RuneStorm
http://www.runestorm.com/forums/

BW port (formal)
http://www.runestorm.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=56258		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  P_Colossus [ Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:36 am ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
I know it was discussed 100 times.
This time lets make it formal.
Here you will show your own opinion on which game you want to see BW ported.
Note that some games are not mod friendly, take that in account when stating your opinions.
I know that the last word is lies on RS team, but maybe in this form it will help them to make a decision.
Do not quote or flame someones opinion, try to keep it clean.
BTW if Cyberax, SB or DC getting annoyed by such threads, feel free to lock it !lol

Please follow these criteria:

Game: (Write in the name of the game you wish to see BW ported to)

Why This Game: (write here why do you think this game is appropriate for BW)
1)...
2)...
3)...

Why not "insert games here": (write why this game is not suitable for BW)
1)...
2)...
3)...

-----------
My point of view:


Game: UT3

Why This Game:
1)Have bots.
2)More or less mod friendly.
3)UT like games live long apart from those that are made for singleplayer (High replayability level).
4)Good engine.
5)Continue hmmm... tradition ?

Why not Crysis:
1)No bots.
2)Low replayability level.
Author:  LtCLifff [ Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:58 pm ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
GAME: UT3

WHY THIS GAME:
1) Everything stated above
2)'' ''
3)'' ''
4)'' ''
5)I have UT3 :D

WHY NOT CRYSIS
1) Higher system requirements
2) dissapoint all UT3'ers
3) What other Guy said

not that my opinion counts for anything lol
Author:  headhunter [ Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:11 pm ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
my system can run crysis but crysis's multiplayer isnt good and there is no instant action
Author:  LtCLifff [ Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:36 pm ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
Oh thats a shame... I though crysis multiplayer would be good.
Author:  Chavez [ Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:38 pm ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
My ultimate dream is that BW will be made a game on itself. Meaning that the UT engine will be used to it's fullest. An entire game on BW... awesome. Then the story has so much to offer also.
Author:  Bjossi [ Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:45 pm ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
For BW to be a standalone game, the work involved will be multiplied. For two people it would take years for just an alpha version, and that is if they have an engine handy.

Game: UT3

Why?
1) Native bot support
2) Better for modding than most other modern games/engines
3) Follows a trend, therefore making long time players more familiar with the new version
4) Nice graphics
Author:  headhunter [ Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:01 pm ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
LtCLifff wrote:
Oh thats a shame... I though crysis multiplayer would be good.


There is only two gametypes for crysis: deathmatch and power struggle which is sort of like onslaught.
Author:  Redshift [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:43 am ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
Basically what Bjossi said:

Game: UT3

Why?
1) Native bot support
2) Better for modding than most other modern games/engines
3) Follows a trend, therefore making long time players more familiar with the new version
4) Nice graphics

Also,

5) Nice physics
6) UT3's got the MSUC. Several relevant categories, (presumably) fewer competitors than in previous years so the odds are somewhat in RuneStorm's favor. Even a reduced weapon set would still pretty much 0wn all, especially if it includes updated staves. :p The closing date for weapon set submissions (Phase 3) is May 15 2009, so plenty of time to polish stuff. However, they could also submit, for example, a player model, map, mut, (single, separate) weapon or vehicle.
Author:  akstylish [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:25 am ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
Redshift wrote:

6) UT3's got the MSUC. Several relevant categories, (presumably) fewer competitors than in previous years so the odds are somewhat in RuneStorm's favor. Even a reduced weapon set would still pretty much 0wn all, especially if it includes updated staves. :p The closing date for weapon set submissions (Phase 3) is May 15 2009, so plenty of time to polish stuff. However, they could also submit, for example, a player model, map, mut, (single, separate) weapon or vehicle.



That's a really good reason. BW has a very good chance to win 1st place. But I'd prefer 2nd place b/c you get ue3 license for 1st and cash(don't know how much) for 2nd.
Author:  LtCLifff [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:52 am ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
Hehe you get cash for first as well mate.
Author:  Glosmostinex [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:30 am ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
Redshift wrote:
Basically what Bjossi said:

Game: UT3

Why?
1) Native bot support
2) Better for modding than most other modern games/engines
3) Follows a trend, therefore making long time players more familiar with the new version
4) Nice graphics

Also,

5) Nice physics
6) UT3's got the MSUC. Several relevant categories, (presumably) fewer competitors than in previous years so the odds are somewhat in RuneStorm's favor. Even a reduced weapon set would still pretty much 0wn all, especially if it includes updated staves. :p The closing date for weapon set submissions (Phase 3) is May 15 2009, so plenty of time to polish stuff. However, they could also submit, for example, a player model, map, mut, (single, separate) weapon or vehicle.



I also vote for UT3.
those physics are good also, i have a LEGO map at my other PC and you can destroy the houses :D

why not Crysis:
1)no bots
2)no dodge jump/double jump/etc.
3)no gibs?
Author:  Bjossi [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:45 pm ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
Glosmostinex wrote:
2)no dodge jump/double jump/etc.


I would place that in a Why Crysis? category myself.
Author:  Glosmostinex [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:20 pm ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
but that is the fun in UT2004 :D !
Author:  skyfe [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:20 pm ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
I say make BW a seperate game. (If it can be done)-
Hell, give it some time, and it would sell like crazy once it gets out : )
But if not, I don't really care. I don't have ut3 or crysis, and nothing else seems really applicable. What about battlefield?
thats all I can think of
Author:  akstylish [ Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:06 pm ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
LtCLifff wrote:
Hehe you get cash for first as well mate.

That's even better. :)
Author:  Bjossi [ Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:13 am ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
Glosmostinex wrote:
but that is the fun in UT2004 :D !


Your opinion does not represent mine.
Author:  ShadowBlade [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:19 am ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
well.. we finally got UT3!! gotta get the massive patches now, but we'll be investigating it proper now.. :) hang on guys.. there'll be info soon :)
Author:  Bjossi [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:17 am ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
Great news. 8)
Author:  Dark_Watcher [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:07 pm ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
The best I’ve herd in along time.
Author:  akstylish [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:43 pm ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
Dark_Watcher wrote:
The best I’ve herd in along time.

Hopefully we'll hear even better news soon. ;)
Author:  LtCLifff [ Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:26 am ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
akstylish wrote:
Dark_Watcher wrote:
The best I’ve herd in along time.

Hopefully we'll hear even better news soon. ;)


Im shivering with anticipation! or am I just cold...
Author:  OCAdam [ Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:14 am ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
Dark_Watcher wrote:
The best I’ve herd in along time.


Wow, news herder? XD (jk)

Great to come back for a minute and find this news out! Too bad I've got nothing of a PC to RUN UT3... I ran the demo at Doom 1 graphics and got... 18 FPS in no action. Why, Epic, why!?
Author:  Captain Xavious [ Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:28 am ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
Whats wrong with Classic Doom's graphics?
Author:  Bjossi [ Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:40 am ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
Easy on resources I guess.
Author:  OCAdam [ Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:08 am ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
Captain Xavious wrote:
Whats wrong with Classic Doom's graphics?


When you can't see because that graphics level doesn't work unless you are in an area that juxtaposes enemies from the level itself. I got creamed by the vehicle because I didn't see it in time... (aka before I was stepped on).
Author:  Faceless [ Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:06 am ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
LtCLifff wrote:
Oh thats a shame... I though crysis multiplayer would be good.


Crysis multi is ok if you go for a Battlefield or Quake Wars style game in the Crysis engine. The big problem is that the cheating is pretty bad. When I was still playing it, I had a personal encounter with the guy at the top of the stats at the time, and he was flying through the air without a vehicle, firing a nuke launcher on full auto, which you are not supposed to be able to do. Punkbuster didn't help, and I got tired of dealing with the cheating griefers before the patch came out that was supposed to address it.

Come to think of it, I quit Counterstrike for similar reasons.

I think normal UT3 is more of the same, slightly more refined. Its not worth my money at my current income. I might get it when it drops to $20 US. Besides, by that point, some of the mods for it will be mature, and I would be buying it more as the engine for running good mods than for the base game itself.
Author:  LtCLifff [ Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:54 am ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
Faceless wrote:
LtCLifff wrote:
Oh thats a shame... I though crysis multiplayer would be good.


Crysis multi is ok if you go for a Battlefield or Quake Wars style game in the Crysis engine. The big problem is that the cheating is pretty bad. When I was still playing it, I had a personal encounter with the guy at the top of the stats at the time, and he was flying through the air without a vehicle, firing a nuke launcher on full auto, which you are not supposed to be able to do. Punkbuster didn't help, and I got tired of dealing with the cheating griefers before the patch came out that was supposed to address it.

Come to think of it, I quit Counterstrike for similar reasons.

I think normal UT3 is more of the same, slightly more refined. Its not worth my money at my current income. I might get it when it drops to $20 US. Besides, by that point, some of the mods for it will be mature, and I would be buying it more as the engine for running good mods than for the base game itself.


well, when you do buy be sure to get my creations :D
Author:  ShadowBlade [ Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:42 am ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
i can run it on my FX 5500, but EUGH!!

i have an 8600 GT sitting there, but not the power supply to run it, so i'll have to wait a week for that to arrive.. DC's PC however, runs it lagless and fluid on everything full :D

anyway, we've already dived in head first into learning the engine.. the beastly material system, spine chilling particle system, characters, scripting, etc.. anyway, back to that now.. ;)
Author:  Glosmostinex [ Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:27 pm ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
ShadowBlade wrote:
i can run it on my FX 5500, but EUGH!!



hmmm :)
*hopes to play UT3 in a Geforce 6150*
(good news by the way)
Author:  akstylish [ Thu May 01, 2008 8:54 am ]
Post subject:  BW port (formal)
Glosmostinex wrote:
ShadowBlade wrote:
i can run it on my FX 5500, but EUGH!!



hmmm :)
*hopes to play UT3 in a Geforce 6150*
(good news by the way)


I played the demo with 6100go.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/