[Engine]

Last year Modern Warfare 2 came out and it broke every sales record possible. This huge hit had a great story, tremendous gameplay but also a nearly-perfect multiplayer that fills public and private servers all over the world. It seems that MW2 found just a great formula that keeps the players sticked to their controllers. Urban Terror [...]http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/dailynade/~4/rf5jaSFv8QE

View the full article

[pnk| 20eazykills]

URBAN TERROR IS NOT COD 4/6!!!!1!!11!!!!!11!!1!!!!

hahahahahaha

[FS Frankie V]

Interesting article but I have to disagree.

Granted having cool stuff this and cool stuff that goes along way but what these big boys have that we don’t is a million dollar advertising budget.

Then again look at the current server numbers. Over 4000 players and climbing is speaking to us and I guess one way of making Urban Terror the next big hit is to put a price tag on it. Then maybe we will be able to break some sales records.

[QA [T] BludShoT]

Most of that stuff is just obvious "new stuff that new games have", and isn't really something Urban Terror could learn from MW2. The concept and idea of more cool new stuff is easily thought of and has been thought of for years. The primary reason for not having more cool new stuff is not lack of having the idea, it's just that it takes a bunch of work to do and there hasn't been the time or man power for urt to do it. If Urt just had tons of modelers and stuff, they wouldn't sit around saying no no, we don't want cool new stuff let's do nothing instead.

And the rest of the stuff in the article is opinions of what's better and I disagree (like Perks for example).

[WiseMan]

Just stay with our current gameplay.
But add some new gametype also VoiP.

This post has been edited by WiseMan`: 09 February 2010 - 04:56 AM

[gnulogic (old)]

Great article my friend. I understand what your are trying to say in your article. Urban terror is a great game and in many ways is better than mw2, but can improve on a few things. One thing you did not mention was the player skins can be improved. Just for example one team could have desert cammo along with red, and the other could having urban cammo along with blue. It can be any number of combinations like that but i believe it would make this game look better and look more realistic. Just an idea though you would have to pay a little more attention and not just shoot anything red that moves. Also on most computer screens blue is more subdued than red, and can also blend in better in urban and brush environments, so the blue team can have a small advantage.

[gnulogic (old)]

Frankie V, on 08 February 2010 - 07:42 PM, said:

Interesting article but I have to disagree.

Granted having cool stuff this and cool stuff that goes along way but what these big boys have that we don’t is a million dollar advertising budget.

Then again look at the current server numbers. Over 4000 players and climbing is speaking to us and I guess one way of making Urban Terror the next big hit is to put a price tag on it. Then maybe we will be able to break some sales records.

this is a reply to the above quote,

i think UrT developers and frozen sand should push for donations, not try to put a price on the game. I don't even know if there is a donation link on the home page if there is it sure does not stand out to me. Donation would increase funds available to the project. If you tried to put a price tag on this game i think it would honestly put the nails in the coffin with all due respect, because not only is UrT not free as in freedom (no source code available) it will also no longer be free as in price. I don't think the community would support that at all because they would be alienated.

[|it| Nexu]

Erm, no to perks. Even playing field is much better.

MW2 is a possible direction or FPS gaming. But by far not the only right way. The choices MW2 dev did, like removing console and prohibiting FOV changes aren't the right kind of changes i like to see with FPS gaming. And let's not even start about the fact they removed dedicated servers. Their solution is in my eyes absolutely terrible, and degrades the quality of online FPS gaming and a hindrance for (community organized) competitive gaming.
Also, less = more. More weapons isn't synonymous with better gaming.

[gnulogic (old)]

Nexu, on 08 February 2010 - 11:27 PM, said:

Erm, no to perks. Even playing field is much better.

MW2 is a possible direction or FPS gaming. But by far not the only right way. The choices MW2 dev did, like removing console and prohibiting FOV changes aren't the right kind of changes i like to see with FPS gaming. And let's not even start about the fact they removed dedicated servers. Their solution is in my eyes absolutely terrible, and degrades the quality of online FPS gaming and a hindrance for (community organized) competitive gaming.
Also, less = more. More weapons isn't synonymous with better gaming.

Nexu i agree whole heartedly with your response, no dedicated servers is a deal breaker for me.

This post has been edited by gnulogic: 09 February 2010 - 06:42 AM

[Merkymerc]

No dedicated servers = fk IW.
Having those is something MW2 could learn from UrT.

This post has been edited by Merky: 09 February 2010 - 06:41 AM

[FS Frankie V]

I’m very much against perks. They go against the very foundation UrT is built on. Two major selling points are predictability and reasonable expectations based on the load out that is available to everyone at anytime.

You can predict that putting two rounds into a competitor’s chest you should expect them to go down. A reasonable expectation is you might have to go to three. It does nothing but slows down the game when your blasting away at someone and they stand there eating a sandwich causing a stalemate situation.

[fda| ObScUrE]

1:0 for UrT
I don't think that we can learn much from other games the key should be to implant things that has no other game yet or make things better. UrT is left behind in many things mostly of engine limitations and with copying only things we will end in a game that is css or cod or something else with yesterdays graphic. generally I think we would have much better result when there where some co working with other ioquake3 mods and the ioquake3 team self.

[Kendle]

Personally I've just started playing this 10-year old game (admitedly for the 2nd time) precisely because it doesn't have the kind of things MW2 has.

Perks - absolute definate no-no for me. I want a level playing field, and as Frankie says above I want the assurance that when I put 2 or 3 bullets into someone they're gonna go down, not have to put an unknown number of bullets into someone based on how long they've been playing the game.

Dedicated servers - without them you can't build communities or really have proper competition (or effective anti-cheat). I think this is something more and more developers are going to do, because it enables them to milk the cash cow, and to me it could spell the death of competitive online (PC) gaming.

Game modes - this is something I could agree on, I miss the objective mode gameplay from RTCW / ET, and I actually prefer Capture & Hold to CTF but no-one plays it in UrT.

But whichever way you look at it UrT is flying the flag for good old fashioned server based competitive online gaming, and I appreciate it for that and hope it never changes.

[.:KEYHOLE:. (old)]

did is an other game who have stay up for 10 years???
i think Urt can give a big lesson to a lot of new fashion games
(personaly im sure COD will be dead in 10 years)

This post has been edited by .:KEYHOLE:.: 09 February 2010 - 10:46 AM

[Green Viking]

the only thing i would realy like to see in urt, is a friendlist. so you could see who of your friends are online, and what server they are playing on, and be able to pm them. i cant see any downsides to adding a fl to the game.