Singleplayer:
1. Half-Life / Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force
2. System Shock 2
Multiplayer:
1. Quake III Arena (RA3) / Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force (CTF)
2. Quake 2 (RA2)
3. UT (CTF)
Printable View
Singleplayer:
1. Half-Life / Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force
2. System Shock 2
Multiplayer:
1. Quake III Arena (RA3) / Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force (CTF)
2. Quake 2 (RA2)
3. UT (CTF)
UT is King !
Deus Ex Rules !
Q3 sucks.
UT is damn fu**in' cool.
Eliteforce is pretty cool.
Rogue Spear is deadly.
Scout.
...you must see it! ( It's in the Classic Sucks Collection, I think)
Did I mention UT? It's...,you know? ;-)
------------------
Althor
Have you even played Q3A or any of its well designed mods?Quote:
Originally posted by Althor:
UT is King !
Deus Ex Rules !
Q3 sucks.
UT is damn fu**in' cool.
If Q3 Sucks and UT is king then why are MORE people playing Q3 than UT?
Go here and see http://www.gamespy.com/stats/index.shtm
Just because more people play a game, it doesn't make it superior.Quote:
Originally posted by BlackTriad:
Have you even played Q3A or any of its well designed mods?
If Q3 Sucks and UT is king then why are MORE people playing Q3 than UT?
Go here and see http://www.gamespy.com/stats/index.shtm
That is like saying the Backstreet Boys are good because they sell a lot of records. And we all know that isn't true.
I am a Q3 fan, and don't care too much for UT. But I wouldn't say that Q3 is "better".
------------------
"Everyone knows the best bands are affiliated with Satan."
If you read my above post more carefully you will notice that I never said which is better. I have no idea because I have never played UT. I do disagree though on your point on the amount of players vs the quality of the game. If, once everyone or most everyone has had a chance to try both but then chose to play one over the other, then I think that it's safe to assume that the more popular game is most likely "more fun" than the less popular one. See the overwhelming majority of players playing Half-Life? That says something to me. It doesnt to you?Quote:
Originally posted by mpitts:
Just because more people play a game, it doesn't make it superior.
I am a Q3 fan, and don't care too much for UT. But I wouldn't say that Q3 is "better".
All in all I could care less about a game with even "hollywood" quality graphics if the gameplay isn't there. To me, graphics is a secondary consideration.
[This message has been edited by BlackTriad (edited October 05, 2000).]
My favorite is Unreal Tournament .
But lately i have been playing a lot of Quake 3 because i get much better pings on Q 3 servers than i get on UT servers http://dev.www.sharkyforums.forums.relay.cool/
Does the same happen to you ??
Could it be that it s because the Netcode from Q 3 is better than UT´s ??
Q3's netcode is better than UT's ... very sad since UT is a much better game http://dev.www.sharkyforums.forums.relay.cool/Quote:
Originally posted by WhiteTiger:
My favorite is Unreal Tournament .
But lately i have been playing a lot of Quake 3 because i get much better pings on Q 3 servers than i get on UT servers http://dev.www.sharkyforums.forums.relay.cool/
Does the same happen to you ??
Could it be that it s because the Netcode from Q 3 is better than UT´s ??
I know I'm probably going to get trashed for this, but the first Dark Forces kicked straight up ***. Yeah, with all the new stuff, you might think I'm an idiot, but FPS games just don't get any better.
You bet it´s sad . I just hope that Epic improves the Netcode for Unreal 2 since i saw the footage of their new Graphics engine i just can´t think of anyithing else https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gifQuote:
Originally posted by Humus:
Q3's netcode is better than UT's ... very sad since UT is a much better game http://dev.www.sharkyforums.forums.relay.cool/
UT is strictly ghetto bloodlettin' fun, ain't no two wayz 'bout it!! (read: Good)
Since my recent DSL setup I've also gone back to halflife...still the bomb, but UT prevails.
Haven't scrapped up the dough for Q3 yet, but I dug the demo.
------------------
BLIGG
========================
Mmm...omnipotence, gotta get me some of that!
Yeah, I have to agree with this statement. I still think the best netcode that I have experienced was Tribes. https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gifQuote:
Originally posted by Humus:
Q3's netcode is better than UT's ... very sad since UT is a much better game http://dev.www.sharkyforums.forums.relay.cool/
UT hands down! Some of the best graphics I've seen with creative weaponry and level design! The ngWorldStats, at ut.ngworldstats.com, let you see how you compare against some of the "better" or "worse" players online. Great stuff.
[!DOG]UGLYman
You may not have said it was better, but you certainly implied it. And then you went on to justify your remark by stating that "it's safe to assume that the more popular game is most likely "more fun" than the less popular one".Quote:
Originally posted by BlackTriad:
If you read my above post more carefully you will notice that I never said which is better. I have no idea because I have never played UT. I do disagree though on your point on the amount of players vs the quality of the game. If, once everyone or most everyone has had a chance to try both but then chose to play one over the other, then I think that it's safe to assume that the more popular game is most likely "more fun" than the less popular one. See the overwhelming majority of players playing Half-Life? That says something to me. It doesnt to you?
All in all I could care less about a game with even "hollywood" quality graphics if the gameplay isn't there. To me, graphics is a secondary consideration.
[This message has been edited by BlackTriad (edited October 05, 2000).]
I am just stating that just because something is popular, that does not make it good.
I agree that graphics are secondary to gameplay, but I can't agree that just because a lot people play a game that it is good.
------------------
"Everyone knows the best bands are affiliated with Satan."
I do not understand your reply at all. Are you saying that thousands of people will play a game that sucks? Are you saying that once a "better" game is released that these people will not eventually migrate to the new game?Quote:
Originally posted by mpitts:
I agree that graphics are secondary to gameplay, but I can't agree that just because a lot people play a game that it is good.
I am not the only one disagreeing here. The history of gaming also doesn't jive with your views.
I would have to say that the number of players of a game long after it's release is THE defining indication of how "good" of "fun" that game is.
Half-Life is over two years old yet there are over ten thousand people playing it daily on the internet as opposed to around three thousand each for Q3A and UT. Again, this says nothing to you LOL?
Well, I play Tribes ok? Tribes is fun to me. It doesnt have the numbers of gamers like CS and HL, so does that mean its not fun or good?? No, I think its fun. What decides for me if a game is good or bad is if i have fun playing it. A million people could play a game, but if I dont find it fun, then, i will think it sucks. On the other hand, I agree that if a game has been out for 2 years, and you have more people playing it then any other game, then chances are there is something good about that game. ahh what do i know, is to early to think.Quote:
Originally posted by BlackTriad:
I do not understand your reply at all. Are you saying that thousands of people will play a game that sucks? Are you saying that once a "better" game is released that these people will not eventually migrate to the new game?
I am not the only one disagreeing here. The history of gaming also doesn't jive with your views.
I would have to say that the number of players of a game long after it's release is THE defining indication of how "good" of "fun" that game is.
Half-Life is over two years old yet there are over ten thousand people playing it daily on the internet as opposed to around three thousand each for Q3A and UT. Again, this says nothing to you LOL?