No fucking contest. Quake III looked better, was more frenetic, and the tech+organic/hell fusion in the level themes were way more compelling than generic space installations and forests that were the themes of most of the maps in UT. Plus, the cast of id characters was way better than generic spacemuhreens and robotic retextures.
However, to prove I'm not some fanboy faggot I will take a moment to mention some cool shit that UT did:
> Mutators - being able to changeup gameplay without having to download any mods whatsoever was pretty cool > Dual fire modes for ever weapon - this was really cool, it made the weapon set feel like it had a shit ton of variety based on what modes you used, and using the modes together for shit like shock combos was brilliant > Shitload of maps - UT had a shitload of maps, a lot of which were designed very well mechanically, even if they weren't as nice artistically (see above)
Honestly, whether you're playing Q3 or UT you're still playing either the best or the second best arena shooter of all time. You can't go wrong with either decision.
>>2911639 I love both to death but hate the elitism which has formed around Q3. It may as well be the video game with the highest skill ceiling in existence, but I'd still argue UT takes just as much skill.
Also, Tribes gets often overlooked in this debate.
>>2911639 For it's UT all the way. Q3 felt raw to me, unpolished, kind of barebones. UT was flashy and colorful and very nice to play. Also, something about Q3s renderer triggers my motion sickness. Doesn't happen on UT.
>>2913012 >the cast of id characters was way better than generic spacemuhreens and robotic retextures I felt alienated by the "cast" of Q3. It added to that unpolished feel, like they were crudely made placeholders
Q3. In UT99 everybody is paper-thin even with armor items and weapon damage is so excessive that just being in the breeze of a rocket explosion or shock combo kills freshly spawned players, so there's more dynamic to the duels and skirmishes in Q3.
Someone really needs to step up and make a revival that combines the best of the two. Secondary fire, dodging and interesting gamemodes from UT, movement and balance from Q3.
>>2913263 It's powerful: it one-hit kills people if they don't have armor, and even the splash damage can one-hit kill. It's fast, much faster than in most games with rocket launchers, but it's still dodgeable if you're good enough. It has dynamic lighting so you can easily see the path of the rocket despite the speed. It popularized rocket jumping. It has much more tactical depth than boring hitscan weapons and it's good enough that people frequently use it.
Back when both games came out I was in the UT camp. I always thought Q3 was lacking in the amount of content and ideas implemented in UT. Also Unreal has hands down the better soundtrack out of the two. However both are great games and pretty much perfected the arena shooter genre.
>>2911639 Q3. Better movement, better weapon balance, way faster gameplay, smoother jitter free rendering, better level design (built for gameplay not to be as interesting), accurate crosshair. UT2K4 was much improved and far better a competitor for Quake.
quake 3 had: - better e-sport scene for its time - better weapon balance - higher skillcap for movement (circle/strafe is more difficult than just tapping a direction) - better well balanced maps - rocket arena 3
UT had cooler design, more varied game mode and the amazing mutator system, but I still prefer the immaculate movement/control/physics of Q3. Q3's best maps where also much better than UT's, though they were about equal on average (UT's being arguably better for normal DM).
I feel that Quake 3's design puts all of its effort into the core of competitive arena shooting. It ticks everything in the checklist to be a very refined competitive shooter and it plays really well in that regard.
However I think Unreal Tournament's design has a wider scope in terms of just being overall a more complete product and a more rounded game. Weapons feel more creative and varied, map themes are more diverse, characters seem more creative due to teams and lore, music is not generic, and a single player campaign that would eventually flesh out to play like a deathmatch manager/ bloodsport simulator resembling football in space. I know someone is going to say no one plays these games for single player, but it does round out the games out as a product and someone out there is always willing to play it offline with a sense of progression. Also, mutators.
tl;dr Quake 3 is the most refined competitive arena shooter, but UT was built for maximum fun and a more rounded and complete game.
>>2914242 then it's a fucked up name, and you contributed nothing. Also nice how you didn't deal with the real problems of the post. That other anon, and in a way you, did a perfect showcase though of the arrogance that's so typical for Q3A players. Makes me glad I'm not part of that mess.
>>2914271 >but can't you empathize with being annoyed when people talk about things they apparently know nothing about? Sure can. I should not have responded to the rocket arena 3 point of their post, that was my fault. That whole post I responded to was plain Q3 arrogance pissing me off though. The UT folks can usually admit Q3 is a good game, even if they don't like it. The Q3 folks meanwhile almost always insist on pointing out just how much of a shitty babbies-first-deathmatch UT is. It's almost as if the players reflect the impression of the game. Q3 is for competitive abrasive shit heads and UT is for people who enjoy their games. You may now call me a UT fanboy, I don't give a shit any longer.
>>2914276 Man, stop being upset. I'm not upset. I prefer q3 because of the responsiveness and clarity of gameplay and graphics, but UT was extremely stylish and had much greater value for money. Q3 is as good as it could have been, but UT aimed higher and would have been vastly superior with a little bit nicer movement and weapon balance.
The original Unreal took a dump on Q2 in any case, so they're about even when taken as a whole series.
>>2914286 >Man, stop being upset. I'm not upset. If you're not >>2913903 I'm probably not pissed at you.
>The original Unreal took a dump on Q2 in any case No idea, I only played the demo of Unreal. Q2 looked nice on my old hardware, although I wouldn't play through it completely until years later. Q3 completely forgot everything that made Q2 fun though, and UT was a creative explosion, and looked good. So for me it was easy to "switch"
UT for me, no contest. I has it all, while I pretty much got zero enjoyment from Q3. I can't really place why. I think Q3 had weird maps, no feeling in the weapons and boring environments. Few weapons also, if I recall correctly. I don't like the super bouncy speed-run-gameplay either.
but in a comparison between the two i want to focus on AI. unreal tournament ai is more challenging and fun to play against, but quake iii arena ai is more varied and complex. different skins function differently, favoring weapons and having strategies and even controlling the maps resource wise.
i feel like most ut maps were too big to be enjoyable and you moved much too slowly which outside dodging you had no real ways to change that so quake iii is much better
>>2915627 >unreal tournament ai is more ... fun to play against i didn't mean to type this here. quake iii arena bots feel like unique units which is what i was getting at, making them much more fun to play against
>>2915627 >both being multiplayer centric was shit >but in a comparison between the two i want to focus on AI These might not be your games. They are designed to be MP, and if you don't like that, nothing will fix that. Bots are a fallback when MP is not available.
And, wow, that webm is a perfect summary of why I can't get into Q3. That stuff has nothing to do with people running around and shooting the crap out of each other, it's a sterile exercise in floaty movement. If you're into that, cool beans, but it really goes to show just how different these two games actually are, and how saying any one is better than the other, just makes you look like an asshole
>>2915638 i know they are multiplayer centric, which was my complaint. i still enjoy them, but i thought that was stupid because i really liked both series campaigns up to that point
also that is quake 1 on a map i made in literally 10 minutes. it is floaty because in the beginning i pick up both invincibility and quad damage but that wont normally happen. i dont think its fair to judge it or anything like it based on that
>>2915627 >different skins function differently, favoring weapons and having strategies and even controlling the maps resource wise. iirc ut bots does that too (brock prefers minigun, etc.), you can even modify them. or that might have been a mod.
>>2915643 >i dont think its fair to judge it or anything like it based on that It is very representative of Q3 gameplay, in my experience. The ultimate fetishization of movement. When you hear people talk about the skill ceiling in that game, and what interests them, it's practically all about the various trick movements and engine exploits, with plenty of maps designed in such a way, that they are impossible to play or navigate, unless you grok these movements. Your map strongly reminded me of that. It does not even pretend to be some kind of realistic or good looking environment, it's purely an arena for movement. Some of Q3's standard maps even go in that direction, having long distance jumps for shits and giggles. To me that's very different from UT, where I can just run through corridors and frag shit. You may say it's simple, even simplistic, but it's also much more approachable and less esoteric, compared to what Q3 is pulling.
>>2915661 but movement exploitation can be very enjoyable, i don't actually see what is wrong with strafe jumping or rocket jumping. it just makes matches more fun, especially duels when each is a gamble but could be the difference of the game. i really like when a game has a lot of opportunities to self improve
and even then i know players who get by without much trick jumping at all. in fact the best players in the world keep that to a minimum and focus on accuracy and control over everything else. quake 3 offers plenty of opportunities to just run n gun
>>2915652 You could modify them and adjust their skill level, accuracy, alertness, camping, strafing, combat style and even jumping behavior to your liking in the menu. Not to mention 8 different difficulty levels. Quake 3 pales in comparison.
>>2915661 >all about the various trick movements and engine exploits, with plenty of maps designed in such a way Only for defrag or trickers. No maps for DM are designed in that fashioned, especially not default maps. You can use them to improve strategy and play but no DM map is designed with anything beyond the basics absolutely required to play it. DM6 isn't 'designed' for the bridge rail jump explicitly, but if you can pull it off it helps immensely, not that you couldn't rocket jump to it. >Some of Q3's standard maps even go in that direction, having long distance jumps for shits and giggles. They aren't as already explained. As for the RJ to the rail, well that's just common sense gameplay and you can do hammer jumps in UT the same way. Similarly there's goo climbing. Both movements are even more punishing to do and to miss though. So both games take advantage of that but UT punishes harder and rewards more in way of item and map advantage for it. There's also dodge ramping as well. It also feels clumsy as fuck though. If you want to just get in and fragging simplistically, Q3 is actually the game for you.
>>2915675 >but movement exploitation can be very enjoyable To some, yes. To everyone, no. Q3 kiddies always assume it's enjoyable to everyone and then call names and claim lack of skil, if people just don't give a shit about it.
>i don't actually see what is wrong with That's your problem. If you use that problem to discredit someone else, or their choice of gaming, that's not doing yourself any favors.
>quake 3 offers plenty of opportunities to just run n gun And they look sterile as fuck, because its community is obsessed with the aforementioned issues.
>>2916439 There are really only three maps I can think of with that description. Q3DM17 - Longest yard, which by several there's one far away, and one above you but otherwise everything is a central multilevel connected section. Q3DM19 - Apocalypse Void; which actually has several distinct islands and floating bits in space but single back-fourth jump pad. Both of these of course aren't just for shits and giggles, the distance of the jump is meant to give air time to shoot someone down thus adding a risk/benefit on a major power up located there. Q3TOURNEY6 - The Very End of You : Which has three islands, two larger seperated by two medium jumps in between and one tiny island with a BFG and a crushing device that can be activated by shooting a target in the sky to kill the player or deny the landing.
None of those include 'long jumps' made by hand and it's certainly not anywhere near as pixel hunty as going for headshots with disc or sniper rifle especially with the length of some of the UT levels and the stiffness of model movement and momentum present. Since Q3 both has players models lean in their moving directions and the closest thing to being as abrupt as a dodge is a rocket jump and even then it's still not as bad. Plus you never need to go for head-shots even with the railgun since there's no head damage. The entire body is up for grabs making basically every target you're aiming for still larger than some of the optimal shots you'd have to make in UT. Not that it matters anyway since every single weapon in Q3 has a zoom functionality and was also configurable if you cared enough. Of course that's kind of a shitty complaint anyway since it is an FPS - the main point of which is to shoot in first person literally the goal of the game is to be as pixel snipey as you can as fast as you can while managing strategies to keep you doing that. It's kind of like bitching that a platformer has too much jumping from platform to platform.
>>2918496 >None of those include 'long jumps' made by hand Correct. They're a less tricky introduction to the long range gameplay that comes with all the trickery. Basically rocket jumps in a can, without the need for rockets.
>the main point of which is to shoot in first person There are more ways to do that than you let on. Someone upthread complained about UTs damage being excessive. A side effect of that is that even casual attacks can do plenty damage. In other words, while pixel hunting is not impossible, there's plenty opportunity in simply surprising the opponent in close quarters, as you only need enough time to kill them. Maps can support that style of play, by being cramped and convoluted. You implied that pixel hunting is the primary mode of operation, and that's simply not the case.
>It's kind of like bitching that a platformer has too much jumping from platform to platform. It's like complaining about a platformer that focuses almost its whole level design on double jumps or leaps of faith.
>>2918504 >Basically rocket jumps in a can, without the need for rockets. And further distance and completely negates your point entirely.
> there's plenty opportunity in simply surprising the opponent in close quarters Which is also about getting the most efficient pixel sniped version of that shit. Close quarters or not. Watch video of any shitbag console FPS and you'll see why being up close doesn't stop pixel hunting from being a thing. You'll also note how absolutely terrible plenty of people are at placing rockets where they need to be. People can miss basically everything they need up close and even if they barely manage to hit it's still competition to hit the most efficiently. Placing a single flak is hitting someone, but dumping the entirety of the flack into someone's nut sack properly is far more effective. UT is actually the harder game to aim for, not only because of the broken reticule, the shit mouse input, but the movement. Pixel sniping is going to be in both of them but Q3 is the one that's more generous about it by far even with faster targets and also lets you recover and move about maps faster to recover from it. But yeah it's there and is always prominent, if you aren't doing it your opponent will. Some FPS games don't precision or consistency mean far less, like RPG/stat FPS games or CS like with randomization that fucks your aim and with terrible netcode anyway.
>almost its whole level design on double jumps or leaps of faith. It really isn't since that's largely not even comparable.
>>2911639 I love both games honestly, and it's really hard to pick between them because each game does things better in areas the other game falters in. I honestly have a slight personal preference for UT, but I won't deny that Quake 3's physics and movement add a large amount of depth not found in nearly any other FPS.
>>2911639 Q3 looked better on release, though that was often due to artful tricks of level and model design. It also played better across a wide variety of hardware, from the shittiest low end SiS and trident, through the latest tnt2.
Over time. The UT engine was used in more and better games, and these often looked better because they could throw more and more complex models & textures at newer hardware though.
I think if you load up the original versions of both on modern hardware, Q3 still looks better than UT, or Unreal.
>>2921216 I don't know how Epic did it, but it seems like they got every artist that contributed to the game to give out their best on the soundtrack. Aside from 3 tracks composed by Dan Gardopée, which I find a bit generic, every single composition is pretty much flawless. It's a time capsule to the sound and software used back then, and in a way it's sad that we will never hear anything like that ever again. Especially since modern games bombard you with nothing but pompous orchestral scores nowadays.
Not to mention the game itself is a lot of fun. Back in the day the demo alone was the reason I upgraded my computer. As someone said earlier, this was really an incredible multiplayer game that Epic managed to pull off on their first try and a solid competitor to Quake 3 Arena.
>>2911639 UT, by a mile >better gameplay >supports widescreen >more maps, different themes >Customizable gameplay >Dual fire modes >Assault and Domination >Weapon balance >Better music >Runs on Windows NT 3.51 >Better hardware/GPU support >Combat is more long range than Quake's and weapons tend to be more accurate >Bots are much tougher on max difficulty and show more intelligence
I like to play Quake 3 occasionally but it doesn't really keep me interested.
I playe Quake 3 for the deathmatch and UT99 for everything else. UT99 is one of my all time favorite games. However, I'd say Quake 3 is a lot easier to master than UT99. Why?
When I first played Q3 I went up against other guys at a LAN who had all played the game before and I beat all their asses easily. It's just not a very difficult game. HOWEVER, the death match is intense, simple and well balanced.
UT99 is superior in every other sense. Even team deathmatch, I think.
>Dominion Kinda sucks, but it's fun to play sometimes >Capture the Flag Where UT99 reigns supreme >Assault It's very fun. Overlord is ridiculously hard to attack tho. >Mutators This simple mechanic can change the entire feel of a game. This is why UT99 is the best.
>>2922259 >better hardware support than Q3 >supports widescreen
I love UT, but I know that both of these things are false. UT is vert- like Q3, meaning that the game always runs in a 4:3 viewport, which it merely chops off the top and bottom of for 16:9 or 16:10 resolutions. You can't really change the FOV to fully compensate either, since it only changes the horizontal FOV, you'll always have a diminished vertical FOV.
For the record, I play both Q3 in UT in 1440x1080 pillarboxed with a 110 horizontal FOV.
>>2923403 You corrected the FoV? The game "cutting off" top or bottom is a bit of a useless statement. you simply specify horizontal fov, and vertical fov is a function of it. If you widen the aspect, you got to widen the FoV as well. The article helpfully suggests the factors.
>>2922259 >better gameplay False. >supports widescreen Both do. >more maps, different themes It does in fact have more maps. I'm not so sure about different themes as much as perhaps a more pronounced differences in themes - there is no equivalent for example boats in Quake 3. So, there's that definitely. >Customizable gameplay Quake 3 supports mods and cvars which can mix things up. It's not built in support with mutators for significantly drastic differences like weapon changes. >Dual fire modes Good. >Assault and Domination It doesn't have these, no. AS is kind of crap and Domination is okay. >Weapon balance Q3's balance is significantly better. >Better music Arguable. >Runs on Windows NT 3.51 That is correct, but why you'd have NT 3.51 rather than 2K is anyone's guess. >Better hardware/GPU support Outside of aforementioned OS issue with 2K, both support effectively all hardware accelerators using opengl. Also directx because no hardware accelerator supports directx and not opengl. The only cards that would potentially have a problem are the very earliest cards like the matrox etc... but I'm not even sure they have a problem on either. Not that it actually matters in this day and age. Since it's effectively impossible to not have a card that will work or the ability to find an extremely inexpensive replacement. >Combat is more long range than Quake's and weapons tend to be more accurate No and definitely not. >Bots are much tougher on max difficulty and show more intelligence Debatable really. And if you're suggesting they can take orders during CTF, so do Q3 bots.
>>2923418 >there is no equivalent for example boats in Quake 3. I should also note, by default. There are actually maps with boats available to download though. Both have significant amount of levels available third party. With that in mind themes available for both externally are quite diverse regardless of the base game and that matters more because that does exist for people to use.
>>2923440 Q3 - lvlworld.com Both (but linked to UT section)- http://www.mapraider.com/maps/unreal-tournament utzone.de has maps for UT moddb has both. Oddly enough Planetunreal seems to still exist for some reason, not sure if the files are accessible themselves, they aren't sortable it seems though. Here's a directory with some maps. http://ut.fuzzeh.com/UnrealTournament/Maps/ Gamebannana has maps for both as well. I forget the name of the old archive that UT had that was equivalent of lvl. That's why I gave more UT examples, because lvl is basically THE repository for Q3 maps and largely always has. Otherwise you know, duckduckgo them.
>>2923469 Sure, there's all sorts of stuff in those links. Many are not novelty. Some of them have map packs.
>>2923482 He can, but like he said, he's already played them, though if he's only played them ten times each it's going to be disappointing and he'll lose interest no matter what he gets. I've played many of the maps in both games hundreds of times. Though, I do find it easier to get bored with UT maps because their flow and design is generally pretty bad despite looking interesting.
>>2923418 The weapon balance on UT is mostly better because the rocket launcher shoots 6 rockets at once and still manages to be less OP than Quake's, because the rockets are slower. Quake II had the only balanced rocket launcher in the series, then all the "pro players" like Thresh complained and demanded a faster rocket in Quake 3. Most of Quake 3's weapons are pretty good, but the machinegun is very weak for a starting weapon and burns through ammo quickly. The grenade launcher does decent damage but seems really worthless on Quake 3. UT combat is more long range. On Quake you only have one weapon with really good accuracy, the railgun. On UT you have the enforcer (not akimbo), shock rifle, minigun, and sniper rifle, which are all pretty accurate at all ranges. Quake 3's bots are dumber. I'm not talking about just CTF but general intelligence. The UT bots also "cheat" at high (Inhuman, Godlike) difficulties, but in terms of finding items they are also better than Quake 3 bots. Quake's bots are very aim dependent. One area where Quake's bots surprised me is that they are actually very competent at long range. Often UT's bots are most easily defeated by out ranging them. In Quake there are a few maps where the railgun plays a major role at long range, but on UT at most maps have a sniper rifle laying around somewhere. I am a far better player at UT than Quake, but Quake's bots are probably a bit easier to beat. There are less difficulty settings in general on Quake. Another thing I like is how UT lets you customize each bot'. You can raise the difficulty even higher by doing this. On both games you will notice that the final boss (Xan on UT, or Xaero on Q3) is much harder than normal no matter what difficulty. Xan has the interesting feature (that you can turn on during gameplay) is that his skill auto-adjusts. I'm not sure exactly how this works in UT though. Another interesting fact is that UT2003 moved towards Quake's style of gameplay.
>>2924125 >because the rockets are slower Which would be significantly more important were the players not also significantly slower as well. It does have slow load time though and can spiral 672 damage on someones ass. >Quake II had the only balanced rocket launcher in the series No, it was the only single quake to have a completely unbalanced rocket launcher that an overwhelming majority of the time could not even hit a player because players could be large, significantly outrun them. Players can dodge even Quakeworld's rockets, Q2's rockets are basically a joke. >but the machinegun is very weak for a starting weapon and burns through ammo quickly. And will kill you from fresh spawn in 15 hits, or 1.5 seconds of continuous fire that hit. It's actually pretty fucking dangerous and it's accurate at distance. It does more DPS than the railgun if you can aim. >The grenade launcher does decent damage but seems really worthless on Quake 3. The grenade launcher does exactly the same damage as a rocket with a slightly higher blast radius. Same rate of fire as well, it's also very much useful.
At this point I'm just going to stop reading the rest of your post since you're not even trying and there's little point in continuing.
>>2924158 The machinegun is an okay weapon but honestly just sucks compared to any of UT's weapons. With rockets it's the speed more than anything that makes a difference. Dodging horizontally on Quake 3 is not terribly easy despite the overall faster movement. The rocket is intentionally hard to dodge, even the kill messages highlight this. The BFG 10k is an uninspired hybrid of the rocket and plasma gun. The grenade launcher sucks because of the distance and trajectory, which are terrible. UT's grenades aren't too hot either, but they're part of the same weapon as the rocket, and they do a little extra damage. The UT weapon that gets called out the most as OP is the flak cannon, but honestly to me the sniper is the king. If you don't have a shield belt, a headshot can kill you at an instant from any distance. You can spool up and shoot 6 rockets at somebody, but it is rarely more dangerous than a shock combo, a flak blast to the face or a fully charged blob of goo. I guarantee if you polled quake players, the rocket launcher would be the favorite every time. Quake 1/2 both had better grenade launchers. The only weapon I ever really liked was the railgun, which is probably more inspired than UT's sniper rifle. The gauntlet is a much better weapon than UT's impact hammer, but takes a lot less skill to use since you just run around with the mouse held down. I guess you don't care about the bots since it was too much work to disagree with what I said.
>>2924160 The main problem isn't the physics, it's that the range and muzzle velocity of the gun is crappy. The blobs are supposed to stick and maybe fall straight down from a wall/ceiling anyway, so it's not really much of a physics calculation. This was improved greatly in UT 2003/2004, and the bio rifle became a solid medium range weapon. In the original Unreal it really pissed me off because you couldn't keep the alt fire charged without releasing a blob automatically once the barrel filled up.
>>2924335 >The gauntlet is a much better weapon than UT's impact hammer, but takes a lot less skill to use since you just run around with the mouse held down. I thought you can keep holding the impact hammer and it auto-releases on contact with enemy. I also never succeeded doing the "using impact hammer alt fire to deflect rocket" thing.
>>2924461 Yeah, it does. The thing is that the gauntlet doesn't have the charge mechanic so it is easier to use. Sometimes you also have to let off early with the impact hammer so you hit before the other does when you are jousting them.
>>2925958 I mean I'm just not seeing this whole "better graphics" thing. For the most part they're very similar. UT has some upclose detail on textures and puts more effort into the skybox. But their reflections or portals aren't on par with Q3. A lot of their textures are kind of bland even. UT doesn't have curved surfaces like Q3. The lighting is similar. Q3 has a lot of nice shaders. If anything, the overall lighting quality and minor enhancements I'd say Q3 is the better looking game overall, especially with it's far smoother rendering in motion. But not by so much that I'd even bother to bitch that a major positive to the game is that it's graphics are better as an actual net positive. I'd say Q3's graphics are better but not really disgustingly so. Also pretty sure UT like Unreal's animations are framerate dependent which makes things like the water motion look 'high speed'.
I mean, is there a clear example you can give? Or are you just fascinated by light flares because they're prominent and it's apparently shinier and the concept of shiny things gets you hard?
>>2926451 UT looked the best in the glide renderer with sensible gamma. Anyway I think: Q3 had the best textures and overall level polish UT had the more ultimately capable engine while quake had a more efficient one UT had more imaginative level themes with a lot more variation rather than sliding scale of "abstract hellish temple" and "abstract scifi base."
>>2926494 >Q3 had the best textures and overall level polish It varies. Some textures in Q3 are shit and some textures in UT are shit. Both have significant variations. In some cases the texture choice seems less appealing.
For example see >>2926446 >>2926451 Look at the ground textures. Q3's ground textures, way more appealing. Not super high def and up close it doesn't have detail texturing like UT though. But UT's looks bland an uninteresting. In the same two scenes, look at the light bars on the left side in Q3. Blurry and kind of crap actually. Now look at the bland looking UT scene but look at the lights and holy shit they're pretty nice looking lights with even the dispersion paneling visible as lines like real lighting would have. Then everything is drab. Though Q3 also has panels that are moving, light strips around that entire place that beam and glow and move, ground textures that wiggle with electricity, plasma that rotates in the cannon and view model, dynamic lights, monitors on the walls that flip text and also show static and have multiple shader overlays as well as rotating skeletons, mirrors.
Both support high res textures, but Q3 vanilla tries to use lower textures as they were extremely interested in getting good framerate out of something that was already struggling with framerate on decent cards at the time. People were using 640x480 with low details and vertex lighting just to pull up 60 and it's best at 125.
Textures are better in the aztec arena posted but much of the design feels flat in comparison to Q3's level designs where the textures are often not quite as good as UT's in the aztec but still decent looking mostly and the levels have enough variation to not feel flat.
Most this ends up being moot with with user made levels and any question of variety goes out the window as mentioned earlier in the thread and that should be considered because that's how people play the game.
>>2926531 It has other game modes. Uh... do you have it installed? If so and it's working can you post your cfg file. My TA seems to start the game but it keeps the load screen over so I can hear everthing happening but the screen never updates. Not sure if it's config or driver. Wiped old config, not sure if it's something in the default. Odd as fuck.
>>2926560 Ah, V4/V5. One almost forgets that even released those. Also, using them would look worse because you'd lose SGSSAA of modern cards, which improves textures at a distance greatly, and the AA can be even higher as well. Though the quality of that video is so low as to really only demonstrate 32 bit color is available. It's a block artifact mess otherwise and is really useless for even what it's attempting to do.
>>2926575 Alright. Found what it was. Should have guessed, since that was one of the more recent changes. r_smp 1 breaks the screen updating in TA. I deleted a request for your q3config.cfg since the binary search yielded the result.
>>2924125 >Quake's bots are very aim dependent. In my experience, that is entirely UT's context as well. Worse even. Bots in Q3 rely on aim and their pathfinding is pretty obvious, but they also go for item pickups while fighting. UT bots seem to disengage between the two, either switching between picking up items or fighting and when they fight UT bots seem to abuse super human aiming more than anything. Pretty sure I even saw one bot use an instant shock combo. They also see you while you're invisible, Q3 bots invisibility works against but I think only once or perhaps you need to leave view. It's not a common enough pickup for me to care about really. Bots in UT can also fall any distance with no damage. None of the bots in Q3 have any such cheats. In fact the "hardest" bot in the tier isn't even the best bot there is, it's entirely the open and distant level that makes it challenging. In any other level he's actually worse than other bots.
>>2927123 Noting that Doom would be a more formidable opponent on the same level most of the time. They tend to go back and fourth a little bit but usually it's xaero playing catchup. Doom is actually a more accurate bot and better bot in many regards. He has faster reaction, more acc, more randomized strafe. He has no sense of self preservation in his bot file as well, literally zero. He will shoot you with a rocket in his face if you're there. Xaero has self preservation as his highest goal along with Vengefulness. In all other levels Xaero is better but when you hit nightmare, Doom becomes the bot to watch out for.
>>2911639 I played both, but Q3A was the superior game. It had much faster paced gameplay, better maps, graphics were objectively better (UT99 really didn't look that great, but Q3A became the benchmark of PC gaming).
Q3A actually made it into the professional gaming market (don't know if MLG existed back then but basically Q3A was it). There were even tournaments that were aired on TV in 2000 or so.
Q3A also took a lot more skill to master. UT99 was just about walking around a map, aiming and shooting. But Q3A took it to the next level. Circle jumping, strafe jumping, rocket jumping... all of which you needed to be able to do in order to keep up with the better players. Then when OSP was released it was pretty much game over from that point onward.
Doesn't mean I didn't enjoy UT99 because I certainly did, especially due to the sheer amount of addon maps and mods. Also being able to try to connect to a server and download the map the server was on right then and there was kind of a big deal, which I believe Q3A also had - but you could literally download entire mods like that in UT99. Really made it easier to get into modded servers without having to go out and download the mod separately (which was a pain because bandwidth wasn't like it is today). You just downloaded what was currently being used which cut the download times down drastically.
>>2927360 Ironically UT is the game for twitch play with flying around with translocator and slapping shit down with spray wherever people happen to be disappearing and dodging about. It's literally not about strategy and planning and more about twitch and weapon handling more than anything else.
>>2927389 The Translocator is what ruined the game for me. If you played CTF it was all about just teleporting across the map with the Translocator until you got the flag and then just hope you make it back without getting fragged. If they would have put a cooldown timer on the Translocator, let's say 5 seconds, it would have been a lot more balanced. I always tried to find servers with the No Translocator mutator, or I'd always just play against bots using that mutator.
>>2911639 Im going to be that cunt and reply to several days-old posts for a while.
It's a difficult choice, but if we take both games with the expansions and shit, UT all the way. More innovative in a lot of ways. >>2913012 Tech + organic hell was the generic thing at the time. Doom 1, 2, it's expansion, and Quake 2 and expansions.
UT's industrial/city felt newer to me. Stuff like DOM-Condemned was pretty neat, DM-Morpheus was just mindblowing.
The cave/temple levels didn't feel tired, because there only really was Quake 1 before them.
Like you, to prove I'm not a fanboy, I will point out that Quake's weapon balance was way better than UT. >>2922948 He's comparing 3's rockets to 1's. They are a lot slower. Not a bad thing, IMO. >>2927330 Fata wasn't that fast a player.
>>2928642 >Im going to be that cunt and reply to several days-old posts for a while. So, you're going to post on /vr/?
>DM-Morpheus Not really. low grav and it wasn't a good map either.
>They are a lot slower. I'm not sure a 10% difference constitutes 'a lot' slower. 900 UPS vs 1000UPS? Seems just a tad slower.
Quake 2's was a lot slower at 550 UPS. Almost half the speed of Quake 1, made worse by the fact that a single strafe jump can get you above that speed. All three quakes have the same default run speed at 320UPS.
>>2928724 >The gravity transitions and the theme of the map were fantastic. Not that it was entirely new idea. I've seen maps in Duke3D do similar with bands of invisible water with force throughout a level. It's not sector gravity, but it might as well be. Pretty sure Quake and Q2 had a few that did similar.
>>2928870 Offhand the only maps I can say I really enjoyed were all UT2K4 maps, Antalus, Albatross, Roughinery. Maybe lightly Rankin. They would play significantly less well in UT99 though. I can't really think of any UT99 that I really actually enjoyed at all. Trying to think of UT99 all I can think of is junk maps with junk flow with junk weapons with junk movement. UT99 just comes off as being amateurish to me.
>>2928870 No idea what you're talking about mate. >>2928942 Quake 3's movement is better than UT99's, yeah. Despite Carmack. Wouldn't call it junk Junk weapons and junk flow I would disagree with, heavily.
>>2929379 I'm not suggesting Q3's is better. I'm saying UT's is bad. The default maps are just bad, you really need to get third party maps for anything decent. The weapon switch speed is atrocious as well as the recovery rates and balance. If I gave some rudimentary specs to a developer and had them make shovelware in the light of Quake, what I'd end up with would likely play very similar to UT99.
>>2929721 Q3's movement was not really "fetishized" though. In some ways it was easier than 1's, intentionally nerfed. The models sucked, too. Fucking Bones faggotry. >>2928420 2k4 and above have translocators work on charges. Not on 4 by now, but they have mentioned it.
Cooldown would not really work. >>2929735 It's not really that great to be honest. Search for bleh duels on youtube if you wanna see some. 2k4's are better, same with 4's. >>2929751 Go back to /v/.
>>2929735 Teleporting around nonstop and sniping people midair and shock comboing everything in sight while doing it. This is sort of what it looks like without translocators though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKPAxkJZJrA
There's also a strange technique people use to switch weapons and fire instantly. I have no idea how it's done but you'll see it often watching videos where they fire basically various guns faster than you normally can even with 200% speed.
>>2929758 >fucking bones faggotry Why do you hate him? The funny characters were my favorite. I love Tank Jr., Bones, Orbb, the clown one, etc. UT only had a silly character after the bonus packs (Nali War Cow),
>>2928578 >The translocator is also used in DM. It's not though. Speck might've ruined your memories. >>2929773 >There's also a strange technique people use to switch weapons and fire instantly. I think it might be just the fast weapon switch mutator + a macro. You could do the same in Quake 1. CPMA disabled it. >>2929775 Depends on which UT too. 2k4's is "cleaner" because the translocator fires really far. >>2929806 They provided a distinct advantage, bones was the most notable one. Quake's model accuracy to their hitbox was terrible.
Not being a tryhard fag, it bothered me and my friends when we were younger too.
>>2929824 >It's not though. Speck might've ruined your memories. No, it is. There's a little button you can click to enable it. Many servers have it on. And you can play on the servers right now with it on. So... yeah no.
>>2929894 >There's a little button you can click to enable it. That's what I meant. It's not enabled by default, it's not used in competitive duel or TDM. >And you can play on the servers right now with it on. Again, that's what I meant.
>>2929934 geez do you feel that insecure about your preference of game in this thread? I don't care if it's Quake or Unreal, either is fine and I actually liked how they really mean something when you do hear them. I was just pointing out that people nowadays would associate them to the game I linked in the vid, which is what I was lamenting on.
they're both god tier Quake had the speed and the aesthetics plus you could pay as a skeleton bun Unreal is my Fpsfu dem weapons dem maps jesus christ I cum every time I kill somebody at the very gate of their base in Facing Worlds in Unreal
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.