4 ms·
UT3 was reviled because it was designed for both consoles and PCs, so everything was a compromise - sort of the windows 8 of the UT series. I know what you mea
by rm999 12y ago
UT3 was reviled because it was designed for both consoles and PCs, so everything was a compromise - sort of the windows 8 of the UT series.
I know what you mean about the split, but as someone who loves both series I think either way will lead to a great game. I personally think the faster-style would be more successful because the series as a whole has always leaned more towards a arcadey/tactical style than a simulation/strategy style.
- ak217 12y ago>the series as a whole has always leaned more towards a arcadey/tactical style than a simulation/strategy style. It's interesting that you say that, because I think the biggest achievement of UT to date is the Onslaught mode, which fluidly mixed strategic and tactical, vehicular and on-foot gameplay. And as onslaught showed (on some maps - not all), you don't have to sacrifice speed or pace of close-in combat to enable strategic gameplay of CTF/ONS type.
- BystanderX 12y agoYeah, onslaught isn't something I see talked about much anywhere else and was loads of fun.
- Pxtl 12y agoIt's too bad they ruined the ONS mode in UT3 with the overcomplicated warfare mode. ONS didn't need switches and that ball thing and whatnot.