicated and full of subtle nuances. It takes years to master, and really separates the wheat from the chaff.
#4 Unlike UT, Quake 3 does not have redundant weapons. Redundant weapons means less emphasis on controlling particular weapons in TDM, and therefore UT is a less tactical game.
#5 Q3 has better netcode and a better engine. It runs more smoothly and just feels right - you can rely on utterly precise reactions from the game, it will do what you expect, every time.
#6 Q3 is much more tweakable.
#7 The armour system is much more tactical - you can stack armours, putting more emphasis on map control. Armour also does not provide you invulnerability from health damage, unlike in UT. This also reduces the depth of the game.
#8 Q3 doesn't have stupid, useless pickups like jump boots.

Q3 strips away all the crap and just leaves you with the bare bones. UT is full of pointless, redundant or ridiculous gimmicks that detract from the gameplay. It requires considerably more skill to play than UT, and it has a higher, longer learning curve.



Wow, a much better opinion than just telling people their wrong. I don't agree with most of those, particularly the weaponry comment...there's absolutly NOTHING new about Q3...the weapons in UT at least seemed like someone had an original thought. But I can see why someone may prefer one over the other. Further UT absolutly SMOKES Quake 3 in level design.

Loads of people touched Quake 3 a few years after release - and it's still more popular than all the UT games put together.

Uhh...source. Do you have to question why there hasn't been another arena-based Quake since? Why has there been umpteen sequels to the original UT. Because it's insanely popular and people called for more...still.

The major Q3 mods don't alter the basic gameplay in any major way, they make a raft of minor tweaks. It's still the same Q3 under all of them. OSP adds competitive functionality (brightskins, health-dependent hitsounds, better netcode, admin functions, modified maps etc.).CPMA does much the same, except it modifies the movement and weapon balance. It's a much, much faster game - rather like the original Quake.Threewave is a CTF mod - it brings fully-featured CTF to Q3, with loads of great maps aswell. The underlying gameplay is identical.
Rocket Arena 3 is just Quake III with no pickups, all weapons, small arenas and one life - fight to the death.


That's all great. Shall I gather the UT mods that were exactly the same. By the way...you still haven't commented on the undeniable game options people were provided straight out of the box with UT...without relying on the mod community.

Those are the main ones, really. UT died long before Q3 was still burning.

Again, are you talking about the mod scene or the original game?? You just said two pages ago that no one played Quake 3 a few years after release. If that's the case, I assure you you are wrong.

[repiV]

Disputed by the shear amount of people that still play the original TFC as well as TF2.


TF was wildly popular years before TFC was even a concept. Most of the people who play TFC probably have no idea there was even a TF that preceded it.
TFC and TF2 are a total departure from what TF was all about. Back in the days before mainstreaming drowned such thoughts, TFC was always considered to be TF for n00bs. Because, well, it is.


Wow, a much better opinion than just telling people their wrong. I don't agree with most of those, particularly the weaponry comment...there's absolutly NOTHING new about Q3...the weapons in UT at least seemed like someone had an original thought.

Uh, what?
I never said there was anything new about Q3. That's the whole point. Q3 refined the existing concepts to perfection, while UT toyed with fancy gimmicks that don't work so well in practice.
The weapons in UT are fancy and original yes, so what? They suck. The weapon balance is almost game-breakingly bad.


But I can see why someone may prefer one over the other. Further UT absolutly SMOKES Quake 3 in level design.


If that's the case, then why are UT servers full of Q3 remakes?
I think you mean to say that UT maps are more artistically interesting or whatever, which is true. But that doesn't mean the layouts are any good.


Uhh...source.

Try Gamespy or something.


Do you have to question why there hasn't been another arena-based Quake since? Why has there been umpteen sequels to the original UT. Because it's insanely popular and people called for more...still.


Quake 3 didn't need umpteen sequels, because everyone was still playing Quake 3. Releasing new games unnecessarily just serves to divide the community. Also, they spent five years developing Doom 3, so they didn't have time for sequels. Quake IV was actually developed by Raven Software, under guidance from id.
UT2003 was dead within six months, UT2004 was dead within a year. Several months after UT2004's release, it had less players than Quake 3, a five year old game - and most of those players were playing Onslaught. Go figure.
Quake 4's multiplayer was basically a replica of Quake 3. Problem was, it wasn't quite as good as Quake 3, and it was full of bugs that didn't get fixed until it was too late. It couldn't possibly hope to live up to Q3 so it didn't take off in the same way - though it still had a decent enough community for a few years, moreso than any of the UT sequels managed.
Incidentally, id's next release will be Quake Zero - a free version of Q3. Something of a testament to its enduring appeal.
Quake Five is also in the works - which will be a true sequel to Q3.


That's all great. Shall I gather the UT mods that were exactly the same.

Noone played them. Rocket Arena UT sucked.


By the way...you still haven't commented on the undeniable game options people were provided straight out of the box with UT...without relying on the mod community.


Yes I have - I said that UT is quite possibly a better game than Q3 out of the box. Read, please.


Again, are you talking about the mod scene or the original game?? You just said two pages ago that no one played Quake 3 a few years after release. If that's the case, I assure you you are wrong.

With Quake 3, the mod scene IS the original game. They are one and the same. It has always been the way with Quake games, they are platforms to be modded.
We were all playing modded versions of Quake IV within three weeks of release!

[Darkside55]

I never liked the "feel" of Quake 3. The movement, the way the weapons handled. In my mind the only thing Quake 3 had over UT was frenetic pace, but that doesn't make it the better deathmatch game.

I had a lot more fun with UT. Having bought both of them around the same time and playing them both extensively, eventually I stopped playing Q3 altogether and focused on UT.

TFC is an abomination
...I'll kill you, son.

I'll KILL you.

You just insulted f*cking ten years of my life right there. We're enemies now. I'm serious.

[repiV]

I never liked the "feel" of Quake 3. The movement, the way the weapons handled. In my mind the only thing Quake 3 had over UT was frenetic pace, but that doesn't make it the better deathmatch game.

I had a lot more fun with UT. Having bought both of them around the same time and playing them both extensively, eventually I stopped playing Q3 altogether and focused on UT.


For me it was the other way around. I did play UT2004 for a year too, to me it's the closest any game has ever come to equalling Q3 - except for Q4, but that's just like a second-rate copy of Q3 so it doesn't really count.


...I'll kill you, son.

I'll KILL you.

You just insulted f*cking ten years of my life right there. We're enemies now. I'm serious.

I'll be waiting...with a gun and a pack of sandwiches. And nothing.

[Tagaziel]

Unreal Tournament, definitely. Quake 3 Arena and it's relatives are dull and too twitch-based for me.

Besides, Assault, Domination and lately Warfare are priceless and trample the inherently dull TDM.

[Crushenator 500]

Bemoan Unreal Tournament and HLDM all you want for not being competetive, but I think counter strike is the clear winner here, and it came out around the same time as ut/q3 did

[Darkside55]

For me it was the other way around. I did play UT2004 for a year too, to me it's the closest any game has ever come to equalling Q3 - except for Q4, but that's just like a second-rate copy of Q3 so it doesn't really count.
Interestingly enough, I felt UT2k4 was rather gimmicky compared to UT. I mean, I ended up playing all the other modes rather than straight deathmatch, and while the vehicles and assaulting enemy bases was fun, for some reason I didn't enjoy the deathmatch as much as the original. Can't really say why that is.

I'll be waiting...with a gun and a pack of sandwiches. And nothing.
I'm coming. I'm feigning death in your area, watching you, waiting for the right moment when you let your guard down. Then I'll strike at you like a viper!

[Lt. Drebin]

Yes I have - I said that UT is quite possibly a better game than Q3 out of the box. Read, please.


Oh, so then we're done. Cool. That's what I thought the thread was about in the first place.

But, yeah...Quake 3 had better mods.

[ericms]

I'll be waiting...with a gun and a pack of sandwiches. And nothing.

Nothing
Nothing
Nothing

[Gorgon]

i CHOOSE q3 over UT,

Q3 = pure skills game
UT = any noob can play it and score.... :P

[repiV]

Bemoan Unreal Tournament and HLDM all you want for not being competetive, but I think counter strike is the clear winner here, and it came out around the same time as ut/q3 did

CS is the king of deathmatch?

Sure you don't want one last chance to revise that statement? :D

Interestingly enough, I felt UT2k4 was rather gimmicky compared to UT. I mean, I ended up playing all the other modes rather than straight deathmatch, and while the vehicles and assaulting enemy bases was fun, for some reason I didn't enjoy the deathmatch as much as the original. Can't really say why that is.


I think UT2003 and 2004 had a decidely Quake 3 feel about them. Intentional, probably. Quite a few Q3rs played these games.
Not as minimalist as Q3 by any means, but UT2004 had well balanced weapons, fast movement and most of the skill-free crap from UT was culled. The starting weapon is as weak as it should be, you can't stack up 6 rockets like you could in UT (that was just moronic), the shock combo radius is much more reasonable, the minigun isn't a rapid-fire BFG anymore, no Ripper, some pretty damn good map design...
And I must admit to being addicted to AS-Convoy. Could just play that over and over and over again...

UT3 is a big step backwards IMO. It's slow and unbalanced, just like the original game. More so in fact, the shock combo makes all other weapons redundant. And it doesn't have any of the things going for it that the original game did, like cool maps.


I'm coming. I'm feigning death in your area, watching you, waiting for the right moment when you let your guard down. Then I'll strike at you like a viper!

I'm a backwards viper - it will be a tough match.

Oh, so then we're done. Cool. That's what I thought the thread was about in the first place.

But, yeah...Quake 3 had better mods.

Well like I said, to me Quake games and mods go hand in hand. It's meaningless to judge a Quake game based on its boxed state because they are modding platforms in themselves - I think id understood the community when they created Q3. Team Arena, the expansion pack, was received poorly because people didn't want to pay for something they could get for free. I thought TA was great though, didn't last long sadly.
But yeah, for six months to a year following Q3s release, UT was better.

[Tagaziel]

I think UT2003 and 2004 had a decidely Quake 3 feel about them. Intentional, probably. Quite a few Q3rs played these games.
Not as minimalist as Q3 by any means, but UT2004 had well balanced weapons, fast movement and most of the skill-free crap from UT was culled. The starting weapon is as weak as it should be, you can't stack up 6 rockets like you could in UT (that was just moronic), the shock combo radius is much more reasonable, the minigun isn't a rapid-fire BFG anymore, no Ripper, some pretty damn good map design...
And I must admit to being addicted to AS-Convoy. Could just play that over and over and over again...

I prefer a game with strong weapons that give you a fighting chance no matter what enemy's weapon you face (with varying degrees of difficulty) instead of a game that forces you to run around like a headless chicken frantically searching for a gun that does more than signal the enemy that he can get a free frag.

UT FTW.

[Crushenator 500]

CS is the king of deathmatch?

Sure you don't want one last chance to revise that statement? :D

Heh I fergot this was just deathmatch we were talking

CS is still the winner though if you're talking multiplayer in general ;)

[repiV]

I prefer a game with strong weapons that give you a fighting chance no matter what enemy's weapon you face (with varying degrees of difficulty) instead of a game that forces you to run around like a headless chicken frantically searching for a gun that does more than signal the enemy that he can get a free frag.

UT FTW.

The stronger the starting weapon, the more brainless the game is. It has an absolutely monumental effect on gameplay - it alone can make the difference between a tactical match of map control, teamwork and staying alive and a mindless spamfest.
Contrary to popular belief, TDM is a very intelligent, challenging and tactical game. Arguably more so than any other. But not when the starting weapon is too powerful.
If anything, Q3s starting weapon is too powerful - it can deal some pretty significant damage with ease.

Heh I fergot this was just deathmatch we were talking

CS is still the winner though if you're talking multiplayer in general ;)

I disagree completely, but you have a right to your opinion. :P

[AHA-Lambda]

CS is still the winner though if you're talking multiplayer in general

I disagree completely, but you have a right to your opinion.

[Tagaziel]

The stronger the starting weapon, the more brainless the game is. It has an absolutely monumental effect on gameplay - it alone can make the difference between a tactical match of map control, teamwork and staying alive and a mindless spamfest.
Contrary to popular belief, TDM is a very intelligent, challenging and tactical game. Arguably more so than any other. But not when the starting weapon is too powerful.
If anything, Q3s starting weapon is too powerful - it can deal some pretty significant damage with ease.

I'd still take Battlefield over Q3A any time of the year. Even despite it's a "mindless spamfest" with powerful starting weapons.

[Gray Fox]

Battlefield 2> TF2> rest

[Vigilante]

Deathmatch was definitely Q3. However, I thought UT was a much more enjoyable game.

[Seppo]

quake 2 is the best ever.

[Wanted Bob]

UT is my favourite.

[repiV]

I'd still take Battlefield over Q3A any time of the year. Even despite it's a "mindless spamfest" with powerful starting weapons.

The analogy doesn't apply to Battlefield because item control is not a part of the game...

[Lt. Drebin]

Well like I said, to me Quake games and mods go hand in hand. It's meaningless to judge a Quake game based on its boxed state because they are modding platforms in themselves - I think id understood the community when they created Q3. Team Arena, the expansion pack, was received poorly because people didn't want to pay for something they could get for free.

You do realize that there are probably a crap-load more people that don't mod and have no interest in playing modded games than there are mod fans...to those people Id has a history of releasing games that simply don't feel as complete as it's competitors. Epic gave gamers MORE than they needed right from the get go.

Once again though, UT was still and is still huge in the modding community. You continue to sell them short. It's still extremely popular. You are aware that there are still tons of servers (over 2000 according to wiki) still up and running and it's a direct result of the modding and mutators for UT...same as Q3.

And let's look deeper at that since we still are talking about mods. Even in the face of numerous reiterations in the franchise, the original UT continues to be played by a lot of people.

I thought TA was great though, didn't last long sadly. But yeah, for six months to a year following Q3s release, UT was better.

I still stand by the statement that UT was so varied and refined from the get-go that modding didn't have to play such a huge roll in the beggining. That's critical to the main question in this thread. That's more of a testament to Epic. But, in the end, it was and still is huge for UT as well.

[Lt. Drebin]

quake 2 is the best ever.

QFT. :smoking:

[99.vikram]

Contrary to popular belief, TDM is a very intelligent, challenging and tactical game.
I've never played competitive TDM (more into CTF or tactical MP like ET), so if you could explain what it's all about that would be great.

If anything, Q3s starting weapon is too powerful - it can deal some pretty significant damage with ease.
I can track a target pretty well, so a lot of my kills are, surprisingly, machine gun kills from medium range. And if the server's all about sniping, then I own with the railgun. Q3's weapons are far too accurate.

EDIT:
quake 2 is the best ever.
People complain about weak RL in Q2 but I think that's exactly what a good DM game should have: a RL that's good for nothing but rocket jumping (impact hammer). There's still the issue of the worthless chaingun and overpowered hyperblaster though(in close combat).

And HLDM was awesome - some weapons were useless (pistol, satchel charges, hivehand and snarks) but the rest forced you to think hard to win. And gauss jumping beats rocket jumping IMO. And it has a much, MUCH steeper learning curve than Q3 despite being a slower game.

[repiV]

You do realize that there are probably a crap-load more people that don't mod and have no interest in playing modded games than there are mod fans...to those people Id has a history of releasing games that simply don't feel as complete as it's competitors. Epic gave gamers MORE than they needed right from the get go.


You've got to put things in context - think about Quake's origins.
The game was released in 1995...QuakeWorld, the online version of Quake, was a mod in itself. Back then, the internet was not a mainstream thing at all, and PC gaming certainly wasn't. Online gaming was the preserve of an elite few.
Quake has its roots firmly in the hardcore gaming community, people who would upgrade their PCs and internet connections just for the game, who would spend hours tweaking their CFGs to get the most competitive results and who would mod the crap out of the game. It was very much an underground thing.
Back then, there were no casual gamers. Quake has never been mainstream, and the people who play Quake are a very different kind of gamer from the people who play UT or CS or anything else. Most Q3 players had a background in QW or Q2, at least initially.

UT came out in an era when online gaming was already popular, and was aimed squarely at the mainstream. To aim a Quake game at the mainstream would do a disservice to what the game is all about. If you think Q3 is too fast, you should try QuakeWorld. It's about three times as fast and completely ruthless - if your opponent is slightly more skilled than you, you'll get utterly annihilated. A lot of QW players thought Q3 was for n00bs.


Once again though, UT was still and is still huge in the modding community. You continue to sell them short. It's still extremely popular. You are aware that there are still tons of servers (over 2000 according to wiki) still up and running and it's a direct result of the modding and mutators for UT...same as Q3.


Yes, but it's just not the same thing.


And let's look deeper at that since we still are talking about mods. Even in the face of numerous reiterations in the franchise, the original UT continues to be played by a lot of people.

I still stand by the statement that UT was so varied and refined from the get-go that modding didn't have to play such a huge roll in the beggining. That's critical to the main question in this thread. That's more of a testament to Epic. But, in the end, it was and still is huge for UT as well.

Varied, yes...but the gameplay is anything but refined. UT is a lacklustre game with great packaging, whereas Q3 is a great game with lacklustre packaging.
The key difference is that mods gave Q3 the great packaging.

I've never played competitive TDM (more into CTF or tactical MP like ET), so if you could explain what it's all about that would be great.


It's all about map control. Keeping control of the weapons, armours, powerups etc. - weapons spawn every 30 seconds, armours every 25 and powerups every 2 minutes. It requires a great deal of coordination to keep control, and if you die then you start from scratch and you leave yourself open to repeated slaughter from the other team.
You can get an astronomical lead on the other team and just destroy them over and over and over again, which is a key dynamic of TDM - in CTF you can't get ahead to such an extent. It's really hard to regain control of the map, so you have to hang on to your advantage at all costs.
It forces you to think on your feet because the situation is constantly changing and you have to keep everything together in that high-pressure environment, and keep track of everyone when they're constantly respawning, as well as the items and the enemy team. That's what makes it so challenging. If CS is about sound tactical plans, then TDM is about sheer mental agility.
Most people think it's about getting kills but it's much more about staying alive. Running away is often the best tactic.


I can track a target pretty well, so a lot of my kills are, surprisingly, machine gun kills from medium range. And if the server's all about sniping, then I own with the railgun. Q3's weapons are far too accurate.


That is one problem with Q3. It was balanced for an era when most people had pings in excess of 200, and the lowest anyone really had was 50.
Now with everyone on sub-30 pings, the railgun and especially the lightning gun are too powerful. Armour is your railgun insurance, though.
You can kill an unarmoured opponent with the machinegun from full health in 12 shots - pretty damn OTT in my opinion.


EDIT:

People complain about weak RL in Q2 but I think that's exactly what a good DM game should have: a RL that's good for nothing but rocket jumping (impact hammer). There's still the issue of the worthless chaingun and overpowered hyperblaster though(in close combat).


I <3 RL. It's always been my best weapon, I don't know why. Most people are rail- or lightning-whores, but I was always a rocket monkey. I got like 80% accuracy with the damn thing. That was my individuality. :)

[ericms]

I'm going to get so grilled on this one, but I've played the first Halo competitively on Xbox. The game type predominantly used was 2v2 team slayer on small maps. Halo had some depth, which I'll try to form into a list of some sort, but Quake 3 and UT probably had more (I've never played either one competitively). Here is a list of things I can think of off the top of my head (I stopped playing over 2 years ago).

1.) All maps came down to whoring power-ups and rockets/sniper. Since all the power items spawned cyclically most competitive players would use watches or egg timers to know when to grab them.

2.) The pistol was the weapon used 99% of the time when one did not have power weapons (rockets/sniper). You could slay someone with full health and shields with a minimum of three shots to the head. Lots and lots of strafing went on also. I mixed in jumping and crouching into my own strafe. :cat:

3.) A team could control both their own spawns and to lesser of a degree their opponents. When your teammate died, for example, you needed to stand over a specific area, or jump whilst over a specific area. On some maps a team, when stuck, would deliberately slay one of their members in order to use this trick. Also, you could spawn trap your opponents by forcing them to spawn where you wanted or where you didn't want. You could sometimes spawn rape another team then by repeatedly killing them off right after they spawned. People had to figure out many of these spots on their own for each level.

4.) Grenade spots were also great. Sometimes, in order to get power items that were out of reach or in a dangerous spot, players would toss grenades in specific spots in order to blow power items to them or down from a top floor. There were a ton of these, some very elaborate, and the game would be very frustrating if you didn't know any of these coming into it. Also people would use grenades to blow themselves up to somewhere.

5.) There were two main glitches in the game. One called backpack reloading and another called double meleeing. The first one allowed you to reload one weapon whilst having your other one out (you were only allowed to carry two weapons not including grenades). The other one allowed you to melee twice, which was really powerful since melee damage took out a ton of shield/health. Actually, I believe two melees were enough to slay someone (perfect!).

6.) Other miscellaneous things like sweep sniping online (over XBC which you could use to play the xbox copy online) which utilized lag for you rather than against. Also, you could gang up on power ups by having your team sit over one. There was also a glitch where you could have infinite rocket ammo, but this was the only tactic looked down upon competitively.

[99.vikram]

Also people would use grenades to blow themselves up to somewhere.
Just like rocket jumping, eh?

6.) Other miscellaneous things like sweep sniping online (over XBC which you could use to play the xbox copy online) which utilized lag for you rather than against. Also, you could gang up on power ups by having your team sit over one. There was also a glitch where you could have infinite rocket ammo, but this was the only tactic looked down upon competitively.
Why didn't Bungie patch these?

[ericms]

Just like rocket jumping, eh?

It's often not as useful. Also, it doesn't propel you great distances and it completely drains your shield making you an easy target. So it's mostly used to get out of shit house spots.

Why didn't Bungie patch these?

The Xbox edition of Halo was never meant to be played online. Gamespy and XBC hacked some makeshift way of allowing this. It wasn't half bad to be honest, and was completely playable with pings around 60 or lower. So Bungie never patched these things because Halo never used Xbox Live like Halo 2+. Besides I think everyone would have unanimously agreed that, with the exception of the rocket ammo glitch, nothing needed to be patched. Hardly anyone used that trick anyway.

[Lt. Drebin]

Quake has its roots firmly in the hardcore gaming community, people who would upgrade their PCs and internet connections just for the game, who would spend hours tweaking their CFGs to get the most competitive results and who would mod the crap out of the game. It was very much an underground thing.

This is not nor has it ever been unique to Quake.


Back then, there were no casual gamers. Quake has never been mainstream, and the people who play Quake are a very different kind of gamer from the people who play UT or CS or anything else. Most Q3 players had a background in QW or Q2, at least initially.

I have no idea where you've gotten the notion that Quake is not mainstream. That's simply ridiculous. Quake 1-4 were HUGE (especially 2-4). I remember not being able to find 1 or 2 anywhere when they were first released. They were not exclusive, at all.

Further, if you really believe that you need to be a special kind of gamer to play anything Quake then you're kidding yourself.

UT came out in an era when online gaming was already popular, and was aimed squarely at the mainstream. To aim a Quake game at the mainstream would do a disservice to what the game is all about.

Well, then I guess Id has shit all over the last 3 iterations of the game because Quake 2-4 are about as mainstream with as broad appeal as they come...same goes for UT.


Yes, but it's just not the same thing.

Wow, nice reasoning. That's not being elitist at all.

Varied, yes...but the gameplay is anything but refined. UT is a lacklustre game with great packaging, whereas Q3 is a great game with lacklustre packaging.
The key difference is that mods gave Q3 the great packaging.


Don't understand why you're still arguing this point. You've already stated that UT was the superior product from the start. Regardless of what eventually made Quake 3 great, UT was built for gamers from the start and didn't require the amount of modding that went into Quake3. UT was stacked from the beginning and still had a massive modder following.

[Gray Fox]

I remember playing q3 demo for months. Still I liked UT a bit more.

[repiV]

This is not nor has it ever been unique to Quake.


The only other FPS with a similar cult following is Tribes, and that's consigned firmly to history.


I have no idea where you've gotten the notion that Quake is not mainstream. That's simply ridiculous. Quake 1-4 were HUGE (especially 2-4). I remember not being able to find 1 or 2 anywhere when they were first released. They were not exclusive, at all.


Quake and Quake II might have been huge in terms of PC gaming at the time, but PC gaming itself was not remotely mainstream when those games were released.
Furthermore, well over 90% of the people who bought any of the Quake games would never have played them online - the first two because hardly anyone played online and it required a high degree of technical knowledge to do so, Quake 3 because online gaming still wasn't massively popular at the time, and despite the game being designed for multiplayer, most people never went online, and Quake 4 because its main focus is the singleplayer.
Quake 4 sold massively, but this was never reflected in the player numbers.


Further, if you really believe that you need to be a special kind of gamer to play anything Quake then you're kidding yourself.


I didn't say that, I said a certain type of gamer chooses to play Quake. You prove this point yourself by saying noone really cares about competitive play. Pretty much everyone who plays Quake cares about competitive play, in fact if it wasn't for competitive play, they wouldn't play at all.
And it is a fact that the average skill level of Quake players is far higher than in any other game.


Well, then I guess Id has shit all over the last 3 iterations of the game because Quake 2-4 are about as mainstream with as broad appeal as they come...same goes for UT.


Quake 2 and 4 were singleplayer games with multiplayer tacked on as an afterthought. Quake 2 didn't even have any DM maps on release, they had to be added in a patch. Quake 3 would have sold a fraction of the copies without its singleplayer mode.
In any case, twitch shooters don't have any mainstream appeal anymore. You may not have noticed, but UT3 was a complete flop. It hardly sold at all, there's hardly anyone playing it and there's not even any competitive community to speak of. It died the same day it was released.


Wow, nice reasoning. That's not being elitist at all.


I already told you why it's different, several times. If you can't read that's your problem. Show me a mod (not a total conversion) that's actually used in UT leagues.
Every Q3 league uses a modified version of the game.


Don't understand why you're still arguing this point. You've already stated that UT was the superior product from the start. Regardless of what eventually made Quake 3 great, UT was built for gamers from the start and didn't require the amount of modding that went into Quake3. UT was stacked from the beginning and still had a massive modder following.

Quake 3 was always great, it just lacked certain necessary functionality. The core gameplay has never been altered.
No matter how much modding goes into UT, its still a noobish, clumsy, mediocre game. Fun, yes. Entertaining, yes. But great? No, not really.
It's obvious enough from the fact that the hardcore gamers chose Q3 while the more casual players chose UT. All the top players of the time played Q3 (or QuakeWorld).

I think you're really missing the point of Quake by hammering on about how it needed this mod and that mod. We like the game to be released in its "unfinished" state, because then the community can decide on the more intricate details like game modes and features and such.
Q3 received an expansion pack to "finish" it, and it was poorly received because people would rather play what the community created. It was brilliant, but redundant.

[Seagull]

Q3 is the definition of deathmatch.

There is nothing remotely comparable. (This comes from a similar competitive viewpoint of Viper)

[Tagaziel]

Quake 3 was always great, it just lacked certain necessary functionality. The core gameplay has never been altered.
No matter how much modding goes into UT, its still a noobish, clumsy, mediocre game. Fun, yes. Entertaining, yes. But great? No, not really.
It's obvious enough from the fact that the hardcore gamers chose Q3 while the more casual players chose UT. All the top players of the time played Q3 (or QuakeWorld).

Your point is that hardcore gamers prefer Quake 3. And that's the entire point, just because a handful of hardcore competitive gamers prefer Quake 3 doesn't mean it's a better game.

And this is not NMA-type hardcore, since we judge games by their merits such as aesthetic, plot, atmosphere, art design and similiar, while you judge them solely on the fact whether hardcore competitive gamers consider them good competition games or not.

Last, tactical TDM my ass, Battlefield tramples it any day. :p

[repiV]

Your point is that hardcore gamers prefer Quake 3. And that's the entire point, just because a handful of hardcore competitive gamers prefer Quake 3 doesn't mean it's a better game.


Yes it does. Competitive gamers will choose the game with the best, most testing, most interesting gameplay. By definition, the competition choice is the best game. Q3 isn't the best game because hardcore gamers prefer it, hardcore gamers prefer it because it's the best game.
Really, it all coems down to the fact that you can slate Q3 all you like, but you'll be hard-pushed to actually find any flaws with the gameplay. UT is full of gameplay flaws.
In a similar vein, I love Dawn of War. I could just play it all night long. I also hate Starcraft. But I can easily see that Dawn of War is a deeply flawed game which sucks for competition use, and Starcraft is actually the better game. I just don't happen to like it.
Q3 and Starcraft are refined enough to make the game something more - a sport. UT does not even approach this level of quality.


And this is not NMA-type hardcore, since we judge games by their merits such as aesthetic, plot, atmosphere, art design and similiar, while you judge them solely on the fact whether hardcore competitive gamers consider them good competition games or not.


No, I judge them also based on their merits. Competitive games succeed or fail based on their merits, Q3 succeeded because it had many.


Last, tactical TDM my ass, Battlefield tramples it any day. :p

How would you know?

[Tagaziel]

Yes it does. Competitive gamers will choose the game with the best, most testing, most interesting gameplay. By definition, the competition choice is the best game. Q3 isn't the best game because hardcore gamers prefer it, hardcore gamers prefer it because it's the best game.
Really, it all coems down to the fact that you can slate Q3 all you like, but you'll be hard-pushed to actually find any flaws with the gameplay. UT is full of gameplay flaws.
In a similar vein, I love Dawn of War. I could just play it all night long. I also hate Starcraft. But I can easily see that Dawn of War is a deeply flawed game which sucks for competition use, and Starcraft is actually the better game. I just don't happen to like it.
Q3 and Starcraft are refined enough to make the game something more - a sport. UT does not even approach this level of quality.

You're right. It surpasses it. Q3 is bland and repetitive, UT never gets old.

No, I judge them also based on their merits. Competitive games succeed or fail based on their merits, Q3 succeeded because it had many.


Interesting, last time you said UT was better than Q3 out of the box.

How would you know?

Played both.

[repiV]

You're right. It surpasses it. Q3 is bland and repetitive, UT never gets old.


That's a completely subjective and meaningless opinion. You've made no point other than that you find Q3 bland and repetitive.


Interesting, last time you said UT was better than Q3 out of the box.


Yes, as a package. That doesn't mean the actual gameplay of UT was better.


Played both.

Competitively, or on public servers?

[99.vikram]

Quake 3's gameplay is superior, IMO. But if I had the money to buy one of the two games, it would be UT for the awesome replay value and out of the box customization options. Plus Epic released free map packs, id pretty much left Q3 to the community.

[Houndini]

UT easy

[Narcolepsy]

I think the problem here is repiV's extremely limited definition of "good." There's no grounds arguing with him on the competitive merit of the games, since I don't think anyone here has more experience than him. So why are we still doing this, exactly?

[Tagaziel]

That's a completely subjective and meaningless opinion. You've made no point other than that you find Q3 bland and repetitive.

The same applies to you.


Yes, as a package. That doesn't mean the actual gameplay of UT was better.

With a lot more interesting weapons and environments, I dare say UT's gameplay is better.

Competitively, or on public servers?

Public. And before you vault off your high horse, let me say that I don't need to play competetively to know what makes a better game.

[Bad^Hat]

UT, easily. I played the freakin demo for probably a year straight and never got bored of it. Didn't get into any of the 'sequels', though.
By definition, the competition choice is the best game.
No it isn't. You're just judging the game by an entirely different set of criteria than everyone else and applying your own view to their opinions. The only thing this shows is that the game was designed to be more competitive, which is fine - for competitive gamers. Because the rest of us haven't played the game quite as extensively as you doesn't mean we aren't able to form an opinion.

Personally I enjoyed Quake 3 quite a bit aswell, but I was actually put off a bit by how "competitive" it was, ie: straight-forward and functional in favour of varied and interesting. I agree it'd be the better choice for competing by far, but that doesn't neccesarily make it the better game.

The only important criteria to me is which game gave me more enjoyment, and - by "definition" - games are meant to be enjoyed. ;)

[repiV]

The same applies to you.


Not in the slightest. I've given very specific, objective reasons for why Q3 is the superior game.


With a lot more interesting weapons and environments, I dare say UT's gameplay is better.


"Interesting" weapons and environments are totally irrelevant to the gameplay.


Public. And before you vault off your high horse, let me say that I don't need to play competetively to know what makes a better game.

Yes, yes you do.
That's like judging the game of basketball by playing a one on one in the back yard, or judging badminton by standing there and hitting a shuttle back and forth. It's only when you play the game as it's intended that its true nature becomes apparent. Team Fortress, for example, seems very complex, but when played in organised matches (the only way it was ever intended to be played), it's an extremely repetitive and simple game. There's only really one way to play each map. There's less strategy in a game of TF than there is in standard CTF.
How can you possibly comment on the quality of a team game based on a setting where there is no teamplay? That's insane. Team games are meant to be played in organised settings.
I can completely guarantee that TDM is an entirely different game on public servers, and the features that BF2 has to make it work on publics destroy it for clan play. Not to mention that it kind of loses most of its appeal when you take away the huge teams.

To go back to the badminton example, most people see it as a girls' game, but the reality is that it's the fastest, most demanding, most tactical racquet game of all. It's three times faster than tennis and it also has a great deal more depth.
Likewise, such misconceptions abound about online games when you haven't played them properly.

UT, easily. I played the freakin demo for probably a year straight and never got bored of it. Didn't get into any of the 'sequels', though.

No it isn't. You're just judging the game by an entirely different set of criteria than everyone else and applying your own view to their opinions. The only thing this shows is that the game was designed to be more competitive, which is fine - for competitive gamers. Because the rest of us haven't played the game quite as extensively as you doesn't mean we aren't able to form an opinion.

Personally I enjoyed Quake 3 quite a bit aswell, but I was actually put off a bit by how "competitive" it was, ie: straight-forward and functional in favour of varied and interesting. I agree it'd be the better choice for competing by far, but that doesn't neccesarily make it the better game.

The only important criteria to me is which game gave me more enjoyment, and - by "definition" - games are meant to be enjoyed. ;)

Like I said, I enjoy Dawn of War immensely but I also recognise it's a fundamentally flawed game that will never have any real merit in serious play. It totally lacks the sheer depth, balance and polish of Starcraft or Warcraft 3 - games I dislike.
Team games are meant to be played in organised settings - that's true in real life sports and online gaming. Whether you happen to enjoy playing them in a casual way is irrelevant, the only valid way to judge them is by how they play in competition.

[Rapstah]

Team games are meant to be played in organised settings - that's true in real life sports and online gaming. Whether you happen to enjoy playing them in a casual way is irrelevant, the only valid way to judge them is by how they play in competition.

I'll be right back, I used to like basketball but as I'm not in a professional team I have no right to express myself in the matter.

[Cpt Tenacious]

Loves me some other.

[repiV]

I'll be right back, I used to like basketball but as I'm not in a professional team I have no right to express myself in the matter.

Who said anything about professional teams?
It's pretty bloody obvious that shooting some hoops with a buddy is not representative of real basketball. Basketball involves two teams facing off against one another in a match of some kind.

TDM also involves two teams facing off against one another in a match of some kind. A bunch of people playing on a public server that happens to be running TDM is not in the slightest bit comparable or relevant.

[Bad^Hat]

Yeah, but who decides what's relevant or decisive?

Oh, sorry, apparently you do.

[repiV]

Yeah, but who decides what's relevant or decisive?

Oh, sorry, apparently you do.

So, please explain how a team game can under any valid criteria be judged based on how it plays when a bunch of random people jump on a server and piss around?
That's like saying football isn't tactical because it's just a bunch of people running around a field kicking a ball. After all, if you took a dozen people who knew nothing about how to play the game and gave them a field and a ball, that's exactly what it would be.
We all know, however, that football has vastly more depth than that - but only if it's played properly.

[Bad^Hat]

Who said anything about team games? Please read OP. Or failing that, thread title.

[repiV]

Who said anything about team games? Please read OP. Or failing that, thread title.

There's no such thing as competitive free for all.

[Krynn72]

Subtrack one from Quake and give it to UT. I voted too fast and didnt catch myself.

[Bad^Hat]

There's no such thing as competitive free for all.
Who said anything about competitive? (besides you)

This is circular logic at it's bloody finest.

[repiV]

Who said anything about competitive? (besides you)

This is circular logic at it's bloody finest.

In case you hadn't noticed, everyone here is talking about team games - why you're using that against me is anyone's guess.
Why, most people's reasoning for why UT is better is the wealth of team content that Q3 doesn't have out of the box.

[Bad^Hat]

Yeah, but nobody else is talking about competitive gaming, a criteria which you introduced to back your choice and have been using to hammer in your point for the last 6 pages or so. Face it - there is no one definitive way to judge a game, deathmatch, team, whatever. Competitive gaming is merely a subset of gaming, and (as you've more or less said yourself already) is a completely different dynamic than casual gaming. How, then, does that make competitive gamers more able to proclaim either one as "better", as though that weren't subjective enough already? You allude that Quake 3 is better because it's the "competitive gamer's choice", but did they really choose it because it was an all-around better game? I think not. It's obviously been designed from the ground-up to be used in competition, whereas UT has not. The only thing your argument has proved is that Q3 is a more competitive game, which then requires the assumption that competitive games are, "by definition", better. A view which noone else shares.

Clear enough yet?

[theotherguy]

Half life 1

[ríomhaire]

I've never played Quake 3 except once on the playstation (crap) but I love the UT series, but not the DM. I always played UT for the assaults and capture the flags. I'm not a DM fan. Out of the DM games my favourite is HL2DM. I love the grav gun, crossbow, shotgun and revolver. I couldn't give the **** about competetive gameplay, I just find HL2DM damn fun.

[Tagaziel]

Yeah, but nobody else is talking about competitive gaming, a criteria which you introduced to back your choice and have been using to hammer in your point for the last 6 pages or so. Face it - there is no one definitive way to judge a game, deathmatch, team, whatever. Competitive gaming is merely a subset of gaming, and (as you've more or less said yourself already) is a completely different dynamic than casual gaming. How, then, does that make competitive gamers more able to proclaim either one as "better", as though that weren't subjective enough already? You allude that Quake 3 is better because it's the "competitive gamer's choice", but did they really choose it because it was an all-around better game? I think not. It's obviously been designed from the ground-up to be used in competition, whereas UT has not. The only thing your argument has proved is that Q3 is a more competitive game, which then requires the assumption that competitive games are, "by definition", better. A view which noone else shares.

Clear enough yet?

/repiv

[Seagull]

Gameplay flaws become more apparent in high levels of play, and that's probably what viper's basing his vote off of. Q3 has essentially 0 flaws in any sort of play (unless you count like being unfriendly to newbies etc), while UT has weapon balance issues that the majority of gamers won't really care about as the game is fun. For a competitive gamer (at least me), fun is just battling it out against an enemy with a huge variety of strategy and tactics until the one who makes the smartest/best decisions wins. AFAIK, UT has some flaws in high levels of play which hamper the variety of strategies/tactics, thus Q3 is the better competitive game (which most people won't ever care about, but it shows the gameplay flaws that the majority of players will never see)

it's just a different way of looking at a game and determining if it's good or not

[Ennui]

I personally prefer UT to Q3A, but I play both of them regularly still and my friends and I love a good fragfest regardless of which we play.

HL>* btw... when it comes to modding at least

[repiV]

Yeah, but nobody else is talking about competitive gaming, a criteria which you introduced to back your choice and have been using to hammer in your point for the last 6 pages or so. Face it - there is no one definitive way to judge a game, deathmatch, team, whatever. Competitive gaming is merely a subset of gaming, and (as you've more or less said yourself already) is a completely different dynamic than casual gaming. How, then, does that make competitive gamers more able to proclaim either one as "better", as though that weren't subjective enough already? You allude that Quake 3 is better because it's the "competitive gamer's choice", but did they really choose it because it was an all-around better game? I think not. It's obviously been designed from the ground-up to be used in competition, whereas UT has not. The only thing your argument has proved is that Q3 is a more competitive game, which then requires the assumption that competitive games are, "by definition", better. A view which noone else shares.

Clear enough yet?

Not really, because multiplayer shooters are competitive games by definition. The only difference between competitive play and non-competitive play is that the competitive players are good at the game - if the gaming experience falls apart when the skill level is raised, it's a sure sign the game has intrinsic faults. If UT is a good choice for casual play, it's only because casual gamers don't notice the flaws.
If you played UT3 with skilled gamers, you'd get sick of it after an hour because it all comes down to shock whoring. It's not a remotely enjoyable experience.
Q3 is balanced for high level play, but it scales down perfectly well. The game doesn't become broken when played by newbies, it works at all levels.
UTs credibility as a game drops off drastically the higher up the skill ladder you go.

[repiV]

Gameplay flaws become more apparent in high levels of play, and that's probably what viper's basing his vote off of. Q3 has essentially 0 flaws in any sort of play (unless you count like being unfriendly to newbies etc), while UT has weapon balance issues that the majority of gamers won't really care about as the game is fun. For a competitive gamer (at least me), fun is just battling it out against an enemy with a huge variety of strategy and tactics until the one who makes the smartest/best decisions wins. AFAIK, UT has some flaws in high levels of play which hamper the variety of strategies/tactics, thus Q3 is the better competitive game (which most people won't ever care about, but it shows the gameplay flaws that the majority of players will never see)

it's just a different way of looking at a game and determining if it's good or not

Zing. Got it in one.
Casual gamers might well find UT more fun (I certainly did, initially), but that doesn't change the fact that Q3 has 0 flaws at any level of play whereas UT is full of serious issues. Surely that's the only objective measure of the quality of the game.

[Wanted Bob]

The only difference between competitive play and non-competitive play is that the competitive players are good at the game.

I would disagree with that. Depends what your definition of good is, but I casually play some games and relative to the people I play with I get quite good.

"Serious issues" for UT you say? If that was the case, no-one would be playing it anymore.

[repiV]

I would disagree with that. Depends what your definition of good is, but I casually play some games and relative to the people I play with I get quite good. You dont have to be an amazing player to notice minute gameplay flaws.

Very true.

What I meant is that the difference between competitive play and non-competitive play is not some black and white thing, it's just about attitude and skill level. It's not like casual gamers play with the intention of losing. Once they reach a certain skill level, they will start noticing the flaws.

[Wanted Bob]

Ok. Does that mean there are serious issues with the game then? I bet there are some issues with UT, but are they that gamebreaking? And surely Q3 is not absolutely flawless in terms of gameplay, there is no slight advantage anywhere? (I havent played in a while, so I'm just asking)

[Sulkdodds]

RepiV: considering that both Q3 and UT are comercially released games sold mostly to casual players (as opposed to basketball which is an institution), I'm not entirely convinced by your bloody-minded focus on competetive play. If the difference between 'casual' and 'competetive' is, as you say, merely one of degree rather than type, why do you invoke the conventions and trappings of professional deathmatch ("whoever heard of a competetive free-for-all?") rather than the actual game-experience?

Despite all that, we must attend to the poll question:

Which is the best game for pure deathmatch?Oh look. It's Quake 3.

I count 2003/4 as total successes, having retained UT's eclectic variety but refined it and smoothed it in a quakelike fashion.

[repiV]

Ok. Does that mean there are serious issues with the game then? I bet there are some issues with UT, but are they that gamebreaking? And surely Q3 is not absolutely flawless in terms of gameplay, there is no slight advantage anywhere? (I havent played in a while, so I'm just asking)

They're not gamebreaking to the point that it has no merit as a game - but they are pretty major. Some through disrupting game balance, others through not allowing the level of depth you would find in a game of Q3.
Off the top of my head...

1. The minigun is far, far too powerful - a rapid-fire, hitscan weapon should NOT be the most powerful weapon in the game. It's punishingly overpowered and doesn't take much skill to use, either. Furthermore, it's an effective weapon at all ranges and in nearly all situations. This massively disrupts the mechanic of having different guns for different reasons, and takes a huge amount of depth out of the game - both combat-wise and tactics-wise.
2. The Ripper is spammy as hell. No skill weapon for indiscriminate kills - a bad thing in all cases.
3. You can stack up SIX ROCKETS! Again, a no-skill game mechanic. Always bad.
4. The shock combo radius is far too large. It's too powerful, though not nearly as bad as in UT3. The shock primary rate of fire is too high - combined with the knockback effect, you can just annihilate an opponent with repeated shots in a very short space of time - and this is a hitscan weapon...
5. The Enforcers are too powerful - overpowered starting weapon leads to games where everyone just spawns and spams the crap out of everything. Completely destroys the tactical element of the game and the benefits of staying alive. What's the point in controlling the weapons and armours when some twat can just come along and gun you down with the Enforcer despite your superior strategy?
6. Redundant weapons - you can use the minigun instead of the pulse rifle, the flak cannon is somewhat interchangable with the rocket launcher, the shock will do instead of the sniper...
This reduces the depth of the game because each individual weapon is less important. Who cares if you have control of the flak or not, when the rocket launcher will do the same job?

There's plenty more flaws too. I think UT2004, for the most part, did a great job of fixing what was wrong with the series and apart from the playermodels being far too narrow and the hitboxes being very inconsistent, I could find little to fault with it.

Q3 does have some flaws, but they're relatively minor...and mostly as a result of the game being balanced for modem/ISDN play. The lightning gun is devastatingly powerful in the right hands, but it's less of an issue than the UT imbalances because it can still be effectively overcome.
The railgun is arguably too powerful aswell - it's a matter of personal preference really, but it's more powerful than it was intended to be due to lower pings. It's one of those things you either love or hate, the railgun is the one weapon that completely alters the dynamic of play. Maps without the rail are much faster and more in-your-face, the railgun tends to encourage long range standoffs and caution.
I think the problem is that it's too easy to use close up - a slightly longer reload time should fix that. I believe in CPMA the rail only does 70 damage, but I'm not 100% on that.
And the machinegun is slightly too powerful. That's really it though, other than that I think the gameplay is basically faultless. And the game just feels right in a way that I don't think any other game has ever done...not even the almost identical Quake 4. It's as if the Quake 3 engine is magic in some way...

[repiV]

RepiV: considering that both Q3 and UT are comercially released games sold mostly to casual players (as opposed to basketball which is an institution), I'm not entirely convinced by your bloody-minded focus on competetive play. If the difference between 'casual' and 'competetive' is, as you say, merely one of degree rather than type, why do you invoke the conventions and trappings of professional deathmatch ("whoever heard of a competetive free-for-all?") rather than the actual game-experience?


Games have to sell to casual players in order to turn a profit, but it's the competitive community that drives the development of online play - the patches, the mods, even the servers...once the game is released, it's the enthusiasts who shape the future of the game. Casual players are merely along for the ride.
It's hardcore gamers who keep games alive in the long-term - casual gamers play one game and then move onto the next in a few months. Quake 3 would never have stayed popular for six years without the competitive community - less than a year, I would wager. Hardcore gamers have more of an influence than you might think.
Competitive play doesn't have to mean professional play - division 5 CTF is still competitive play. Even if you're just competing for the fun of it, it's a wholly different experience from messing around on public servers. If you're even remotely into your gaming, why wouldn't you want to play for a clan? It's an experience so far and above public servers it's beyond belief.
And even though it's competitive play I'm interested in (with all the team spirit, adrenaline, massive sense of achievement and such that team sport can bring), ultimately I play because it's fun. UT is designed in such a way that it becomes less and less fun and more and more frustrating the better you get, whereas Q3 gets better and better the more you develop your skills.
I enjoyed UT for one year (and I did play in clans etc before I ever really took Q3 seriously), but as my skill level rose I lost interest in UT and found Q3 to be the far superior game.
With regards to degree rather than type, and invoking the trappings of competitive play - it's more about correlation than causation. Skilled players tend to play in clans, but the flaws would be just as evident to them if they didn't.


Despite all that, we must attend to the poll question:

Oh look. It's Quake 3.

I count 2003/4 as total successes, having retained UT's eclectic variety but refined it and smoothed it in a quakelike fashion.

Yeah... as a preference I lean towards the minimalist side of things, but I've got nothing bad to say about UT2004. It's an excellent game.
UT2003, though, had terrible weapon balance and the engine was crap (UT2004 polished it up significantly).
I thought Bombing Run was brilliant, but sadly noone else seemed to think so.

[Tagaziel]

tl;dr: repiv hates any deathmatch that offers a different experience than Quake I, where having the rocket launcher meant you win the match.

[repiV]

tl;dr: repiv hates any deathmatch that offers a different experience than Quake I, where having the rocket launcher meant you win the match.

Actually I hate Quake I for that very reason. Although the lightning gun is even more overpowered than the rocket launcher.

[Bad^Hat]

What I meant is that the difference between competitive play and non-competitive play is not some black and white thing, it's just about attitude and skill level.
Even if you're just competing for the fun of it, it's a wholly different experience from messing around on public servers.
Buh?

I give up.

[Wanted Bob]

Rofl, who added the last poll option? :laugh:

[99.vikram]

1. The minigun is far, far too powerful - a rapid-fire, hitscan weapon should NOT be the most powerful weapon in the game. It's punishingly overpowered and doesn't take much skill to use, either. Furthermore, it's an effective weapon at all ranges and in nearly all situations. This massively disrupts the mechanic of having different guns for different reasons, and takes a huge amount of depth out of the game - both combat-wise and tactics-wise.
2. The Ripper is spammy as hell. No skill weapon for indiscriminate kills - a bad thing in all cases.
3. You can stack up SIX ROCKETS! Again, a no-skill game mechanic. Always bad.
4. The shock combo radius is far too large. It's too powerful, though not nearly as bad as in UT3. The shock primary rate of fire is too high - combined with the knockback effect, you can just annihilate an opponent with repeated shots in a very short space of time - and this is a hitscan weapon...
5. The Enforcers are too powerful - overpowered starting weapon leads to games where everyone just spawns and spams the crap out of everything. Completely destroys the tactical element of the game and the benefits of staying alive. What's the point in controlling the weapons and armours when some twat can just come along and gun you down with the Enforcer despite your superior strategy?
6. Redundant weapons - you can use the minigun instead of the pulse rifle, the flak cannon is somewhat interchangable with the rocket launcher, the shock will do instead of the sniper...
This reduces the depth of the game because each individual weapon is less important. Who cares if you have control of the flak or not, when the rocket launcher will do the same job?
Bang on.

UT is still more value for money though.

[Letters]

Rofl, who added the last poll option? :laugh:
Whoever did is awesome, and I'd like to change my vote to that option after reading this crap!

I had voted for UT and still say it's far better than Quake even after all that... Quake's boring, but you can do all sorts of whacked out crazy stuff in even a plain deathmatch in UT. I used to win some matches using nothing but the impact hammer... awesome!

Edit:

And just for fun I'll reply to that list of Repiv's, haha. Because it's FAR from "bang on"!

1. The minigun is far, far too powerful - a rapid-fire, hitscan weapon should NOT be the most powerful weapon in the game. It's punishingly overpowered and doesn't take much skill to use, either. Furthermore, it's an effective weapon at all ranges and in nearly all situations. This massively disrupts the mechanic of having different guns for different reasons, and takes a huge amount of depth out of the game - both combat-wise and tactics-wise.

--- I never much liked the minigun myself so I'd say it wasn't all that you're saying... but if it actually is, that just means it's cool.

2. The Ripper is spammy as hell. No skill weapon for indiscriminate kills - a bad thing in all cases.

--- What's the ripper?! I dunno, but it sounds cool if you can go crazy spamming it and get a lot of kills.

3. You can stack up SIX ROCKETS! Again, a no-skill game mechanic. Always bad.

--- The firing more than one at once thing? Well you gotta time it... and it eats ammo?! Rockets are fun, but even more rockets is even more fun!

4. The shock combo radius is far too large. It's too powerful, though not nearly as bad as in UT3. The shock primary rate of fire is too high - combined with the knockback effect, you can just annihilate an opponent with repeated shots in a very short space of time - and this is a hitscan weapon...

--- Shock combo is kinda hard to use so it should be powerful... well it's fun to stand there and spam a room with them but that means you're kinda just standing there and easy to kill or chase off... I don't even know what hitscan means, so that's obviously irrelevant.


5. The Enforcers are too powerful - overpowered starting weapon leads to games where everyone just spawns and spams the crap out of everything. Completely destroys the tactical element of the game and the benefits of staying alive. What's the point in controlling the weapons and armours when some twat can just come along and gun you down with the Enforcer despite your superior strategy?

--- Enforcer is shitty unless you have 2 of them but even then... not that great. Did you actually play the game or what?! First thing you do is find a new gun!


6. Redundant weapons - you can use the minigun instead of the pulse rifle, the flak cannon is somewhat interchangable with the rocket launcher, the shock will do instead of the sniper...
This reduces the depth of the game because each individual weapon is less important. Who cares if you have control of the flak or not, when the rocket launcher will do the same job?

--- Who cares if you "control" any weapon spawn? Sounds greedy and makes me want to kill you even more for always hovering around that one weapon spawn... lamer! Oh and I'd much rather rockets than flak, and much rather pulse rifle over minigun so they're quite clearly not interchangeable!



In short... NO, NO, NO! There's something wrong with you, man.

[repiV]

Rofl, who added the last poll option? :laugh:

Some ignorant twat, clearly. Noone has actually managed to come up with a single effective counter to any of my arguments so far, so instead I get "you're a retard", this moronic post by Letters and some 14 year old mod editing the poll options. Sure sign of a sore loser with no point. :rolleyes:

Bang on.

UT is still more value for money though.

Yeah, if you discount all post-release development.

Whoever did is awesome, and I'd like to change my vote to that option after reading this crap!

I had voted for UT and still say it's far better than Quake even after all that... Quake's boring, but you can do all sorts of whacked out crazy stuff in even a plain deathmatch in UT. I used to win some matches using nothing but the impact hammer... awesome!

Edit:

And just for fun I'll reply to that list of Repiv's, haha. Because it's FAR from "bang on"!

1. The minigun is far, far too powerful - a rapid-fire, hitscan weapon should NOT be the most powerful weapon in the game. It's punishingly overpowered and doesn't take much skill to use, either. Furthermore, it's an effective weapon at all ranges and in nearly all situations. This massively disrupts the mechanic of having different guns for different reasons, and takes a huge amount of depth out of the game - both combat-wise and tactics-wise.

--- I never much liked the minigun myself so I'd say it wasn't all that you're saying... but if it actually is, that just means it's cool.

2. The Ripper is spammy as hell. No skill weapon for indiscriminate kills - a bad thing in all cases.

--- What's the ripper?! I dunno, but it sounds cool if you can go crazy spamming it and get a lot of kills.

3. You can stack up SIX ROCKETS! Again, a no-skill game mechanic. Always bad.

--- The firing more than one at once thing? Well you gotta time it... and it eats ammo?! Rockets are fun, but even more rockets is even more fun!

4. The shock combo radius is far too large. It's too powerful, though not nearly as bad as in UT3. The shock primary rate of fire is too high - combined with the knockback effect, you can just annihilate an opponent with repeated shots in a very short space of time - and this is a hitscan weapon...

--- Shock combo is kinda hard to use so it should be powerful... well it's fun to stand there and spam a room with them but that means you're kinda just standing there and easy to kill or chase off... I don't even know what hitscan means, so that's obviously irrelevant.


5. The Enforcers are too powerful - overpowered starting weapon leads to games where everyone just spawns and spams the crap out of everything. Completely destroys the tactical element of the game and the benefits of staying alive. What's the point in controlling the weapons and armours when some twat can just come along and gun you down with the Enforcer despite your superior strategy?

--- Enforcer is shitty unless you have 2 of them but even then... not that great. Did you actually play the game or what?! First thing you do is find a new gun!


6. Redundant weapons - you can use the minigun instead of the pulse rifle, the flak cannon is somewhat interchangable with the rocket launcher, the shock will do instead of the sniper...
This reduces the depth of the game because each individual weapon is less important. Who cares if you have control of the flak or not, when the rocket launcher will do the same job?

--- Who cares if you "control" any weapon spawn? Sounds greedy and makes me want to kill you even more for always hovering around that one weapon spawn... lamer! Oh and I'd much rather rockets than flak, and much rather pulse rifle over minigun so they're quite clearly not interchangeable!



In short... NO, NO, NO! There's something wrong with you, man.

So basically, you're shit at the game and as a result have no understanding of how it actually plays. You don't have the intelligence to understand the finer points of game mechanics, all you can grasp is "cool" and "I don't understand that, so it's irrelevant".
Nothing you said above makes any sense whatsoever. And I'm the fool?

Like discussing economics with ****ing kids...

[Wanted Bob]

The only one on that list I would disagree with is the Enforcer. That thing is useless by itself, though if you can get a second one it becomes fairly good (though the chances of you getting another Enforcer are slim unless you spawn-camp them).

How did you get the impression that it was overpowered?

[repiV]

The only one on that list I would disagree with is the Enforcer. That thing is useless by itself, though if you can get a second one it becomes fairly good (though the chances of you getting another Enforcer are slim unless you spawn-camp them).

How did you get the impression that it was overpowered?

That's the thing - it's useless, but it's not useless enough. It's enough to do considerable damage to a tooled up enemy, especially in groups.
Sure, the other guy will win, but how much health will he have left? And then you can just come back and finish the job.

I thought the Assault Rifle in UT2003/2004 was perfect - it's little more than an annoyance.

[Wanted Bob]

Really? I thought duel assult rifles were if anything more powerfull than the Enforcers, cause they had grenades didnt they?

[repiV]

Really? I thought duel assult rifles were if anything more powerfull than the Enforcers, cause they had grenades didnt they?

They do indeed, but the grenades only work at short range, reload slowly and take a lot of skill to use. They do a huge amount of damage if they hit, but they're easy enough to avoid.
You can't really avoid the Enforcers, or the Q3 machinegun - only slow down the rate at which you take damage. They're infinite range hitscan weapons, after all.

[Dalamari]

Jesus Christ you're a ****ing ignorant **** repiV

[repiV]

Jesus Christ you're a ****ing ignorant **** repiV

Thanks for the intelligent, well-thought out contribution. Numerous division one championship wins in Q3 and clan in position #1 on the CB ladder in UT2004 surely bears testament to my ignorance in these matters.

Anything else while you're at it?

You know, for a bunch of people so obsessed with "logic" and civilised discussion, a whole damn lot of you sure are a bunch of venomous, hate-filled ****ing wankers.

[Crushenator 500]

Competetive gaming championships are one of the funniest things ever

Do you really think your average person cares about LAN competitions? Hell, this is a gaming forum and the majority of people on here don't even give a shit

Quake3 is a fun game, but Unreal tournament is far better in my opinion

I voted the last option on the poll

[repiV]

Competetive gaming championships are one of the funniest things ever

Do you really think your average person cares about LAN competitions? Hell, this is a gaming forum and the majority of people on here don't even give a shit

Quake3 is a fun game, but Unreal tournament is far better in my opinion

I voted the last option on the poll

Well **** you too. I've never been anything but civilised throughout this whole thread, I've always made entirely valid points in a constructive manner and I get back a load of flaming and bullshit - you know, the stuff that usually results in infractions - when it's against a darling child of the forum, anyway.
If that wasn't enough, we have some wiseguy little boy moderator breaking their own forum rules by abusing their position to anonymously "defame", "abuse" and "harass" me, to quote the forum rules. I notice an extra 100 votes have recently been added to the poll.
Like dealing with a bunch of petulant little kids. What kind of useless little shit makes personal attacks over a discussion about a ****ing PC game?

[Pi Mu Rho]

I removed the extra option on the poll.
Regarding behaviour/infractions - if people did receive infractions, you wouldn't be aware of it, so don't be so hasty to make judgements.

Also, most of your "constructive" arguments that "no-one has been able to counter" basically boil down to "it's better because I say so."

[Dalamari]

What kind of useless little shit whines about how he's right and everyone else is wrong for 9 pages?

Fixed

[repiV]

I removed the extra option on the poll.
Regarding behaviour/infractions - if people did receive infractions, you wouldn't be aware of it, so don't be so hasty to make judgements.


Thank you.


Also, most of your "constructive" arguments that "no-one has been able to counter" basically boil down to "it's better because I say so."

They don't, though. I've given extremely specific reasons for why Q3 is better. As whatshisname quite rightly pointed out, certain gameplay faults only become obvious at higher levels of play, but it doesn't mean those faults aren't there at all levels of play.
The repercussions of these faults is magnified and magnified the better you get at the game.
There's a reason many thousands of people are still playing Starcraft 11 years on, and a couple of hundred playing Dawn of War at any one time despite being a best-seller and very enjoyable. It gets boring a lot more quickly as the balancing flaws ensure that the game becomes entirely predictable and shallow. I tried to play Warcraft 3 and ended up completely overwhelmed by the crushing depth and difficulty of the game. The flipside is, there's always something new to learn or improve on...
And RTS games are always being patched to correct balance issues - vital to the continued survival of the game, but casual gamers wouldn't notice or care. Doesn't make it any less important.
Hell, people are forever discussing singleplayer games, movies and music here in a fashion that decides one as superior to another, why on earth should judging of multiplayer games be a purely subjective thing?
It isn't, it's just that few here are as into multiplayer games as they are into singleplayer games, and haven't the depth of experience to realise that.

In any case, nothing excuses the children being personally insulting towards me here, especially certain people who I've offered help and understanding to in the past on certain personal issues I myself went through. I must have been mistaken in thinking that people here had any class.

[repiV]

Fixed

Go to hell, kid. I'm still waiting for anyone to actually point out a flaw with Q3, or a good quality about UT's actual gameplay.

[DEATHMASTER]

Q3 feels like a bogged down version of UT.

[Cole]

Repiv some people have different tastes in gameplay. Some people also don't want to have to download a bunch of mods for there game so it plays right. Also as you said, Quake 3 has a huge learning curve. This turns a lot of people off from the game. A lot of people don't like Quake 3 for that reason. Furthermore, what is good and bad about gameplay is completely subjective. What you may see as a Pro, someone else can easily see as a Con. Therefor if you want a list of con's, take a look at all the Pro's you've listed and I someone else here will think it is a con. That's why there is a poll here, to get a majority's opinion.

There's a reason many thousands of people are still playing Starcraft 11 years on, and a couple of hundred playing Dawn of War at any one time despite being a best-seller and very enjoyable. It gets boring a lot more quickly as the balancing flaws ensure that the game becomes entirely predictable and shallow.
Starcraft is still around because it's an incredibly unique game where Dawn of War is not. You play one race in Dawn of War, you've played them all. While each race is slightly different, the mechanics are still the same. Not true with Starcraft. Each race must be played in a completely different way and require different mechanics(besides, the fact that you can gather minerals and vespene gas with all three). Not only does Starcraft manage that, but it managed to balance each race. I don't care how balanced Dawn of War could have gotten from patches, each race was not that different from the others.
Perhaps most importantly, Starcraft is an incredibly easy game to pick up and play. This is the main reason to it's popularity and well any games popularity. Furthermore, Starcraft is very hard to master. Very very hard. This makes it incredibly popular at low-level play, and incredibly popular at pro-level play (ask numbers!!).

[repiV]

Repiv some people have different tastes in gameplay.

I appreciate that, but it's still possible to understand that one game is the better of the two while still enjoying another game more.
The vast majority of people here would deride anyone who claimed that the Spice Girls are better than Radiohead, that Doom 3 is better than Halflife 2, or Star Wars is better than Blade Runner - and probably come up with a big list of reasons why none of those things are true, much like I did.
Why exactly does this principle no longer apply because we're discussing multiplayer games?


Some people also don't want to have to download a bunch of mods for there game so it plays right.

Absolutely, but this has no bearing on the actual gameplay.


Also as you said, Quake 3 has a huge learning curve. This turns a lot of people off from the game. A lot of people don't like Quake 3 for that reason.

Indeed. The same thing puts me off Blizzard games (that and the insane micro it involves which IMO defeats the point of a so-called strategy game), but I still appreciate that Blizzard games are by far the best test of skill and strategy amongst the RTS games out there (that I've played, at least).
Lots of people are no doubt put off from ice hockey for the same reason, but that doesn't say anything about the quality of the game.


Furthermore, what is good and bad about gameplay is completely subjective.

I disagree. There's an element of subjectivity in terms of certain styles of play, but some things come down to simple issues of quality and refinement. Gameplay speed is a subjective thing, weapon balance is not - unless the weapons are intentionally unbalanced in order to cultivate a certain style of play, but this is not the case with UT.


What you may see as a Pro, someone else can easily see as a Con. Therefor if you want a list of con's, take a look at all the Pro's you've listed and I someone else here will think it is a con. That's why there is a poll here, to get a majority's opinion.


How can anyone see an insanely unbalanced, spammy weaponset as a pro?


Starcraft is still around because it's an incredibly unique game where Dawn of War is not. You play one race in Dawn of War, you've played them all. While each race is slightly different, the mechanics are still the same.

That's not true...the races are very different in Dawn of War. They have totally different tech trees, abilities, styles of play...the Necrons in Dark Crusade even have a unique resource model.
The Eldar in vanilla Dawn of War for example have highly specialised units, which are devastatingly effective against one specific type of unit but totally ineffective against all others. They also have extremely fast movement and the ability to teleport through cloakable webgates, so they can always control the fight.
The Space Marines have generalised units which can be upgraded to be more effective against certain types of opponent. Much more flexible, much easier to play.
Although the way this was implemented turned out to be a major flaw - the Eldar were so overpowered that the top 10 1v1 players were all Eldar players. And no amount of patching could fix it - the expansion pack completely redesigned the race from the ground up. But they were only overpowered at decent skill levels - they need much more skill than other races to play, but their advantages are unstoppable in the right hands.
And Eldar vs Eldar matches were a chore, as it boiled down to mass producing and upgrading a single unit...there was no more depth to it than that. Despite this, 60% of people played Space Marines, rather unlike the pretty much equal split in SC or WC3 - another sure sign that's something's wrong with the game.
Starcraft has no such flaws.


Not true with Starcraft. Each race must be played in a completely different way and require different mechanics(besides, the fact that you can gather minerals and vespene gas with all three). Not only does Starcraft manage that, but it managed to balance each race. I don't care how balanced Dawn of War could have gotten from patches, each race was not that different from the others.


I'm afraid that the races really are very different in Dawn of War, apart from the Space Marines and Chaos in the vanilla game - but Chaos were completely redesigned for the expansion packs to make them totally different. It never got anywhere near Starcraft's level of balance or seamlessness though.
Even Company of Heroes, which resolved a LOT of DOW's issues, amazingly brilliant game as it is, gets old because there's only a couple of viable ways to play. For Allies, mass riflemen is the only real option. Like all balance issues, this only becomes apparent at decent skill levels but it's always an issue.


Perhaps most importantly, Starcraft is an incredibly easy game to pick up and play. This is the main reason to it's popularity and well any games popularity. Furthermore, Starcraft is very hard to master. Very very hard. This makes it incredibly popular at low-level play, and incredibly popular at pro-level play (ask numbers!!).

That's the mark of a great game, and that's why I agree that Starcraft is an amazing game despite the fact that I don't like it. The same also applies to Quake 3. If anything, I'd argue that it's easier to pick up and play than UT (technical issues notwithstanding) because the basic mechanics of the game are simpler. The thing that drove so many people away from Q3 was the sheer level of skill of the players, you had to be pretty hardcore just to get anywhere.
Ultimately, that isn't the fault of the game itself. Q3 is also much harder to master than UT and a much fairer and more thorough test of pure skill. Again, isn't that the other mark of a great game?
I had the same problem with Warcraft 3 that other people have with Q3 - I just got bloody slaughtered all the time. That doesn't influence my opinion of the game, though.

[PvtRyan]

I appreciate that, but it's still possible to understand that one game is the better of the two while still enjoying another game more.
The vast majority of people here would deride anyone who claimed that the Spice Girls are better than Radiohead, that Doom 3 is better than Halflife 2, or Star Wars is better than Blade Runner - and probably come up with a big list of reasons why none of those things are true, much like I did.
Why exactly does this principle no longer apply because we're discussing multiplayer games?

I don't see how one game can be objectively better than another, while the other game can still be more fun to play. That's simply not possible. If a game is more fun to play than another game that is "objectively" better, then it's a better game (subjectively!). In the end, the quality of a game is measured by its entertainment value, that's why you play these games. Q3 offers me much less entertainment value than UT, so it's a lesser game to me, while it may be a better game for you because you value hardcore competitive play more than I do. There's nothing objective about it.

I'm not going to force a little girl to like Radiohead more than the Spice Girls. Radiohead might be more intelligent, sophisticated and what not, but that all doesn't matter because she won't like it, that's not where her priorities lie. Just like your priorities apparently lie with hard to master twitch gameplay, while that's not any fun to me at all.

UT is a better game to me because I have more fun with it. Period.

[repiV]

I don't see how one game can be objectively better than another, while the other game can still be more fun to play. That's simply not possible. If a game is more fun to play than another game that is "objectively" better, then it's a better game (subjectively!). In the end, the quality of a game is measured by its entertainment value, that's why you play these games. Q3 offers me much less entertainment value than UT, so it's a lesser game to me, while it may be a better game for you because you value hardcore competitive play more than I do. There's nothing objective about it.

I'm not going to force a little girl to like Radiohead more than the Spice Girls. Radiohead might be more intelligent, sophisticated and what not, but that all doesn't matter because she won't like it, that's not where her priorities lie. Just like your priorities apparently lie with hard to master twitch gameplay, while that's not any fun to me at all.

UT is a better game to me because I have more fun with it. Period.

Then, instead of using such subjective terms as "good" or "better", how about Q3 is the more refined, well-designed game?

[kupocake]

Q3: Better Deathmatch.
UT: Better Overall experience.
Q3 vs UT arguements taking 10 pages up in a thread 9 years after release: Better ROFL for the Hills.

[Cole]

Indeed. The same thing puts me off Blizzard games (that and the insane micro it involves which IMO defeats the point of a so-called strategy game), but I still appreciate that Blizzard games are by far the best test of skill and strategy amongst the RTS games out there (that I've played, at least).
Micro is strategy. Furthermore, Starcraft doesn't have that much micro. It's much more of a macro game.

That's not true...the races are very different in Dawn of War. They have totally different tech trees, abilities, styles of play...the Necrons in Dark Crusade even have a unique resource model.
The Eldar in vanilla Dawn of War for example have highly specialised units, which are devastatingly effective against one specific type of unit but totally ineffective against all others. They also have extremely fast movement and the ability to teleport through cloakable webgates, so they can always control the fight.
The Space Marines have generalised units which can be upgraded to be more effective against certain types of opponent. Much more flexible, much easier to play.
Although the way this was implemented turned out to be a major flaw - the Eldar were so overpowered that the top 10 1v1 players were all Eldar players. And no amount of patching could fix it - the expansion pack completely redesigned the race from the ground up. But they were only overpowered at decent skill levels - they need much more skill than other races to play, but their advantages are unstoppable in the right hands.
And Eldar vs Eldar matches were a chore, as it boiled down to mass producing and upgrading a single unit...there was no more depth to it than that. Despite this, 60% of people played Space Marines, rather unlike the pretty much equal split in SC or WC3 - another sure sign that's something's wrong with the game.
Starcraft has no such flaws.
I'm not talking about one race has slower units another race has faster units. Compare the Zerg to the Terran. Where they can build, how they build structures, how they build units, etc.. Each race not only requires learning a different unit set, but makes you think in a completely different manner, and not just on the battlefield but expanding and building aswell. Then the spell casters only set this into an entirely new level.
While Dawn Of War isn't let say Age of Empires, Rise of Nations, or Total Anniliation in terms of race similarity, they arn't as diverse as Starcraft.

Then, instead of using such subjective terms as "good" or "better", how about Q3 is the more refined, well-designed game?
What factors determine how well-designed a game is? Both UT and Q3 have weapon balance. Neither are perfect, but there both up there. Level design is completely subjective. How the pace of the game compliments the gameplay is completely subjective (actually due to the fact that time is relative, how fast the pace of the game is technically subjective). UT comes with more gameplay options (mutators) out of the box. How well a person likes the game mechanics is completely subjective.

I'm having a hard time not finding things that one person could like and another person could hate.

Absolutely, but this has no bearing on the actual gameplay.
It may have no bearing on the game mechanics, it does have a bearing on gameplay. If it doesn't, then what is the purpose of all those Q3 mods that tweak the game to perfection if they don't change the gameplay?

The vast majority of people here would deride anyone who claimed that the Spice Girls are better than Radiohead, that Doom 3 is better than Halflife 2, or Star Wars is better than Blade Runner - and probably come up with a big list of reasons why none of those things are true, much like I did.
Why exactly does this principle no longer apply because we're discussing multiplayer game
Sure the vast majority of people here might like Radiohead better than the spice girls. On a "OMGZ I love Spice girls Forum" there would be a ton of people disagreeing. Infact, the majority opinion on this forum is that UT is the better deathmatch game than Quake 3 according to the poll. Thats a poll of subjective opinions (as all opinions are) on this forum. If we went on a Quake 3 forum, there would be a lot of subjective opinions saying that Q3 is the better game. Polls measure opinion. Opinions are subjective, not objective. Facts are objective. Furthermore someone could think that a completely balanced game is horrible for deathmatch. While that may not make sense to you, how well weapon balance compliments the deathmatch gametype is completely subjective.

[Letters]

So basically, you're shit at the game and as a result have no understanding of how it actually plays. You don't have the intelligence to understand the finer points of game mechanics, all you can grasp is "cool" and "I don't understand that, so it's irrelevant".
Nothing you said above makes any sense whatsoever. And I'm the fool?

Like discussing economics with ****ing kids...
I'm good at having fun with games, which is what they're for. You're the one who sounds like a kid to me as clearly my blatant attempt at humor was over your head!

Video games, not economics... remember that!

[Lt. Drebin]

Yes I have - I said that UT is quite possibly a better game than Q3 out of the box. Read, please.



Rep, wtf else is there to argue??

[redruM]

/thread

[Crushenator 500]

Infact, the majority opinion on this forum is that UT is the better deathmatch game than Quake 3 according to the poll. Thats a poll of subjective opinions (as all opinions are) on this forum. If we went on a Quake 3 forum, there would be a lot of subjective opinions saying that Q3 is the better game. Polls measure opinion. Opinions are subjective, not objective. Facts are objective. Furthermore someone could think that a completely balanced game is horrible for deathmatch. While that may not make sense to you, how well weapon balance compliments the deathmatch gametype is completely subjective.

This is an objective forum though, we aren't planetunreal.com... Saying that quake 3 has more balanced weapons and stating it as FACT is also bullshit. If there was a quantifiable method of judging weapon balance and other things then there would be a perfect game out by now that everyone enjoys. FACT is, everything you have said so far in this thread is just your personal preference, one game is not better than the other, and there is no possible way of you proving that it is. You just like it more, and a few people decided it's what they wanted to play for moneys.

Also, comparing ut and q3 to bands would be more like The Beatles Vs The Rolling Stones than it would be The Spice Girls and Radiohead

[Narcolepsy]

Radiohead: Layered, deep, emotional, sophisticated, high learning curve
Spice Girls: Catchy, shallow, easy to get into

Alright, so most of us here are going to side with Radiohead on this fun. But the fact is, repiV, THERE IS NO PURELY OBJECTIVE MEASURE OF MUSIC, MOVIES, VIDEOGAMES, ANYTHING.

Some people do not value deep, emotional music, they value something catchy that they can sing along to with their friends. Just so, some people value a supremely well-balanced, well-oiled competitive machine like Quake 3, and some people value the bursting-with-style fragfest that is UT. Me, I like the style. It's fun for me. And as long as there are people like me, and half the other people in this thread, YOU CAN NEVER PROVE THAT QUAKE 3 IS OBJECTIVELY THE BETTER GAME. Because as long as there are valid subjective opinions, there can be no valid contradictory objective assessment.

You have two options, repiV. You can tell me why my opinion isn't valid, or you can argue that the presence of a valid subjective opinion about something does not preclude a contradictory valid objective assessment of that thing.

This thread is now about philosophy.

[99.vikram]

Okay, I played a few hours of UT again.

My thoughts are that Q3 is better for pure deathmatch. It's distilled the deathmatch formula down to a perfect competitive experience. That's why we always played Q3 & CS at school LAN parties, and not UT.

But UT is still the better game because it tried something new and gave more value for the purchase. And if we leave deathmatch, UT beats the sh*t out of Quake 3 with the Assault, Domination and CTF modes(Q3 was never any good for CTF IMO). All 3 of these have unique play styles so you NEVER get bored of UT and never stop finding new tricks or strats. I visited The filefront UT archives (http://browse.files.filefront.com/Unreal+Tournament+Maps+Levels+Missions+Assault/;7;/browsefiles.html) and holy crap! So many high quality custom Assault maps! I'll be very busy for the next couple of weeks.

(I <3 Assault :cheese:)

[CrazyHarij]

i never played much q3, UT all the way

[Bad^Hat]

Then, instead of using such subjective terms as "good" or "better", how about Q3 is the more refined, well-designed game?
You're implying that any enjoyment had from a game is merely a result of someone's preferences, and that this has no bearing on the quality of the game itself. Not true. What needs to be observed is that games are primarily a source of entertainment. If a game is enjoyed by many then it's no simple coincidence - it's been designed that way, atleast to a certain extent. If one game is enjoyed more than another game, then couldn't it be said that it's the better game?

Of course, they can also be played competitively - more like a sport (to use your example) - and enjoyed in this way, but that is also subjective. If anything, that's more of a result of someone's preferences than the fact they enjoy it - like I said, the willingness to compete has to be there. Also, obviously, the game has to have been designed to facilitate that, but does that make it better because certain people prefer it so?

It all comes down to what criteria you judge it by, which is - inevitably - dictated by your own preferences. I concede that Quake 3 is the more refined game, but is it more "well-designed"? Don't be silly - that, too, is subjective. It's a matter of the design's focus. Quake 3 was intended for a more hardcore/competitive audience, and as such eschews the 'flab' and goes straight for the meat. Unreal Tournament has more variety out of the box and was arguably more evenly designed in all aspects, but lacks some of Q3's polish when it comes to core gameplay. Each have their pros and cons, but ultimately it's up to the gamer to decide which aspects to admire or ignore (a sentiment you seem to have taken to heart).

Like I said, you've proved 1,000 times over already that Quake 3 is easily the more competitive game, but that does not make it better. You claim that your's is the only objective way to judge them, and yet you regard other's points as irrelevant because you yourself do not value them. Things like weapon balance and level design are only parts of a whole, to filter out everything else is to ignore the whole package, which is what games should be judged by, right? The way it looks, you're just focusing on what makes Q3 great and then judging UT by only these things, which is hardly objective, if even fair.

Disregarding all of that, it baffles me how you can even say your argument is objective based on a competitive standpoint, when you yourself are a competitive gamer. :|

[diabz]

Q4 > Q3 > ALL

UT3 is the worst game i've ever played, seriously. +BACK shock combo's all day. As a competitive player who has played for his country in Q4, and I played UT for 6 months or so, Quake is far superior as a competitive game. Put a little work into Q3 and realize your sins! [flame me baby!]

[Crushenator 500]

Q4 > Q3 > ALL

UT3 is the worst game i've ever played, seriously. +BACK shock combo's all day. As a competitive player who has played for his country in Q4, and I played UT for 6 months or so, Quake is far superior as a competitive game. Put a little work into Q3 and realize your sins! [flame me baby!]

lol .

[Druckles]

Unreal Tournament floats my boat.

[Remus]

Q4 > Q3 > ALL

UT3 is the worst game i've ever played, seriously.

:rolleyes:. Yes well, Q4 is the worst game I've ever played.

[diabz]

if these are the best replies and arguments you can come up with, i'll take my great knowledge and experience elsewhere.

[99.vikram]

if these are the best replies and arguments you can come up with, i'll take my great knowledge and experience elsewhere.
In my experience competitive gamers tend to not only be more egoistic than regular folk, but also more stupid. And comments like this only reinforce that. Really, you can play a game well. Whoop-de-****ing-do.

[Remus]

if these are the best replies and arguments you can come up with, i'll take my great knowledge and experience elsewhere.

Arguments? What is there to debate about? You basically come in here and state YOUR OPINION as if it's a fact set in stone.

It's already been acknoleged countless times in this thread that as a competitive game Q3 is indeed better than UT, but WE DON'T CARE! OK!? As it's been stated over and over and over again the things by which we consider a game better than others is entirely subjective. So just because Q3 is better as a medium for competitive gaming doesn't make it the better game. For me the amount of fun I have while playing a game dictates which is better and which is not.

[diabz]

ah, a worthy reply ;)

sure, fun is important to have playing a game, but isn't it important to be rewarded for the work you have put into the game, and the skill that you have? I mean, you don't see people playing pacman repetitively, and thats fun, right?

[Narcolepsy]

This thread is surreal. And why is no one responding to my all-knowing post?

[Warbie]

Okay, I played a few hours of UT again.

My thoughts are that Q3 is better for pure deathmatch. It's distilled the deathmatch formula down to a perfect competitive experience. That's why we always played Q3 & CS at school LAN parties, and not UT.

But UT is still the better game because it tried something new and gave more value for the purchase. And if we leave deathmatch, UT beats the sh*t out of Quake 3 with the Assault, Domination and CTF modes(Q3 was never any good for CTF IMO). All 3 of these have unique play styles so you NEVER get bored of UT and never stop finding new tricks or strats. I visited The filefront UT archives (http://browse.files.filefront.com/Unreal+Tournament+Maps+Levels+Missions+Assault/;7;/browsefiles.html) and holy crap! So many high quality custom Assault maps! I'll be very busy for the next couple of weeks.

(I <3 Assault :cheese:)

Agreed, but the thread title is King of DM, and that's Q3 :)

As much as I hate to describe any video game as a sport, Q3 is as close as we've seen so far.

[Lt. Drebin]

sure, fun is important to have playing a game, but isn't it important to be rewarded for the work you have put into the game, and the skill that you have? I mean, you don't see people playing pacman repetitively, and thats fun, right?

UT is still played competitively. As has been mentioned, it still has over 2000 active servers.

Look, the game is a different bird. It's a different feeling form of deathmatch and this is directly related to the various power-ups, weapons, layouts, designs, etc. Whether or not it suits the Quakers boats is relatively irrelevent to the vast majority of gamers. Especially considering the main person arguing this is speaking from a perspective shared by a small percentage of gamers....this matters.

[Druckles]

if these are the best replies and arguments you can come up with, i'll take my great knowledge and experience elsewhere.

https://webspace.utexas.edu/warnerwt/picard-facepalm.jpg

[Lt. Drebin]

^^

Still among the best reply pics, EVER...LOL. Well done.

[repiV]

Micro is strategy. Furthermore, Starcraft doesn't have that much micro. It's much more of a macro game.


Ok then, it's a game where you have to make five thousand clicks a second to be any good. ;)
It seems to me that reflexes are the main deciding factor in a game of Starcraft at higher levels of play. In Dawn of War, anything over 30 actions per minute is wasted.
My ideal game would probably be like Starcraft but with squads and strategic points...


I'm not talking about one race has slower units another race has faster units. Compare the Zerg to the Terran. Where they can build, how they build structures, how they build units, etc.. Each race not only requires learning a different unit set, but makes you think in a completely different manner, and not just on the battlefield but expanding and building aswell. Then the spell casters only set this into an entirely new level.
While Dawn Of War isn't let say Age of Empires, Rise of Nations, or Total Anniliation in terms of race similarity, they arn't as diverse as Starcraft.


I don't know enough about Starcraft to argue, but just out of interest, how extensively have you played Dawn of War?


What factors determine how well-designed a game is? Both UT and Q3 have weapon balance. Neither are perfect, but there both up there. Level design is completely subjective. How the pace of the game compliments the gameplay is completely subjective (actually due to the fact that time is relative, how fast the pace of the game is technically subjective). UT comes with more gameplay options (mutators) out of the box. How well a person likes the game mechanics is completely subjective.


Q3's weapon balance is a thousand times better than UT's. It has a couple of minor flaws, and even then these are only flaws because internet connections have come on somewhat since 1999. UT has more than a few major, MAJOR balance issues. UT2004 got a hell of a lot more attention from the professional tournaments precisely because it fixed all these issues. It was the CPL's 1v1 game of choice until Quake 4 came out.
UT3 is even worse - it might aswell be called UT: Shock Whore Edition, because at moderately skilled levels of play and above, it's basically the only weapon that counts.


It may have no bearing on the game mechanics, it does have a bearing on gameplay. If it doesn't, then what is the purpose of all those Q3 mods that tweak the game to perfection if they don't change the gameplay?


The mods have nothing to do with tweaking the game to perfection, they add functionality. OSP adds match functionality, many many things but a few examples are allowing the admin to pause the game, glowskins and the ability to change the colours of friendly and enemy models to anything you want via hex codes, the ability to restart a match without reloading the map, warmup/readyup, auto-demo/screenshot recording, and so on.
Threewave adds a much more robust CTF implementation with grapplehook, extra functionality, better maps and so on. Also allows the use of a team captain, if enabled, who can spectate the whole team at once to help coordinate the team over voice comms and time items etc.


Sure the vast majority of people here might like Radiohead better than the spice girls. On a "OMGZ I love Spice girls Forum" there would be a ton of people disagreeing. Infact, the majority opinion on this forum is that UT is the better deathmatch game than Quake 3 according to the poll. Thats a poll of subjective opinions (as all opinions are) on this forum. If we went on a Quake 3 forum, there would be a lot of subjective opinions saying that Q3 is the better game. Polls measure opinion. Opinions are subjective, not objective. Facts are objective. Furthermore someone could think that a completely balanced game is horrible for deathmatch. While that may not make sense to you, how well weapon balance compliments the deathmatch gametype is completely subjective.

Getting slaughtered by someone half as good as you when he has the shock rifle and you have every weapon but the shock rifle is not a good gameplay mechanic. Under no range of definition could it be.

This is an objective forum though, we aren't planetunreal.com... Saying that quake 3 has more balanced weapons and stating it as FACT is also bullshit. If there was a quantifiable method of judging weapon balance and other things then there would be a perfect game out by now that everyone enjoys. FACT is, everything you have said so far in this thread is just your personal preference, one game is not better than the other, and there is no possible way of you proving that it is. You just like it more, and a few people decided it's what they wanted to play for moneys.


Of course there's a quantifiable method of judging weapon balance - if a weapon is too powerful, it's overpowered. If a weapon is not powerful enough, it's underpowered. Simple, eh?
UT and Q3 both use a system of weapon balance in which each weapon is supposed to be roughly equivalent in power to every other, but each useful in different situations. Q3 succeeds at this, and UT fails.
The only other systems of weapon balance are the Q2 style, where there are two weapons of each type, one much more powerful than the other - shotgun, double-barreled shotgun, machinegun, chaingun etc. This mechanic is intentionally used in the map design - the chaingun and the double-barrel etc are rarer and harder to control.
And the style as in the original Quake, where there are two monsterously powerful weapons and all the others are next to useless. Again, this is used intentionally to make the game all about controlling the rocket launcher and lightning gun. Not a mechanic I like, but it's a success in its own way, rather than the failed attempt at a balanced spread of weapons ala UT. You'll notice the powerful weapons are no more strategically located than the crap ones.


Also, comparing ut and q3 to bands would be more like The Beatles Vs The Rolling Stones than it would be The Spice Girls and Radiohead

More like The Rolling Stones vs Nickelback.


You have two options, repiV. You can tell me why my opinion isn't valid, or you can argue that the presence of a valid subjective opinion about something does not preclude a contradictory valid objective assessment of that thing.

This thread is now about philosophy.

Of course a valid subjective opinion doesn't preclude a valid objective assessment. Objective assessments are all about testing the quality of the thing in question, subjective opinions are merely what something means to a person. It's ok to like B-movies, but it doesn't make them great.
You can get objective assessments of the quality of life in countries across the world from any number of websites, but it doesn't mean you'll feel the same way.

[Narcolepsy]

Of course a valid subjective opinion doesn't preclude a valid objective assessment. Objective assessments are all about testing the quality of the thing in question, subjective opinions are merely what something means to a person. It's ok to like B-movies, but it doesn't make them great.
You can get objective assessments of the quality of life in countries across the world from any number of websites, but it doesn't mean you'll feel the same way.
Ok, let's say I just love B-movies, but hate all of that Oscar winning self-important crap. I say that B-movies are better than Oscars because they entertain me more, and that's what movies are supposed to do. You come along and argue for nine pages that your Oscar winning films put my favorite B-movie to shame. You could argue this point all you want, but it wouldn't make your opinion objectively right. That's because it's still an opinion! Not fact!

That's the way it is with art, repiV. Sometimes, humanity more or less comes to an agreement on the quality of certain things. Radiohead is better than the Spice Girls, for example. But there's nothing inherent in those two bands that make one better than the other. It's our culture, our collection of beliefs that brings us to that conclusion.

Now, when you look at two things that are FAR less removed than Radiohead and Spice Girls... let's say Radiohead and Pink Floyd... things get a lot blurrier. You can't really argue that one band is better than the other. You can argue that one was more influential, the other more emotional... but the argument is really too close for society to call. So it becomes more accepted as an opinion.

Same with UT and Quake. The games are too similar, gamers interest too varied, for the majority to come to an agreement. And understand that it's a societal agreement, not something truly objective. So while you may value weapon balance and competitive potential above all else, not everybody else is going to. For some people, style may be what makes the game for them. UT has better style to them, so UT is better. You just can't disprove that, because there's no objective measure of what makes a game great.

And no, your shock rifle argument doesn't invalidate what I just said. At the most, it makes UT = Spice Girls, which, as I said, still can't be objectively proven as worse than Quake = Radiohead.

[repiV]

Ok, let's say I just love B-movies, but hate all of that Oscar winning self-important crap. I say that B-movies are better than Oscars because they entertain me more, and that's what movies are supposed to do. You come along and argue for nine pages that your Oscar winning films put my favorite B-movie to shame. You could argue this point all you want, but it wouldn't make your opinion objectively right. That's because it's still an opinion! Not fact!

That's the way it is with art, repiV. Sometimes, humanity more or less comes to an agreement on the quality of certain things. Radiohead is better than the Spice Girls, for example. But there's nothing inherent in those two bands that make one better than the other. It's our culture, our collection of beliefs that brings us to that conclusion.

Now, when you look at two things that are FAR less removed than Radiohead and Spice Girls... let's say Radiohead and Pink Floyd... things get a lot blurrier. You can't really argue that one band is better than the other. You can argue that one was more influential, the other more emotional... but the argument is really too close for society to call. So it becomes more accepted as an opinion.

Same with UT and Quake. The games are too similar, gamers interest too varied, for the majority to come to an agreement. And understand that it's a societal agreement, not something truly objective. So while you may value weapon balance and competitive potential above all else, not everybody else is going to. For some people, style may be what makes the game for them. UT has better style to them, so UT is better. You just can't disprove that, because there's no objective measure of what makes a game great.

I think you've hit on something with your art comment. To me, a competitive multiplayer game (by which I mean one that's designed with competition in mind - any DM game, TF, CS etc. but not something like BF2 which aims more to provide an experience), which is a form of sport, is a science as much as it is an art.
Generally speaking, any mechanic which tests or rewards skill or is a good thing and any mechanic which penalises or marginalises skill is a bad thing. Q3 tests a wider range of skills, and provides appropriate rewards for increased skill in all areas whereas UT does not so much.
The difference, really, is that Q3 is of a high enough quality in these aspects and others to be taken seriously as a sport - and it was the first game to be taken seriously as a sport. Besides Starcraft, of course.
I would similarly argue that badminton and squash are objectively better games than tennis, since they test a wider range of skills and test the players far more strenuously across that range of skills.

[Crushenator 500]

repiV, if you asked the vast majority of people on the street if they took the game quake 3 seriously as a sport they would look at you like you were crazy...

Also, calling badminton and squash OBJECTIVELY better games than tennis is completely rediculous :/

Do you not find it a bit weird that you have an entire 5 page thread of what is basically everyone arguing not amongst each other, but arguing with you?

[repiV]

repiV, if you asked the vast majority of people on the street if they took the game quake 3 seriously as a sport they would look at you like you were crazy...


So? Outside numbersland and Starcraft, Quake 3 pioneered the concept of getting paid to play games. Modern pro-gaming - big prizes, tournaments covered by the media, sponsored clans, salaried players with contracts - is what it is because of Quake 3.
It was the game that made people sit up and take pro-gaming seriously.


Also, calling badminton and squash OBJECTIVELY better games than tennis is completely rediculous :/


Why is it ridiculous? Badminton and squash both require vastly more fitness, vastly more strategy and vastly more skill than tennis.

Do you not find it a bit weird that you have an entire 5 page thread of what is basically everyone arguing not amongst each other, but arguing with you?

Why would I find that weird?
This is a Half-Life 2 forum, I don't expect people here to understand the magic of Quake 3. In any event, if anyone still doubts the tactical depth of a game of Quake, diabz and I would be more than happy to play y'all 2v6...

[99.vikram]

The difference, really, is that Q3 is of a high enough quality in these aspects and others to be taken seriously as a sport - and it was the first game to be taken seriously as a sport.
Wouldn't that be CS, you know, that mod for HL1?

And to that 1337 professional gamer dude: PacMan was played competitively in it's heyday (for the highest scores), I have a copy of an old book called "Win at PacMan" lying around somewhere. And it involved a LOT of memorization of patterns and movement tricks.

[repiV]

Wouldn't that be CS, you know, that mod for HL1?


Not by a long shot, although it's certainly the pre-eminent pro game now.


And to that 1337 professional gamer dude: PacMan was played competitively in it's heyday, I have a copy of an old book called "Win at PacMan" lying around somewhere. And it involved a LOT of memorization of patterns and movement tricks.

It's a singleplayer game...

[99.vikram]

It's a singleplayer game...
I've explained in my edit.

[Bad^Hat]

To me
Thanks for proving my point.

[repiV]

I've explained in my edit.

I can see that, but working to beat a set high score isn't the same thing as playing a match.
For a start, if we're talking professional play here, there have to be spectators to create business opportunities for the corporate machine that funds the tournaments.
Which is why ultimately I think it will be a long time before pro-gaming really catches on. It's crap to watch.

But honestly, I don't know why people scoff at the concept. The only difference between a game of Q3 and a game of basketball is that Q3 is not athletic (although fitness is certainly important at the highest echelons, because a fit body equals a fit mind).
It requires every bit as much skill and strategy as a "real" sport, and involves very similar concepts of teamplay.

[99.vikram]

But honestly, I don't know why people scoff at the concept. The only difference between a game of Q3 and a game of basketball is that Q3 is not athletic (although fitness is certainly important at the highest echelons, because a fit body equals a fit mind).
My views on the matter are a bit warped - I think spectator sports themselves are a farce. I would rather bash my head against a wall than watch a group of people claiming to represent my country play a sport. Playing a game/sport is fine as long as you're having fun, but watching a sport is hardly ever useful.

[repiV]

My views on the matter are a bit warped - I think spectator sports themselves are a farce. I would rather bash my head against a wall than watch a group of people claiming to represent my country play a sport. Playing a game/sport is fine as long as you're having fun, but watching a sport is hardly ever useful.

I don't really "get" watching sports either. I watch motorcycle racing because I ride for sport and I watch badminton because I play it. I watched the CPL Painkiller finals, too. Always good to learn from the best, but if you don't play the game I don't see the point in watching it.

Nonetheless, Quake 3 was an extremely rewarding and fulfilling team sport, and I'm proud of my achievements through playing it. It doesn't have to just be about fun all the time, personal development and achievement through dedication is much more fulfilling in the long-term.
I regret that it's in the past. That whole style of game seems to be dying out, and nowadays I'm more of a division 2 player. I don't have the time anymore and my reflexes ain't what they were when I was 16, but it was a great ride while it lasted.

[Lt. Drebin]

It doesn't have to just be about fun all the time, personal development and achievement through dedication is much more fulfilling in the long-term.
I regret that it's in the past. That whole style of game seems to be dying out, and nowadays I'm more of a division 2 player. I don't have the time anymore and my reflexes ain't what they were when I was 16, but it was a great ride while it lasted.

Are we still talking about Quake 3...??..

:|

[repiV]

Are we still talking about Quake 3...??..

:|

Yes...
Succeeding at Quake requires every bit as much commitment and dedication as succeeding at any "real" sport.
There's a hell of a lot of pressure, with all the adrenaline and nerves and having to get in "the zone" that that brings. Division 1 matches had live commentary and were spectated by hundreds of people. It ceases to be just a game in that situation. Every action you take is immortalised in a recording that people will watch for years to come...

[Lt. Drebin]

It ceases to be just a game in that situation. Every action you take is immortalised in a recording that people will watch for years to come...

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I think you're taking this discussion far too seriously. And further, this competitive gaming perspective has taken this thread insanely far off topic.

[repiV]

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. You're taking this discussion far too seriously.

What? It's not about the discussion. I'm telling you about my personal experiences of Quake 3. I had hoped you would find it interesting to realise that playing an FPS at the top levels is just like playing sport at the top levels - it's not all fun and games, it's bloody hard work and you spend 10 hours practicing for every hour you spend competing.
But in return you're rewarded with something so much more than a bit of throwaway fun.


And further, this competitive gaming perspective has taken this thread insanely far off topic.

Hardly. It's as on-topic as it gets, "king of deathmatch" implies the pinnacle of gaming excellence and Quake 3 is where it's at.

[Lt. Drebin]

What? It's not about the discussion. I'm telling you about my personal experiences of Quake 3. I had hoped you would find it interesting to realise that playing an FPS at the top levels is just like playing sport at the top levels - it's not all fun and games, it's bloody hard work and you spend 10 hours practicing for every hour you spend competing.
But in return you're rewarded with something so much more than a bit of throwaway fun.



Oh...ok. I really wasn't sure if you were being serious or not.

That's cool man. How'd you do?? Victories, winnings, world rankings, etc??

[repiV]

Oh...ok. I really wasn't sure if you were being serious or not.

That's cool man. How'd you do?? Victories, winnings, world rankings, etc??

Ah right. Thanks.

I was never any good at 1v1 (mainly because I didn't enjoy it), so that ruled me out from ever getting anywhere in terms of "world rankings".
Played at the upper half of div1 in TDM and RA3 though, won the Barrysworld leagues a few times. Those were the days really, when my game used to just come together perfectly. Since then it's gone slowly downhill. I guess I was at the top of my game in say, 2000-2003. I played for the top-ranked UT2004 iTDM clan on clanbase for a while, and then played Q4TDM+Q4CTF at div2/3 level. Ran the clan's TDM division. I just lost my touch over the years, now I have other interests. But it's nice to rekindle the fond memories.

Personally I think it's a great way of bringing team sports to the glued-to-the-couch generation.

[99.vikram]

And further, this competitive gaming perspective has taken this thread insanely far off topic.
I disagree, the competitive spirit is part of the deathmatch experience. And I've learnt some neat stuff in the past few pages.

[Samon]

Annnnd I wasted 20 minutes trawling through this thread from start to finish. I've never even played Q3 or UT! Discussion kind of went to hell when you all started throwing dirt at each other. Go that way again and it's infraction city.

[AHA-Lambda]

Annnnd I wasted 20 minutes trawling through this thread from start to finish. I've never even played Q3 or UT!

I thought you had Q3 on your steam account?

[Cole]

Why is it ridiculous? Badminton and squash both require vastly more fitness, vastly more strategy and vastly more skill than tennis.
So how does that make them better than Tennis? Just because a sport requires me to be more fit doesn't mean that sport is better. What if I prefer sports that require a low level of fitness? What if I find sports that require less fitness and less strategy far better than sports that require those?

You cannot objectively say something is better than something else, because better directly implies subjectiveness.

For instance, whats better the number, the number 4 or the number 7? Someone could say number 7 because he likes larger numbers. I could say the number 4 because I like lower numbers. Thats a subjective response.

Two guys ran a mile. Guy A ran a 5:30. Guy B ran a 6:00. An objective response to that is that, Guy A is the faster runner. A subjective response could be, Guy B is the better runner despite him coming in second. Guy B could have worked harder, had a better running technique, had a better running start, but lost due to poor endurance. Theres more to running then endurance, and I could think that those other qualities make him better. Better is completely subjective and opinionated.

What game is better. Sure we could state objective facts about each game, but how we respond to those objective facts give us our subjective response on what game is better.

[Samon]

I thought you had Q3 on your steam account?

Do I? o.O

[repiV]

So how does that make them better than Tennis? Just because a sport requires me to be more fit doesn't mean that sport is better. What if I prefer sports that require a low level of fitness? What if I find sports that require less fitness and less strategy far better than sports that require those?

You cannot objectively say something is better than something else, because better directly implies subjectiveness.

For instance, whats better the number, the number 4 or the number 7? Someone could say number 7 because he likes larger numbers. I could say the number 4 because I like lower numbers. Thats a subjective response.

Two guys ran a mile. Guy A ran a 5:30. Guy B ran a 6:00. An objective response to that is that, Guy A is the faster runner. A subjective response could be, Guy B is the better runner despite him coming in second. Guy B could have worked harder, had a better running technique, had a better running start, but lost due to poor endurance. Theres more to running then endurance, and I could think that those other qualities make him better. Better is completely subjective and opinionated.

What game is better. Sure we could state objective facts about each game, but how we respond to those objective facts give us our subjective response on what game is better.

My criteria for judging the better of the sports is consistently based on which sport has more depth and requires more skill. Tennis is so one-dimensional - most of it's in the serve, the rallies only last a couple of shots and the only part of the court that's really used is the back. It's easy to hit shots that can't be returned, and most of the game is spent waiting for the serve. It's also a whole three times slower than badminton.
Every inch of the court is used in a game of badminton, rallies can last for up to a minute in professional doubles at the kind of pace where the shuttle is being hit twice per second and it's even possible to return a 130mph smash if you're on the ball - although the general point is to keep the shuttle out of the smash zone in the first place. There's just so much more to the game. It's an incredibly demanding sport.

So I speak in terms of which game has the greater virtues as a pure sport.

[Lt. Drebin]

I disagree, the competitive spirit is part of the deathmatch experience. And I've learnt some neat stuff in the past few pages.

I didn't mean to discount his perspective, but I stand by my comments that they are skewed towards a more serious take on the two games NOT shared by the vast majority of gamers.

In the end we simply have two completely different takes/opinions on the games and it's the court of public opinion that speaks for itself.

[AHA-Lambda]

Do I? o.O

http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197982719961/games

quake 3 is there

[Lt. Drebin]

My criteria for judging the better of the sports is consistently based on which sport has more depth and requires more skill. Tennis is so one-dimensional - most of it's in the serve, the rallies only last a couple of shots and the only part of the court that's really used is the back. It's easy to hit shots that can't be returned, and most of the game is spent waiting for the serve.


But that's your criteria. It's the same as the competitive perspective on Quake 3 vs UT. You cannot possibly expect most gamers to share or even respect this highly critical view of UT. UT provided an excellent death match experience and since all we can do is go back and forth it's probably best to leave something like this to the court of public opinion.

Quake 3 prefered in the competitive arenas....UT mainly preferred outside of that. That's a fact...you can check reviews and even the results of this poll. There's no questioning this.

[repiV]

But that's your criteria. It's the same as the competitive perspective on Quake 3 vs UT. You cannot possibly expect most gamers to share or even respect this highly critical view of UT. UT provided an excellent death match experience and since all we can do is go back and forth it's probably best to leave something like this to the court of public opinion.

Quake 3 prefered in the competitive arenas....UT preferred outside of that. That's a fact...you can check reviews and even the results of this poll. There's no questioning this.

Fair point.

[Cole]

My criteria for judging the better of the sports is consistently based on which sport has more depth and requires more skill. Tennis is so one-dimensional - most of it's in the serve, the rallies only last a couple of shots and the only part of the court that's really used is the back. It's easy to hit shots that can't be returned, and most of the game is spent waiting for the serve. It's also a whole three times slower than badminton.
Every inch of the court is used in a game of badminton, rallies can last for up to a minute in professional doubles at the kind of pace where the shuttle is being hit twice per second and it's even possible to return a 130mph smash if you're on the ball - although the general point is to keep the shuttle out of the smash zone in the first place. There's just so much more to the game. It's an incredibly demanding sport.

So I speak in terms of which game has the greater virtues as a pure sport.
Exactly and other people look for different things in a sport. I prefer mentally and physically exhausting sports like Soccer and doing things that take a very long time to get good at and that you will fail many many times at. Like soccer juggling/freestyle.

The same applies to Q3 and UT. It's subjective. You can state as many facts as you like, but once you throw them into Pro's and Con's you've made a subjective response off of an objective fact..

[99.vikram]

Do I? o.O
http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/7...82719961/games

Quake 3 is there
D:

Would the world judge me if I stabbed Samon for his account?

[Kyorisu]

Some ignorant twat, clearly. Noone has actually managed to come up with a single effective counter to any of my arguments so far, so instead I get "you're a retard", this moronic post by Letters and some 14 year old mod editing the poll options. Sure sign of a sore loser with no point. :rolleyes:

Or because your views of what a better game is are twisted and warped so far out of proportion compared to mine, I feel confident in calling you a jack arse. (Not a personal attack I respect your views on things but sometimes I want to cry).

My criteria for judging the better of the sports is consistently based on which sport has more depth and requires more skill.

Here we go.

/cry.

[BirdMan]

I preferred Quake III's gothic feeling and mixed with metal soundtrack it pumped my adrenaline to the roof!

[kupocake]

As much as I hate to describe any video game as a sport, Q3 is as close as we've seen so far.
Nah, Halo is more of a homo-erotic jock-love-in than Quake will ever be.

The UT2s are an interesting illustration of what was right and what was wrong with Quake and UT. Epic made a definite effort to make a more Quake like experience, especially in DM, and this was mirrored in the choice of UT2k4 as the 'professional' gaming title. However, attracting the 'Pros' or the wanabee pros was part of what killed UT2k4 for everyone, since in a land of Nuclear-Eyesore Gorge clones and 'tournament' tweak mods, the already waning inventive and fun factors of the series were buried quicker than you could say 'WICKED SICK!' and wonder what the **** it all meant.

[CptStern]

both games are horribly boring

rtcw ftw!!!

/runs

[AHA-Lambda]

Would the world judge me if I stabbed Samon for his account?

Not if I beat you to it :P

[Hectic Glenn]

Too many games on here, not all of them get played. Some...never tbh.

I've never played Q3 either but I played UT back in the day on my PC, then had a bad version on PS2. Loved the weapons and TDM, Sniper rifle and Razor gun were amazing. That 'facing worlds' map was excellent too.

[repiV]

Exactly and other people look for different things in a sport. I prefer mentally and physically exhausting sports like Soccer and doing things that take a very long time to get good at and that you will fail many many times at. Like soccer juggling/freestyle.

The same applies to Q3 and UT. It's subjective. You can state as many facts as you like, but once you throw them into Pro's and Con's you've made a subjective response off of an objective fact..

Isn't mentally and physically exhausting basically the same thing as being a strenuous test of a wide range of physical and mental skills?

Or because your views of what a better game is are twisted and warped so far out of proportion compared to mine, I feel confident in calling you a jack arse. (Not a personal attack I respect your views on things but sometimes I want to cry).

Here we go.

/cry.

*shrug*

Goes both ways. :)