5 Negatives We Agree About Quake III: Arena and Unreal Tournament

By Chi Kong Lui & Dale Weir

1. No Multiple Accounts or Records
Households with two or more players, who would like to maintain separate accounts with personalized names and character customizations with either Q3A or UT, are simply out of luck. No such extensive account management feature exist for either game, which seem to have a one-player-to-a-box mentality. While UT is able to save progress on the one-player mode on separate slots (something unbelievably minor that Q3A doesn’t have), neither games track records and statistics separately. So those with multiple gamers to a copy are left with no options. It’s a glaring omission that would be clearly useful even for those who would like to customize several looks to their personal character models or would simply like to play around with a few identities.

2. Lack of In-Game Communication
Anyone who plays pick-up games of basketball, knows how friendly or unfriendly competitors can get during and after a few match ups. The same can’t be said of Deathmatching, which can often be a much colder experience. Despite literally hundreds of people simultaneously competing and plenty of opportunity to build comradery or ‘talk trash,’ very little is said during or after Deathmatches. People of all colors, creeds, and backgrounds can be on the same server partaking in a few rounds of Capture the Flag, but aside from the often profanity laced names, there’s no way of knowing anything about them other than they thought everyone played a ‘gg’ (good game) as that is the most often typed line. Deathmatching can be a communal experience and recruitment into clans does take place, but it’s rare and games of this sort offer little opportunity to communicate in the midst of all the furious carnage and everyone’s participation is kept at a distance.

3. Repetitive Gameplay
Deathmatching can be the most exhilarating and exciting type of game. The action is fast and intense and sometimes games are so close that outcomes are predicated more on luck than actual skill. This makes them both appealing and addictive after only a few rounds of play. But even with the diversity of levels and arenas or super-cool weapons, Deathmatch games (more specifically UT and Q3A) tend to fall into a rut. Matches can sometimes blend into each other with the goals remaining essentially the same throughout. There is sometimes a palpable sense of déjà vu. It doesn’t help that some levels, namely Q3A, look amazingly similar to each other as well as to past releases. It may be the price you pay for such a focused theme and grand experiment, but it’s too hard to ignore.

4. Dominant Players
With hundreds of players constantly competing online, you’d think that the competition would be more even and scores would be tighter. Unfortunately, that’s rarely the case as a majority of the players are still relatively newbies. It’s far more likely that you’ll find one or two veteran players dominating a game with either lower ping rates, constant control of the most critical power-ups, or the most amazing agility and deadly-accurate aim. Deathmatch fragging (killing) runs in streaks and a person who has keen mastery over any particular map can pretty much take a lead and hold onto it with a tight fist. Even in the final round of the PGL (Professional Gamers League) one-on-one tournaments, scores are usually incredibly lopsided with one player pretty much owning the other. There is hope that this phenomenon may be reduced as more players join in the Deathmatches and slowly realize what it takes to be successful. By having their very own tactics used against them, the dominating players might start to face more worthy adversaries and we might see more balanced competition.

5. Internet Connection Lags & Hardware Discrepancies
PC gaming has always been hindered by the hardware setup of the gamer. If I had a weak system, then the quality of the game’s graphics and sound (and consequently its gameplay) would be hindered while someone with a better system would naturally have a better experience. Situations like this are tolerable when it comes to single player games where the gamer plays against the computer but once players venture out to take on human opponents over the Internet, problems are exacerbated. For instance, when it comes to PC hardware, the guy with the Pentium III and GeForce card will get better framerates than the person with lesser computing power. But even more crucial to online playing is the communication setup that holds incredible sway over the outcomes of games. Business people playing on T1 lines or home users with insane broadband connections, are often the people racking up 30 or more kills a game while the rest of us are stuck at around 10-15. The discrepancy is great and no one has tried to hide it. After all the attempts at leveling the playing field as far as accessibility is concerned, it’s a shame that technology still plays such a huge part in determining the outcomes.