|
|
20/12/99: UTDemo vs. Q3ADemoTest comparison.
Update - 6/6/00:
I now have both games, and as updates on this site indicate, I have been thoroughly enjoying UT botmatch in all it's modes. I played two games of Q3A, and found the gameplay to be so poor, I haven't played it since. I've found the comments in this article mostly apply to the final games, with a few exceptions:
1. Q3A has a higher proportion of good maps than shown in the demo, though the themes are styles are very limited. UT has a higher proportion of maps that are good for gameplay but mediocre for style, though the themes and styles are very varied.
2. The extra weapons in UT, except the Razorjack, supplement the gameplay well, with some unusual and fun weapons. The extra weapons in Q3A are standard at best, with little interest.
3. The inclusion of varied, innovative gameplay modes and many more maps in UT is another factor, although not specifically about gameplay, that ensures it's superiority over the very limited Q3A.
Introduction
With the new PC I have been playing both of these extensively in botmatch mode. I haven't bought either of the games, I am considering buying UT for the botmatch gameplay and
to see some of the maps, but I'm unlikely to buy Q3A (it's a still a possibility as the style and effects intrigue me). Thus, my thoughts on the demos:
First experiences of playing:
I must say, I was surprised by the Q3ADemoTest. Sure, I'd whinged about the lack of SP, the horrid hud and bouncing items, but I'd honestly expected the gameplay
and feel to be really good - as far as DM gameplay goes. After all, both Q1 and Q2 play and feel really good (though quite different) in DM. When I fired up Q3ADT however,
it felt horrible, the gameplay, the control, the motion, the whole feel of the game felt flimsy, detatched and out of control. The first impression was just one of immense gameplay suckage
compared to Q1 and Q2 - and yes I was very surprised that the actual *gameplay* felt that bad. So I started wondering whether, in the space of a week, I'd forgotten what botmatch gameplay
was like and was unfairly dismissing Q3ADT. So I fired up UTDemo with a certain amount of trepidation since the feel and DM gameplay of Unreal was mediocre compared
to real DM games. And again I was rather surprised: the feel, the control, the gameplay, the movement of UTDemo were so superior - so immediately superior - to Q3ADT, it was quite
amazing. The gameplay just felt so much more solid, simple and in control, even with the more complex weapons, which really got me pondering...
After more consideration....
Since then I have been playing a lot more Q3ADT than UTDemo, but only because installing UTDemo interferes with playing normal Unreal maps (grrrr). I've got much more used to it,
it's actually good fun once you get used to a lot of the initially offputting factors. But it is still noticably flawed and rough in areas that the UTDemo is much more refined and polished, and the
superiority of both UTDemo's gameplay and overall quality is very obvious. Concentrating on how various aspects of how both demos feel, this is what I've come up with, in no particular order:
Factors that make UTDemo definitely superior to Q3ADemoTest:
These are almost all gameplay or gameplay related factors - there are some aspects (gameplay modes and customisation, menus, polish, weapons models) where UTDemo again shows how
much better than Q3ADT it is, but hell, the gameplay is what counts, and the superior gameplay is what is making the strongest impression on me.
> Feel:
UTDemo feels much solider and in control than vague and hollow feeling Q3ADT. The major problem is taking damage: even after many games, Q3ADT gives no sense whatsoever of
how much damage you are taking and from where, which really spoils the feel of the game. Lets just say that in Q3ADT normally I have no idea about how much damage is coming from
where, while in the UTDemo with_the_sound_off I can still tell what's going on. Also, the head bob in Q3ADT is awful, it just isn't nice "wombling" along when you want everything
to be precise. UTDemo on the other hand has a head bob control, very useful.
> Physics:
Going hand in hand with the feel, the UTDemo physics are much better. You have plentiful air control, and you get plenty of kick back from weapons - both essential factors in a good DM
game and the latter is no doubt a major factor in UTDemo's vastly superior damage indication: When you are slapped around by a rocket or ASMD in UTDemo you *really* know that you've
been hit. However, Q3A's jumping is definitely better, you can jump higher and faster, and curve jump repeatedly - this bouncier feel is good but can't compensate for it's other
physics flaws.
> Weapons:
UTDemo's weapons are all round more enjoyable, interesting and satisfying to use: once you are used to the secondary fire aspect, they are just a more fun set of weapons: The
8 Ball requires some care to set up, but it's multiple rockets are deadly, the Minigun is the excellent weapon of choice for brutally mowing opponents down (an style of weapon lacking in
Q3ADT), the ASMD is not quite the Railgun but good for slapping people around, the Plasma Cannon is everything the Q3ADT LG wants and fails to be, the Enforcer is poor until you get a
second one for some cool Chow Yun Fat style p1mpage. Q3ADT's weapons are a much more hit and miss affair: The Double Shotty is great despite the weedy sound, solid power, the
Machine
Gun is fine for a starting weapon, the Railgun and Rocket Launcher are good though they don't feel as good as previous incarnations, the Lightning Gun might be powerful but it just feels so
horribly *flaccid* to use, and the Plasma Gun is one of the worst weapons I've ever had the misfortune to both use and be hit by. UTDemo's weapons win for both variety and quality.
> Player visibility:
Mmmm, Q3ADT has nice grimy walls and nice grimy player skins that provide excellent camouflage against those walls. No doubt this contributes to the vagueness of taking damage.
UTDemo's players, well let's just say there aren't any UTDemo maps that are red, blue, or camo green, so the players stand out very nicely thank you.
> Items:
Aside from looking absolutely fucking stupid, Q3ADT's bouncing items spoil gameplay for two reasons: Firstly they are very distracting when a typical map scene is full of non-player entities
bouncing around, distracting the brain's focus on motion away from the all important moving players. Secondly, the ammo boxes are pointless hard to tell apart, being all the same shape.
Maybe it's just me, but I find different shapes far easier to memorise than different colours. By contrast UTDemo's items sit sensibly on the floor, where they are still very visible but not at
all distracting, and the proper, distinctive ammo box models are very easy to tell apart. Within a few games I knew what ammo was what in UT, but it took me dozens of games, specifically
ones where I was only using one weapon and thus running out of ammo, to learn the colours in Q3ADT.
> Sounds:
Q3ADT's sounds vary from okay to bad: Some weapon sounds are okay, most are far too weedy and "over-crisp", giving little sense of power. The damage sounds are hugely annoying and
sound really jarring. On the other hand, UTDemo's sounds are consistently good, the weapons sounds feel just right and appropriate to the weapons, the damage sounds are fine. One cool
aspect of UTDemo is the sustained fire weapons, it gives the demo a very cool atmosphere when there is Minigun "drilling" going off continuously around the map, it accentuates a "virtual
war" feel.
> HUD:
Q3ADT's heads up display is, without a doubt, the worst HUD to appear in any major FPS game ever. Mere words cannot describe how awful and utterly out of place it looks. As someone
said to me, the person who designed it obviously has no sense of aesthetics whatsoever. Not only that, it's whole purpose fails because it is so ghastly that one's eyes are naturally drawn
away from it, as one's brain recoils in horror and ends up ignoring the information it's giving. UTDemo's HUD is excellent, almost infinitely customisable with colours, sizes and designs, and
importantly, fits very well into the style of the game, nice.
> Maps:
UTDemo's maps are just about superior overall, but some of Q3ADT's are also good: Q3DM1 is just pathetically crap, barely even a map, Q3DM7 is rather fine and stylish as a FFA map,
Q3DM17 is good despite it's spartan design - it plays great, and Q3Tourney2 is boringly oversymmetrical suckage. For UTDemo, DMMorpheus is, well, for me it is the best botmatch
experience I have had in any game ever - IMHO this map, with it's good atmosphere and brilliant design/physics combination is the pinnacle of deathmatch!! DMPhobos is a good atrium
map inside, but the fantastic (but underused) outside really makes it special, DMTempest is a solid, well scaled FFA map, but DMTurbine is just a vague waste of space. Though Q3ADT's
open proportions are good, UTDemo nudges ahead for their maps gameplay as well as some inspiring designs.
> Bots:
Another aspect where UTDemo is better, though not as much as aspects like the physics and items. The bots are just a bit more realistic, and most importantly actually pick up items
- the Q3ADT's bots' reluctance to pick up anything remotely useful (RL, dropped Quad, etc) is just laughable and doesn't replicate a real DM scenario. However, the Q3ADT bots do
move very well, particularly jumping around like mad and rarely standing still. The UTDemo bots do stand still too much, but otherwise their general behaviour and weapons use
(they are very skilled about using both fire modes) comes out top. And that isn't even mentioning the wider range of skills and huge bot customisability that Q3ADT of course lacks...
Aspects of Q3ADemoTest that are better than UTDemo:
To be fair, even within some of the aspects mentioned above, Q3ADT does have some superior stuff: Jumping and bot movement perhaps most importantly. But take the overall aspect and
UTDemo is better. However, there are a couple of things (not gameplay orientated however), where Q3ADT shows it's superiority.
> Gothic style:
I always thought this looked cool and it still does, despite the HUD and garish bouncing items sadly spoiling it. But the use of fog, curves, *evil* details, grimy textures and an overall gothic
style is great, it even looks fresh and new despite gothic stuff being around since Doom. Just a style that is right up Shambler's street even in a DM game. Comparatively, the style
of UT's maps is can be fairly drab even if some designs are inspirational.
> Graphical Effects:
Through most of it's development, Q3A seemed to be playing catch up to Unreal itself, but with the Q3ADT, it's definitely added some impressive new effects. In particular, the shader texture
effects, such as the moving, glowing weapons markers and wall logos are very impressive. Sure you don't notice them in a DM game, but just wandering around the maps and looking at
cool little details like that is inspiring The high-poly-pseudo-curves (no they are not "true" curves) are also good, especially in that mouth thing. This shows plenty of graphical coolness that
would be ideal in an SP game.
Conclusion:
Draw your own conclusions...
Top
|
