Developers do this

Ok the reason UT3 got bad sales is because 1) Not really any story, 2) didnt take advantage of its hardware, 3) Nothing innovative in the slightest.

So what do developers need to do to get better sales well duh:roll: Do not make low gfx quality games because we want a well optimized game that takes advantage of our machines.(although mine isnt the best)

Do not make [Censor Bypass Removed - G013M] storys and make a good setting that is a good 8-10hrs long.

Make something new and fresh. PC gamers are born critics so add stuff to shake things up a bit.

So basically everything Cliffy B. did was stupid and if developers did everything that Epic didnt do well, you got one hell of a game.

Infact if you had two of the three it would be good.

This is just what I would like to see in PC game developers and while you may not agree please dont flame.

Story - I disagree. The deathmatch genre has never had a story, or what vague stories they have had have just been just that - vague, and exist only to string together a series of deathmatch rounds. People do not play deathmatch games for stories, and never have,

Hardware - I disagree. I think UT3 looks absolutely spectacular. It could be better looking, but it looks fantastic and it runs smoothly. I don't think improved visuals would have significantly improved sales.

Innovation - I disagree. The games industry has dozens of clear examples that people don't care about innovation. More of the same, please. In fact, there's probably an inverse correlation between innovation and popularity.

I'll tell you why I think UT3 didn't sell so well: 1. The Orange Box, 2. Crysis, 3. Call of Duty 4. People can only buy so much.

For crying out loud. Do you guys get payed to make these threads? You have no clue what your talking about. Infact your thread is all error. Please inform me when your game is releasing.

Edit: How can you even call UT3 a bad looking game? Are you a artist? Where's your Portfolio? Who sent you? Who gave birth to you?

OoSuperMarioO

That is flaming and the original poster asked you to not flame him. I think you should follow his rules. He might have powers. Creepy powers. Like a witch.

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]

For crying out loud. Do you guys get payed to make these threads? You have no clue what your talking about. Infact your thread is all error. Please inform me when your game is releasing.

Edit: How can you even call UT3 a bad looking game? Are you a artist? Where's your Portfolio? Who sent you? Who gave birth to you?

mfsa

That is flaming and the original poster asked you to not flame him. I think you should follow his rules. He might have powers. Creepy powers. Like a witch.

Your requests make some sense in the context of typical single player games. But you gotta understand that the UT series has a very different approach than general games. Here's what I think their goals are...

1. Make a multiplayer game that's fast paced, old school, multiplayer deathmatch mayhem. (They do this great.)

2. Make a game that has cutting edge graphics, but still runs like silk and scales dramatically for slower hardware. (They kick tushy here too.)

3. Build a game engine that's flexible enough to license to other game developers with support for things like wide open levels and vehicles. Make a multiplayer game that's a tech demo for the engine. (Pretty good. Okay, it's not the Cry-Engine, but it sure scales better.)

4. Slap a modest single player mode on it to get players up to speed so they can play online. (Done. As you say, nothing to write home about.)

Story - I disagree. The deathmatch genre has never had a story, or what vague stories they have had have just been just that - vague, and exist only to string together a series of deathmatch rounds. People do not play deathmatch games for stories, and never have,

Hardware - I disagree. I think UT3 looks absolutely spectacular. It could be better looking, but it looks fantastic and it runs smoothly. I don't think improved visuals would have significantly improved sales.

Innovation - I disagree. The games industry has dozens of clear examples that people don't care about innovation. More of the same, please. In fact, there's probably an inverse correlation between innovation and popularity.

I'll tell you why I think UT3 didn't sell so well: 1. The Orange Box, 2. Crysis, 3. Call of Duty 4. People can only buy so much.

mfsa

[QUOTE="mfsa"]

I'll tell you why I think UT3 didn't sell so well: 1. The Orange Box, 2. Crysis, 3. Call of Duty 4. People can only buy so much.

--Ryu--

Yeah, I can see the argument - but then again, Crysis was a recycled (albeit brilliant) version of Far Cry, Call of Duty 4 was a recycled version of Call of Duty 2 and The Orange Box is Half Life. I can see why all three sold well, and it definitely wasn't anything to do with innovation.

I don't disagree at all with the idea of newness helping sales, but I make a distinction between new and innovative. The new engine alone is reason enough to buy UT3, I'd say - and I say that not as a graphics whore. It's three years since a UT game. Most of the most popular games in recent times have been recycled versions of other games, and it's hardly hurting their sales. Crysis topped a million units sold and it's hardly innovative or original. It just plays great and looks great. I personally think the same may be said of UT3. Looks great, plays great.

The online shooter genre is also becoming painfully overcrowded - in fact, all three of the abovementioned games have fantastic online play. and we've had Quake Wars and BF2142 in recent memory as well - and games like CS:S and BF2 still remain super popular. I appreciate that that's an argument in favour of quality, but it also goes to how people can only buy so much. And that's especially true of online shooters - people tend to find one they like, and stick with it.

Ok the reason UT3 got bad sales is because 1) Not really any story, 2) didnt take advantage of its hardware, 3) Nothing innovative in the slightest.

So what do developers need to do to get better sales well duh:roll: Do not make low gfx quality games because we want a well optimized game that takes advantage of our machines.(although mine isnt the best)

Do not make [Censor Bypass Removed - G013M] storys and make a good setting that is a good 8-10hrs long.

Make something new and fresh. PC gamers are born critics so add stuff to shake things up a bit.

So basically everything Cliffy B. did was stupid and if developers did everything that Epic didnt do well, you got one hell of a game.

Infact if you had two of the three it would be good.

This is just what I would like to see in PC game developers and while you may not agree please dont flame.

ndrewn

UT3 didn't sell well because the demo was lackluster and the game faced heavy competition.