A lot of people are going to be VERY angry about this one. The game looks fantastic – the lighting, particle effects and level designs are great to look at. Can’t say much positive beyond that.
First of all, the game is very short. $45 is a bit much to ask for only 13 levels of action (no multiplayer whatsoever). The entire game only took around 10 hours to complete. Of course I am pretty good at these shooter games, your experience may last longer.
The gameplay is highly scripted with specific goals and objectives. Certain levels force you to play defense, placing gun turrets and force shields to prepare for an attack. These are the only areas where you can make unique decisions. Enemy AI consists of little more than full speed zig-zag attacks, a big step back from the AI of games like “Half-Life.” Not much replay value to be found.
If you are a big FPS fan the game is worth playing, but I would recommend splitting the cost with a friend and handing the game over when you are done. I can ramble on a bit more about this if anyone is interested.
FPS’s haven’t been worth crap ever since multiplayer came into vogue. Although ten hours… that’s not bad, considering I beat Return to Castle Wolfenstein in about six.
But damn!
We need a Half-Life 2. Or maybe I should wait for Deus Ex 2.
The op sumns up the gamespy review … altjhouhg everyone seems to be more instrested in ut2003 and notthe actual game anymore
heres the synopsis :
score : 76
Good
The Lowdown: It’s polished and pretty, but Unreal II is largely your standard sci-fi shooter.
Pros: Excellent graphics; exciting final missions; polished and bug-free.
Cons: Many missions feel uninspired; little replay value.
I watched a friend play it for several hours (Mechwarrior Mercs). Struck me as more of the same. It is better than mw4, I’ll give it that much.
I’m really getting annoying at these slew of pc games that only give you 10 hours or so of play. I really wish they shot for at least 30 to 40…would it be asking for much if they spent at least as much time on gameplay and story as they did on engine technology?
The thing that frustrates me is that the designers seem to have taken no notice of the FPS innovations created elsewhere. Games like “Deus Ex” and “System Shock 2” introduced the idea of customizing your charater’s attributes, adding significant replay value. “Thief (1&2)” and “No One Lives Forever (1&2)” put a premium on stealth and tactics. “Unreal 2” falls back on the same formula as the original, with generic characters and gameplay resembling “Quake 2.”
JohnT, kinda difficuilt to make a direct comparison. Same game engine, totally different style of play. “Unreal 2” does take full advantage of the graphic capabilities, the weapons are more diverse, obviously the gameplay is less frantic than “UT2003.” The enemies and “Boss” characters present different challenges than the standard humanoids of “UT.” AI in “UT” is better than that in “Unreal 2,” where enemies do little more than make a charge at you when you are in range.
Why bother? If you can make a game like the original Unreal and watch it sell a gajillion copies and people rave about it as if it were the second coming, why bother dealing with things like “creativity” or “originality” or “gameplay?”
All anybody ever cares about is the graphics, anyway. Look at just about any website. They’ll go on and on about how games are “shallow” and just aren’t as focused on gameplay as they used to be, etc., etc., and then when they get around to reviewing a game? The first thing they’ll always talk about is how it looks. “This game looks like it should’ve come out two years ago!!!”
The “problem” is that all the emphasis is on multi-player now. And the single player missions are much, much harder to create because the levels & artwork have to create elaborate, immersive worlds.
Multi-player games just need enough rocket launchers!
Compare Quakes 1 & 2 with 3. Sure, 3 is real pretty, but its just a collection of small, one-level deathmatch arenas. Its no where nearly as involved or as interesting as the Strogg world of Quake 2. Or even the mis-mashed, half future/half medieval world of Quake 1!
SolGrundy: In all fairness, when the first Unreal came out, the graphics alone were a good enough reason to buy it. It was one of the first games to really use 3D accelerator cards, and it was really amazing to load it up the first time. I even got my dad, who is still deeply suspicious of digital alarm clocks, to watch me play it for almost an hour, just because the graphics were so good.
As for reviewers focusing on graphics too much, I disagree. Graphics aren’t the most important thing, but a really great game needs to be great in all aspects, from graphics to gameplay. And since the graphics are the first thing you see in a game, it makes sense to address that first in a game review. If a game has bad graphics, then a review needs to mention that, because it’s a flaw in the game. Especially because it’s going to be a major influence on wether or not a lot of people are going to buy the game.
The original UT had spectacular graphics even using the software rendering. I had a PC with a graphics card that it didn’t support, and it was still jaw dropping. The sky!!!
