Whatever happened to The Chosen One?

[salsaSkaarj]

OK, so waiting is a pain. But the rewards will be the greater for it.

Although I would love to play TCO, RD and BFNP tomorrow, I prefer waiting for a fully tested and tweaked version. It's not as though there's nothing new to be played. There's still a compilerisationated mappack whoch wioll be released a lot earlier from the contest which will give hours and hours of pleasure.

It was to be expected that sooner or later the U1 (and UT) engine would be abandoned - and an absolutely stunning final mappack would be a fitting endcredit to the wonderful game Unreal (and UT) has proven to be.

[nikosv]

Anyone who plays UnrealSP maps knows that gameplay is everything, but to modern developers it probably seems like we're wasting our time putting so much work into these (visually) out-of-date projects.

Except you, RD.

[salsaSkaarj]

Anyone who plays UnrealSP maps knows that gameplay is everything, but to modern developers it probably seems like we're wasting our time putting so much work into these (visually) out-of-date projects.

Except you, RD.

I've seen a couple of these modern games and since we're 10 years further - visually they are a lot different. But it seems many of these games attach more importance to visuals than to the gameplay aspect.
When Unreal came out, the visual aspect was (of course) up to standard, but what was most stunning of all was the game play (and the fact that the game engine was so good that PCs could handle all that activity).

[ividyon]

When Unreal came out, the visual aspect was (of course) up to standard, but what was most stunning of all was the game play (and the fact that the game engine was so good that PCs could handle all that activity).

I'd say the stunning graphics were considered the most important part back in the day - after all they were the most revolutionary aspect. Half-Life and company just couldn't compete. Of course bits like Skaarj AI also were a big factor in the game's success, but the graphics were the most eye-catching feature.

[Mister_Prophet]

I don't think I'd go so far as to say that Unreal had "stunning" gameplay. It had stunning visuals, yes. And it had stunning moments.

[UB_]

It had better gameplay than all of the FPS games released in that time: explorations, enemy AI, stuff that makes sense and etc. You didn't have to face some lame-looking morons rushing at you all the freaking time.

[Mister_Prophet]

It had better gameplay than all of the FPS games released in that time

Yes, the AI was groundbreaking. I'll agree on that point.

[Hellscrag]

I definitely think that Unreal's visual design, atmosphere (heightened reality rather than abstract Hell) and use of backstory were more groundbreaking than its gameplay in 1998. The AI was impressive, certainly, but the actual gameplay design was largely unremarkable (barring certain iconic set pieces).

[salsaSkaarj]

It had better gameplay than all of the FPS games released in that time: explorations, enemy AI, stuff that makes sense and etc. You didn't have to face some lame-looking morons rushing at you all the freaking time.

Thanks UB, that was what I meant.

And I do agree that the visuals were stunning at that time (I think they still are - the more realistic these modern games become, the less I can relate to them).

And yes again the atmosphere was/is absolutely spot on, but to me that's part of the gameplay. Actually in terms of atmosphere I thought Hexen was a ground breaker - beat Doom by miles (kilometers ).

[Kaka]

Well for me the gameplay wasn't that much different form Quake 2, AI was better yes, but the 'gameplay was go forward kill enemies and then the boss.end'. HAlf-Life on the other hand was grounbreaking in terms of gameplay. Unreal wasn't.

[UB_]

I'll take always with honor my hate for HalfLife 1.

Anyway, not only the AI was good, but I found the enemy placement to have more sense, and enemies themselves to have more personality. And obviously, how they are used, i.e. scripted sequences. That still falls into the gameplay department in my agenda.
Unreal is very far from a run throughout the enemies and kill the boss at the end - there was something more story-driven.

[Mister_Prophet]

I definitely think that Unreal's visual design, atmosphere (heightened reality rather than abstract Hell) and use of backstory were more groundbreaking than its gameplay in 1998. The AI was impressive, certainly, but the actual gameplay design was largely unremarkable (barring certain iconic set pieces).

Exactly my sentiments.

[zbreaker]

Well for me the gameplay wasn't that much different form Quake 2, AI was better yes, but the 'gameplay was go forward kill enemies and then the boss.end'. HAlf-Life on the other hand was grounbreaking in terms of gameplay. Unreal wasn't.

Gameplay was WAY better than Q2...quality wise at the least. Lots of stoopid enemies in Q2...running randomly here and there. Granted the focus of both games was essentially the same, but the Unreal AI really made it a whole different experience

[Taz]

Half-Life had way too little variety in terms of in-game environments. The maps are nearly forever hi-tech/industrial in concept. (Compare Unreal.) This means you've very little choice what kind of map to make when creating a Half-Life map -- which furthermore uses the Quake engine, a much more awkward engine to create maps with than the Unreal engine.

Also, there are hardly any powerups to collect in HL -- just weapons and ammo. And often the game can get maddeningly frustrating, and started getting repetitious after the first couple hours. By the time I reached the part called 'On a Rail', I gave up. Really, all things said, I can't understand why HL was praised so much more than Unreal.

And yeah - we're alive and working.

That's good to know. I'd be very sad if TCO were aborted.

And I'm still waiting for that tutorial on particle emitter effects.

[radios]

where's the download link?