bump

My preference is unquestionably for Unreal Tournament. I always loved the sheer map and mod selection. My favorite thing used to be servers with Strangelove Assault gauntlet maps, but those went away years ago.

I have found that Quake III Arena does run better on my old Abit BP6 setup, though, in no small part due to being one of the few early games that actually supports multiple CPUs/cores. HT&L support also helps.

On the other hand, I prefer Unreal subtractive-style BSP mapping to the id Tech additive style, so id Tech 3 doesn't completely win out over UnrealEngine1.

I prefer Unreal Tournament, the weapons and hearing the announcer saying "Ultra Kill" "Monster kill" and whatnot makes all the difference.

I have always been a big fan of UT2004. Chaos mod is one of my favorite add-ons.

Putas wrote:

I was only considering multi player. Raven did fine single (as usual) but neglected multi player and that was not supposed to happen.

I played Unreal 2 recently and man was I bored. It starts alright but goes nowhere and I already forgot how it ended. First Unreal keeps you hooked up, I think it has to do with the oppressed natives and contrasts of ancient and futuristic.

. . . I remember the ending, but not the entire plot. It was an odd mix of shocking, depressing, and anticlimactic, the latter also true for the gameplay. (ridiculously easy/simple final level after beating fairly tough boss fight and getting a way too powerful super weapon -not a special/easter-egg type thing, mind you)

The plot/story of the game was one of my biggest gripes with it compared to the previous games. The premise was OK, but the execution (especially in the latter half) and the overall plot was problematic. (I'll have to play both games again to remember more specifics . . . or read up on a wiki)

swaaye wrote:

Yeah I agree Unreal 2 is pretty weak across the board. I've done some reading about the development and it seems Legend had some really interesting ideas but a combination of lack of time and over-the-top ideas created the final mess. I beat that again about a year ago.

In some ways it seems like they were trying way too hard to make it Halo-like (including the art style), which is unfortunate and rather ironic as Halo itself seems to have pulled a fair amount of inspiration from the original Unreal while taking it into a more cinematic style (for better or worse -cutscenes/voice acting/NPC interactivity included).

The change from semi-open-ended exploration to (usually) mission-based gameplay certainly broke away from the previous games. Again, it feels like they were trying to build a direct Halo copetitor, but it fails both as that and as a proper successor to Unreal/RTN. (it's OK graphically though)

The co-op update probably made it more fun (co-op was a big part of what made Halo for me), but I've never gotten around to re-playing with a friend.

As far as series-killing sequels go, it's nowhere near the worst and still a decent game in its own right, but not worthy of its namesake. TBH, if it wasn't for the stupid end to the story ark in U2, it probably would have still merited another sequel without betraying fans too much.
Spoiler warning:
The combination of the mediocre/generic ending and the killing off of almost all the likeable/recognizable main characters (including the player-character of the previous games) was too much and done in an unsatisfying way at that. (having them being betrayed by the military and their ship blown up with all onboard)

Unreal 1 is one of the most original shooters ever in my book. It has mystery, intense action and nails the out of this world feel. Love that game. It reminds me of Another World / Out of this World.

There's a good number of similarities to Another World, though I find the gameplay a lot more satisfying in Unreal. 😉 (especially compared to the password-save versions of Another World)

The adventure/exploration elements of Unreal as well as the overall theme/style (graphics/art, music, and story/premise/setting) are great, and amazing at the time.[/quote]

For me it was always Unreal Tournament 2004 for multiplayer and Quake 3 and expansions for singleplayer (don't get me wrong I played multi and single on both, but that's just what I liked best about those games).

As far as the Unreal II: Awakening, I actually didn't mind the ending and I liked the progression. It could have been better, but the one reason that I don't hate it is becaues it shows you just how much you can get attached to video game characters when the game is made properly... Honestly I haven't been impressed with plot or gameplay of a FPS game in years... and I've played a lot of newer games. They just couldn't draw me in like UT and Quake did.

Hats off to the games that were made right.

P.s. I never liked Halo (yes, I know, *GASP*) because I always felt like they were ripping off the plots of all the other FPS games before them. That and their combat engin felt too much like a console game. And the graphics were adequate at best in my opinion (no I'm not talking about resolution or polygon count, I mean the overall appearance of the game).
If not for UT and Quake I'm sure I'd be a Halo fan though.

quake's true enjoyment comes with its multiplayer 😉

There's also the fact that the infamously expensive adds-too-little-too-late expansion for Q3 still remains as relatively expensive as ever in 2012.

Yup, the community wasn't too happy bout UT23k. Still, graphically it was a revolution and looks pretty even today.

UT2003's unusually large (even for 2002) use of 1024x1024 textures did help futureproof it a little. It doesn't look all that blurry in high resolutions

It's hard for me to accept these two games as "retro" so soon, for now.

In terms of gameplay, it comes down to preference.

I like playing both, but I tend to play Unreal Tournament more than Q3, due to more selectable gradients of the bots' AI. Plus I tend to like the techno/trance music of UT. As for Quake 3, I like the atmosphere and the gothic-like structurers in there.

Malik wrote:

It's hard for me to accept these two games as "retro" so soon, for now.

In terms of gameplay, it comes down to preference.

I like playing both, but I tend to play Unreal Tournament more than Q3, due to more selectable gradients of the bots' AI. Plus I tend to like the techno/trance music of UT. As for Quake 3, I like the atmosphere and the gothic-like structurers in there.

UT2003 was released when Northwood was still the latest P4, the last Athlon XP/MP and the first A64 were also on the market in 2003, PCIe hadn't replaced AGP yet and DDR2 RAM had just been introduced but most people still used DDR for a while after. nVidia GeForce 4Ti was the fastest video card around for nVidia fans and GeForce FX was just starting to make an appearance. If you were an ATi fan,the later R200 and early R300 cards were what you used and Windows XP had only received one service pack. If you accept a system that employs the technologies mentioned above as retro, then the games introduced during the time when that hardware was still current would also be retro.

As an aside, when I was reading about Parhelia quirks somewhat recently, it seemed like UT2003 was probably one of the games Matrox put the most driver effort into.

I prefer UT. Unreal Tournament multiplayer in the Opposing Worlds map was awesome fun. M-m-m-m-monster Kill!

The weapons felt better and the game was just more fun.

Q3 was a great benchmark tool (heh). I still fire up Quake 3 to benchmark stuff, but the game play is not as good IMHO.

Oh and before UT99 I played Starsiege: Tribes, that was a great multiplayer game too.

swaaye wrote:

As an aside, when I was reading about Parhelia quirks somewhat recently, it seemed like UT2003 was probably one of the games Matrox put the most driver effort into.

Of course they did. UT2K3 was a benchmark game and you can't release a new video card that turns in poor numbers on games that are used by the press as benchmarks. Who would buy the card if it turned in poor numbers on the games people look to as the standard of video card performance?

sliderider wrote:

Of course they did. UT2K3 was a benchmark game and you can't release a new video card that turns in poor numbers on games that are used by the press as benchmarks.

Yeah of course. It seems like they put some good effort into those benchmark games and then dropped driver effort for games maybe a year later. Doom3 was never fixed for example. I should dig that noisy card out and try some more games on it. But it sounds like a super loud mosquito so I'm hesitant...

leileilol wrote:

There's also the fact that the infamously expensive adds-too-little-too-late expansion for Q3 still remains as relatively expensive as ever in 2012.

Team Arena was only made to bring additional sales, as far as I can tell. It added an expanded, broader range of game modes, with new content and artwork that didn't really add to the true core of the game. As someone above already pointed out, the true enjoyment of Quake, and Quake III, came from the multiplayer. It was only designed for this reason. And although the field of view and garish textures of many maps made it slightly less appealing on the eyes than the slick looks of UT, the gameplay and engine perfection made it leagues ahead of anything else at the time, or since. Playing Quake III with the (free to download) OSP 1.3 patch was the best online shooter experience ever, until the cheaters came in and ruined everything. No one really bothered with Team Arena apart from on it's initial release. Maybe the younger generations got something out of it. But as far as the sport goes, you only really need a handful of maps (and there were HUNDREDS of free maps made by fans and industry amateurs alike) to get the best experience.

Did I mention it is still the best FPS game ever made? (From a multiplayer point of view of course, as this is why the game was made in the first place).

swaaye wrote:

sliderider wrote:

Of course they did. UT2K3 was a benchmark game and you can't release a new video card that turns in poor numbers on games that are used by the press as benchmarks.

Yeah of course. It seems like they put some good effort into those benchmark games and then dropped driver effort for games maybe a year later. Doom3 was never fixed for example. I should dig that noisy card out and try some more games on it. But it sounds like a super loud mosquito so I'm hesitant...

Is it louder than a FX5800 Ultra? 🤣

And speaking of which, was there a recall on those? It's really HARD to find one for sale anymore.

sliderider wrote:

Is it louder than a FX5800 Ultra? 🤣

And speaking of which, was there a recall on those? It's really HARD to find one for sale anymore.

Parhelia has one of those 40mm ultra-turbo fans on it. It's not alone in that of course. I will probably replace it with something from my special junk drawer next time I use it.

I got two Parhelia cards earlier this year off fleabay. The seller first sent me the bugfixed upclocked AGP 4x/8x-only model that's faster but it had missing SMD parts and was dead. He then sent me the original Parhelia model which is 2x/4x. They both have the same fan though.

swaaye wrote:

sliderider wrote:

Is it louder than a FX5800 Ultra? 🤣

And speaking of which, was there a recall on those? It's really HARD to find one for sale anymore.

5800 is hair-dryer instead of amplified-mosquito. Dentist drill or Leaf Blower - pick your poison. 😉

I got two Parhelia cards earlier this year off fleabay. The seller first sent me the bugfixed upclocked AGP 4x/8x-only model that's faster but it had missing SMD parts and was dead. He then sent me the original Parhelia model which is 2x/4x. They both have the same fan though.

Any idea why they're so hard to find? Have they become collectible and people are hoarding them or did most of them end up in the trash?