Page 2 of 2
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 12:22 pm
by seremtan
True. The typical view of a player in UT2K4 is of a gawky looking stick figure made of a dozen pixels about 100 inter-metres away.
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 3:04 pm
by MKJ
intermetres
but uh. do we really *want* another DM oriented MP only game?
ive had my share 2 UTs ago, really
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 5:10 pm
by SplishSplash
reefsurfer wrote:
wth..i cant save that gif pic as a gif... it only let me choose bitmap..
Stop using IE
Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 8:21 pm
by Guest
Geebs wrote:Kracus wrote:Geebs wrote:There's absolutely no need to have models that detailed in a multiplayer FPS.
"If you're reading this I already fragged you"
Why the fuck not?
My G5 can do UT2k4 at 1680x1050 and full settings without any sweat; but even at that resolution, the detail level in the environments is infinitely more noticeable than the detail on the players. The only time you get to see the player skin close up is when the match ends and you're left looking at one character. If you do a config edit to separate the detail on your own weapons from the general character skin detail, you can hardly see any difference at different character detail settings, because UT2k4 is a mid-long range game and there's no way you can get within 6 feet of another player without either fragging them or getting fragged. By contrast, if you turn detail textures off and lower the resolution of the environment textures, it looks horrible.
Hence: make the environments more detailed, and don't bother having massive poly models requiring millions of texture passes running around in them.
I agree with the point on graphics settings and "cheating", though, which is precisely the reason I predicted Doom3 multiplayer would suck. I always used to play quake3 with the settings down and, most impotantly, gibs off so you never got anything blocking your view of the arena. UT2k4's glowing bits and bobs get turned off for the same reason.
Well although I somewhat agree with you on the distance between players opposing each other you're not really touching on the team aspect of things. If you operate as a team it's likely multiple team members would be in close proximity allowing you to view the character at extremely high detail. Now this isn't anything that's essential I know but the point is that the overall graphics quality always helps in immersing you in the game and to be able to view high detail teamates would certainly aid in that. There's plenty of situations too that you might wind up close enought o see the detail of an enemy so why not? It's just that much closer to making it seem more and more real. Eventualy we won't be able to tell the difference between reality and virtual reality when graphics get good enough. At least I hope it will someday, hopefully in my lifetime.
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 8:17 am
by Geebs
Only if your team are a bunch of spazzes and keep tripping over each other. In which case, the opportunity to stand there and go "ooh, where did you get that beret? It's diVINE!" is the last thing you need.
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 6:45 pm
by Guest
That doesn't address my point whatsoever which was why not have it anyway? It just helps in the game immersion that much more.
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 6:47 pm
by CaseDogg
i thought unreal was more like mosters or humans in odd suits and shit, why do these look like normal people? did they change the lay out of the game?
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 7:08 pm
by o'dium
Reading ^this^ post, lets move onto q4 a second...
Reckon we will see new and exciting player models? Or just dull ass marines running around? I know its MP of Quake 4, but its supposed to be much more like Quake 3, and how cool would it be for new versions of classic guys running around?
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 7:12 pm
by LeonardoP
since Raven and ID are both working on it, i think there's a good chance we'll get various models for MP... *keeping fingers crossed*
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 7:20 pm
by o'dium
LeonardoP wrote:since Raven and ID are both working on it, i think there's a good chance we'll get various models for MP... *keeping fingers crossed*
Ranger, Sarge, hell, if they do them its understandable. But its not understandable to throw some cool strogg into the mix
And none of the silly "but one model may not be fair against another" rubbish, we all get per poly hit detection, and i dunno about you but i couldn't give a fuck if it made things less dull than mr.genericMPmodel from doom.
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 7:23 pm
by LeonardoP
ack, something springs intomind. how would they work out the troubles PP hit detection brings? that would mean no more cg_forcemodel.. so it would be shite to play with lots of people. or would theygo for a hitbox with mp?
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 7:24 pm
by LeonardoP
i'm definitely with you on the multiple models, but would pp hit detection work?
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 7:28 pm
by o'dium
Let the admin pick if he wants it or not. Thats not so hard is it?
I think that it should be on by default, but let the admin pick old school boundry boxes if needed.
For clan matches it would rock, but it could get hectic when people start using stick models, lol...
It will never be as good as the old Quake 2 days where you could just use any model and everybody could downlaod it... That rocked, but had its flaws too...
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 7:31 pm
by LeonardoP
hm thats a good workaround, but after a while everybody would be using hitbox no? cause with the pp detection everyone would just use the smallest model.
how did the q2 skin download work btw, was it p2p or did the server need to have it?
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 7:35 pm
by o'dium
p2p like really. If you ahd a model and nobody else had it, it would wait for the map change and everybody would download it. Or if you had auto download skins/models off, it would just display the default model.
Amazing system, means that anybody could have any skin.
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 7:43 pm
by LeonardoP
troo.. E3 better hurry up, i need some more info, STAT
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 8:42 pm
by Mogul
If you're going to have multiple models and pp hit detection -- AND you want to give the player the freedom to choose -- and you want to maintain truly fair gameplay and rules:
Hitbox is the best solution. Quake III style. I know it's not exactly perfect, as your model is never truly representative of exactly what you can hit, but if I want to play as fucking Tankjr in Quake 4 and the other guy wants to play as Major, we've got a big problem with fairness matched up against the player's desire.
I mean, in single player, fine -- leave it as per-poly. In mp though, the best way to go has to be a standard bounding box.
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 8:46 pm
by R00k
Or models with equal amounts of surface area?
Meaning that the game will only let you use models if the surface area adds up to a certain amount? That way you can still design different models, but you have to make up for a stick man by putting a massive head on him or something.
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 8:58 pm
by o'dium
R00k wrote:Or models with equal amounts of surface area?
Meaning that the game will only let you use models if the surface area adds up to a certain amount? That way you can still design different models, but you have to make up for a stick man by putting a massive head on him or something.
Thats not a bad idea, but, you could get around that by making a massive long but thin stick man
Or not even putting the model on the map at all, but hundreds of yards off
So, bounding boxes and players that dont fuck with the rules are the way to go, but never, EVER, give the player less choice. Dont force something on him.
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 9:26 pm
by Chupacabra
massive long thin stick figure would be interesting but i was thinking on more of the lines of a ribbon thats put together tightly. like if you had a yardstick made of cloth, you could fold it many many times and make it small as hell.
would something like that be possible when youre skinning a model?
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 9:42 pm
by Whiskey 7
-SKID- wrote:old?
Either way, I think this one is impressive.
[lvlshot]http://www.1up.com/media?id=1846919&type=lg[/lvlshot]
Thanks -SKID-
Seeing your picture made me read the tread and link further.
Nice pics and novel to see a release date in June 2006
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 9:51 pm
by seremtan
MKJ wrote:intermetres
but uh. do we really *want* another DM oriented MP only game?
ive had my share 2 UTs ago, really
If UT2K6/7 develops the Onslaught gametype in an interesting way it'll be worth buying for that alone. The DM/CTF play is pretty generic, and Bombing Run is just Q3:TA one-flag CTF with a few modifications.
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 10:27 pm
by Mogul
Did I miss something? They said they're planning on bringing it out in June 2006? I mean, the 2006 part is obvious, but is June their target timeframe?
Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 7:40 am
by o'dium
Mogul wrote:Did I miss something? They said they're planning on bringing it out in June 2006? I mean, the 2006 part is obvious, but is June their target timeframe?
I just thought you said june 200
5 for some reason, i shit myself...
My pc will DIE on this game
