It was a wonderful idea to make the conversion. This open-source first person shooter now has an "onslaught" game-mode (with an ons-reborn map being added), brand new announcement sounds/voices, fixes for several bugs, new crylink primary attack mode, new server tools, and uint16 element array support. And that game which evolved from Q2 (?) mod called Purge, which I think it multiplayer only (no bots, or at least none in the demo that I tried out) and was based on the same LithTech engine as AvP2 if memory serves.Phoronix: Nexuiz 2.4.2 Open-Source FPS Releasedįor those interested in some weekend gaming, Nexuiz 2.4.2 has been released. Anyone know that game, is it any good? Also there were titles that I think tried to experiment with the gameplay formula a bit, but these changes did not really pick up, like Firestarter (?). I even downloaded the demo a while ago but never got around to install it. I'm asking because apart from the UT series and Q3A/TA which are the genre's juggernauts as far as I can tell, there are also less widespread commercial titles as well as FOSS projects (OpenArena, Alien Arena, World of Padman, Nexuiz Classic/Xonotic etc.), and I'd really like to know how they compare to each other, in the opinion of experienced players that know the genre inside and out.īTW, I vaguely remember there was a game based off the UT2004 code called Warpath. I was wondering, maybe the experienced arena shooter players will enlighten me, if someone is really into this and plays regularly, which is more likely in general: playing one game extensively and exclusively (or at least most of the time), or alternating between several titles that are equally interesting? From what I understand, OpenArena is as close to Q3A as possible gameplay-wise, which I guess is one of the reasons I've not tried OpenArena yet. I did not give it a lot of tries but I think the difference is there (maybe UT just labels the easy level Normal for new users to feel more comfortable, like StarCraft II does don't know). I do feel the difference between UT and Q3A though because I never had trouble playing the UT demos (on normal difficulty), but could not survive more than a handful of seconds in the very first Q3A demo level on normal difficulty. But at least theoretically, there is a certain common element in all arena shooters against which the differences are evident and can then become the basis of payer preferences. I know there are all these factors like movement speeds or weapon balance that differentiate the games of these kind between one another or the level layouts. ![]() But I would certainly like to know and understand what exactly I'd be missing when not playing UT games - if it is possible to explain in a few short words that is.įor now, after having played the demos of UT99, UT2003 and UT2004, save for the vehicle stuff that I personally have not developed much of interest/liking, and marginally prettier graphics in the case of 2004, I do not really feel/understand the difference between any of the UT titles and Nexuiz. ![]() These days I have to make a choice what I want to invest my time into, and honestly I feel like I'd rather pick a FOSS arena shooter for casual play (playing Nexuiz against bots made a good impression on me) at least I won't have that uncomfortable feeling of having bought something and not using it. ![]() ![]() Problem is, I'm a complete noob in this as I mentioned earlier. If you like classic multiplayer, than UT99 withs many modes. If you like modern multiplayer, than UT2004 with its vehicle support.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |