Bought QIII today, played it all afternoon. Sure, it's gorgeous and has some cool stuff. However, it won't save some of my settings and I had a few other problems. But frankly, deathmatch play isn't what I really liked about QI and QII, it was the "missions". And QIII doesn't have 'em.<P>Oh well, back to QII. Heck, maybe I'll even reinstall QI just for shits and grins.<P>Pete
QIII -- Is it just me, or...does QIII suck?
- Thread starter mudboy
- Start date
- Status
Duh! Of course Q3 doesn't have a single player mode. They said that from the beginning. It is a game built for deathmatch.<P>--Fragbait<BR>P.S. It's just you.
Just him and me actually. Never really liked Q3 From the start. Was OK in test/demo form but I wouldn't buy it. I had much more fun with the Unreal Tournament demo however, and plan to buy it eventually.
No, Q3A really does suck View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif<P>Get UT View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Yeah, I like UT a lot better then Q3. I got tired of running through the same dungeons over and over again since Doom2. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Q3 is fun enough, but I've got to say I prefer UT too, at least for the moment.. They both got their good points.. Q3 is faster and quite visually lovely, even on my graphically underpowered box (Think 'stuck with an Intel 810 while I wait for my replacement 3D card to arrive on warranty'), but it just isn't holding my attention, at least for now, mainly because it decides to crap itself after about 15 minutes of play which is bloody weird, since the demotest and final demo gave me no problems at all.. UT isn't as swift, but it's still pleasing to the eye and I don't have to worry about it soiling its wee electronic underpants at untimetly intervals.. And I love the weapons too.. *shrug* Mind you, I stll haven't DM'ed in Q3, so I could just be speaking through my arse.. Looks like it's gonna be fun at this month's LAN party, though.. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Q3 is faster and quite visually lovely, even on my graphically underpowered box<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You can up the speed in UT, ya know. And curiously, I can play UT with max graphics (at lower res), but can't play Q3A with max graphics, period. That sux.
"I can play UT with max graphics (at lower res), but can't play Q3A with max graphics, period"<P>I here this crap all the time. It is moronic. It is in the same league as Spinal Tap and amplifier volumes. "My amp goes up to 11!" (I forget the actual number but you get the point.) There is no industry standard for "max" graphics. <P>Oh yeah, Quake3 runs better when my computer is under my desk than UT.
You've noticed that too Necron?<P>I mean I have it sitting on top and I get like 10FPS, but I put it under and it goes up to like 135FPS, it's amazing, but UT it runs like crap either place. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Also I've noticed it runs better when the brightness on my monitor is lower.<P>Chris
Of course there's no industry standard for "max graphics". My points remains, however; when I up the graphics to the "max" in Q3A, I can't play worth shiite, whereas I can boost them completely in UT, and everything continues to work fine. That spell it out clearer?<P>
WyldKard, UT just doesn't have options or a graphics engine that is as intensive as quake's, which is probably the reason that you can run the graphics on unreal higher than you can on quake, but Quake looks a lot nicer than UT, even on the Mid-Range graphics options.<P>Just found this kind of cool review at www.stomped.com <BR> http://www.dailyradar.com/features/game_feature_page_196_1.html <BR>
True words about system shock, undRdRk. Both the first and the second installment deserved far more success than they got. And Terra Nova, too. And Bioforge. And I'll get back on topic now:<BR>Q3:A looks and feels solid. UT feels like plastic, from the weapons to the jump pads.
I can crank up my graphics settings to the max in doom2 and notice no change in FPS, but Quake slows down, therefor doom2 has a better engine.
I didn't say that the UT engine was any better than the Q3A engine, necron99. Stop taking what I say out of context.<P>It simply irks me that two games of similar technology levels, running on a computer that's of average to above-average speed, don't play the same at their highest graphics levels. To me at least, that's a major turn-off.<P>I can up the graphics levels in UT and it looks gorgeous. I run Q3A at a mid-range graphics level, and it doesn't look as good as UT. If I up the graphics any more to make it look nicer, it becomes unplayable.
Sorry WyldKard, but until your last post what you were saying sounded unreasonable to me. Now I see where you are coming from, even if I don't agree with it View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <P>
I'm quite happy with Q3. I can't wait until some mods come out for (like say LMCTF). To be fair, I don't think anyone thinks that it is a blindingly original game but it does play to ID's strengths in graphics engines and network code.<P>cheers
Q3A is the same f'n quake that quake1/2 were. It's quite the same as the differences between intel's P2/PIII. Superficial. Hell, it's even got the same BORING weapons as before. NO new ones If you've played Doom, Q1 and Q2, you definitely won't find anything new in Q3A. Granted, it looks like a lollypop, but tastes like stale water. Ick. Only good thing is, as people have already pointed out, is that the engine is very good and we'll probably see some kick ass games in the future using this engine.
I hope this doesnt make me the "OTHER" guy, but i like both personally. I only played the demo for UT and not the full game yet because of the D3D problem it has, but i like Q3 quite a bit. <P>Please dont look at me wierd View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<P>P.S. <BR>My computer runs better with 2 bud light 24oz cans on top of them, makes my monitor look like it has smoke stacks 
Jackass JoeJoe: Yea, the Unreal engine has been rehashed into its current UT form, but that said, I don't have similar problems with <I>any</I> game aside from Q3A. I find the graphics in UT to be frikken great, and I can't equate that level of graphics in Q3A without having an unplayable game. It's just too reminiscent of when I bought Wing Commander 3 those many years ago and couldn't run it on my system without an upgrade.<P>Your points about UT not working well with OpenGL and DirectX are valid, and amount to the same concern I have over Q3A running on my system. Neither is right, and gaming companies should support as much hardware as they can, so long as they are mainstream. That's an error on their part. I don't side with GT Interactive for their failure to implement OpenGL from the getgo; neither should I be pleased with Q3A's lack of performance when running in a similar graphics range.<P>Regardless, my gripe was that Q3A didn't run well (to the point of being as graphically pleasing as UT) on my system without horrendous unplayability. If this situation were reversed, I'd be just as annoyed.<P>As an aside, I've been pleased with id's previous work: Quake 1/2 ran great, and I was very pleased with their graphics engines, almost (comparitively, given the respective differences in time between releases) as much as I was with Unreal.<P>NekDrgn: I believe the latest UT patch addresses the D3D problem.
Guys, it's all pointless. <BR>Some of us like UT better. Some like Q3 better. <BR>Oh well. <BR>What does that have to do with price of tomatoes in South Dakota?<BR>
Sounds like a lot of you guys are from the school of "The game must suck - it doesn't run well on my system!" Maybe it's not the game that sucks.
Yep Terminator - I'd agree to a point. All I hear about Ultima 9 is how badly it sucks.... but ya know what? It runs fine on my PC, and I'm enjoying the heck out of it. For me it certainly does not "suck".<P>
You're wrong, Terminator X. The systems I've run both UT and Q3A on are average to above-average systems. IMO, game developers should be targeting this range of systems. If I was complaining about the performance on a P-2 233 w/Voodoo1, then yea, it's my system that sux. But if I'm running both games on a 500mhz w/Voodoo3, that's entirely different. And, recall that the problem I noted is isolated to Q3A.<P>On a system that runs Q3A well, I'm sure it's a visually stunning game. The fact that I can't play it when I up the graphics doesn't make it suck; I've gone over why I don't like Q3A in another thread, and its graphics performance had nothing to do with my opinion. Rather, it's a slight annoyance to me.
>>>since q2 came out carmack kept saying how different and "new"<BR>quake 3 was gonna be and how much they were gonna break away from the prior<BR>quake style shooter,so I was expecting a ground breaking FPS that would set a new standerd in FPSs and was a bit let down by more of the same.<<<<P>Just curious - can you point to an interview or .plan where Carmack said it? I never thought Q3 was going to be anything more than ultimate deathmatch.
If you don't want to pay alot for q3 or UT. Go to www.columbiahouse.com/cdrom <BR>you can get 2 games for $1 each.... View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I knew where running a 3Dfx card and you should bitch at 3Dfx for delivering such poor OpenGL mini drivers. I've a 450Mhz AMD K6-2 and a regular TNT and I get 40 FPS (peaks at 80 FPS lows at 25 FPS)- you should really think about your next card purchase. If you only wish to play Unreal engine games - then definitely keep a Voodoo in your system.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Dude, I haven't had any problems with the OpenGL mini drivers before, in any game I've played. Both Quake and Quake 2 ran great, as did Half-Life. I'm pretty sure I've played other games that used the OpenGL drivers, also. Like I said, it's just a problem in Quake 3. Well, not exactly a problem, but a shortcoming, I suppose.<P>We're starting to digress from the topic, though. In conclusion, I'm still peeved about Q3A taxing my computer resources in higher graphics modes, but likewise, others are with UT and their graphics cards. I don't think it's the sole fault of the card manufacturers, though, but falls on the shoulders of the game developers as well.<P>That said, my next card won't likely be a Voodoo chipset, 'cause things seem to be leaving that arena behind.<P>undRdRk, no, I don't think I quoted you anywhere...
- Status