King of Deathmatch: Quake 3 or UT?

[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?

 

[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?

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?

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.

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 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.

. 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-fucking-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?