Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Unreal Tournament 3 Review

Last response: in Video Games
Share
November 27, 2007 1:46:24 PM

Review written by Ryan Lord.

Unreal Tournament 3 has a new look for the next generation version of the popular series. But does Epic provide the features and gameplay to go along with UT3's impressive graphics?

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2007/11/27/ut3_review/

November 27, 2007 2:49:27 PM

someone on the ut3 forums said something like "it's gotta be rescued by mods", luckily there are alot already in development (and alot already ported from the old UT's). Alot of maps too.

I haven't played it yet (waiting to early next year, but might get it next weekend), but have already read alot about how bad it is, the warfare maps being small, server browser (it sounds like it was the same as in the beta demo), the menus, no mature taunts (Eff yeah! WTF), even about Lauren now looks chubby and has a voice that makes any cow scream.. i'm not really sure if im looking forward to getting it. I do love all the UT games thus far (I like 2k3 and 2k4 equally).

It does seem like it was rushed, it doesn't sound like they took much feedback from the beta at all.

As I said, wait for the mods (or get the ones that are already out lol).
November 27, 2007 2:51:02 PM

you say spider mines are new?

nope, ut2k4 had them. Had a single player 'campaign' too, so that is also not new. Neither is the fact that it was lame and useless even back then. :-P

agree on the resource-eating console ports that are plaguing us all.

I am also a longtime fan. Had preordered every one except this one since playing the original Unreal. Was worried about UT3 though. Loved onslaught and other gametypes. Pissed they dropped them (or 'modded' them in the case of onslaught) Hated the UI after playing the demo.

console = death of 'true' pc gaming... but not b/c of lack of sales or anything the doom-sayers have been preaching. Rather, it is b/c of the dumbing down of 'real' pc games for the retard-console crowd.


grrr, epic was one of my last refuges that I had hoped would not succumb to this tide of lame-ness.

That patch had better be some hella-secret sauce that brings them back to glory.
Related resources
November 27, 2007 3:29:39 PM

Is it me or are the graphics nothing special? COD4 completely blows it out of the water. I think the graphics are sub-par compared to whats
out right now. Opinions?
November 27, 2007 3:52:16 PM

:pt1cable: 
UT3 is the game that fans of the original have been crying for.
The 2k series was a graphical feast of garbage play mechanics
that were a true and dismal abandonment of the Unreal series breakthrough gameplay.
Its true that UT3 could use some modern things found in some of the other FPS available today. My preference would be a communication rose or "commo rose", and the "Spot" ability, both found in Battlefield 2142.
All told UT3 plays much like UT99 in many respects. UT99 was by far the most played, best selling UT to date. And this is a game that was out 8 years ago when most of the internet was still dial up, and many towns were still a couple years away from getting any where near "High-speed" internet.
I'm sorry that Ryan Lord was among the few that liked the 2k series
and that most of the posts you will read are from unsatisfied people.
The truth is that satisfied customers don't post at all usually. I won't make that mistake again after UT was hijacked for 5 years by the 2k series. I LIKE IT EPIC! THANK YOU!

LOL @ sojner and his quote about EPIC being lame. No man. EPIC was lame in 2003 when they turned
UT into Jumping Flash for the PS one. They killed the announcer, 2 of the four team options, most of the good maps, and they ruined the original play mechanic.
It would be nice if Ryan Lord had studied a little before writing his article. Most of the development time for UT3 went into tweaking the controls this time around. No more UBER dodge Batman/Kobe Bryant moves that allow any noskill button masher to fly half across the map with 3 key presses.
The fact is that EPIC has taken their best shot at fixing a broken, nearly unplayed franchise; trying to return it to former glory. I can only hope the Quake team comes around and does the same thing.
November 27, 2007 4:07:44 PM

I prefered the 2k series because it was nuts, ut99 and quake 3 were awesome (we play quake 3 at work, but I would rather play ut99) but the 2k series brought some good stuff, I loved the different modes and the vehicles.. onslaught was pretty good although I rarely played it because all ppl played was torlan ugh hated that one. There was awesome mods too, red orchestra and a few others I tried but can't remember.

Check out the mods and stuff for ut3..
http://utforums.epicgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=341

PS where's Xan?
November 27, 2007 4:10:09 PM

Unbelievable! Yes there are some screw ups but please!!! Reviewer has a "twisted by hype" point of view.

UI does suck... so does SP mode(for all games)... most UT'ers don't care about the SP, and can deal with the UI and browser.

What was not mentioned is this game is downright fun... more balanced than previous versions... and the graphics are beautiful. This is Unreal... not Real. I have CoD4, Crysis, BF2142, TF2 orange box, ET;QW, and I choose UT3 to play. Because (and thankfully) what was mentioned is... this is the ONLY game that offers the twitch, highspeed adrenaline pumpin gameplay an FPS should.

November 27, 2007 4:44:18 PM

This is a great example of all that is wrong with game reviews today. You basically panned this game and still gave it an 8/10!
November 27, 2007 4:47:13 PM

umm... I like both '99 and 2k4. 'hijacked' though? I think 2k3 ruined alot of the weapons from '99 but 2k4 moved them back closer. Liked the domination better in '99 but onslaught was brilliant, like a condensed and streamlined BF with UT speeds. Each version had good and bad points, but the 'bad' were never really BAD.

I hate... HATE the consolized UI though in this one. I like the return of the '99-style music and sounds and the 'feel' is definitely more '99... wich is a good thing.

also hate the way the unreal engine is 'supporting' widescreen. BOOO! vert- is NOT the way to do it.

the patch is bringing FOV changes to help with that but c'mon, EPIC has always released a solid game out of the gate and not one that needs patched right away for things that should have been fixed at the start. (UI, FOV and server browser all getting fixed there)

@deranged: Graphics in all the UT games were great. They are all just solid and smooth-running. Never at the 'top' of the heap but nowhere near the bottom. The engine could always do more but speed and smooth play is more important than eye-candy in UT. (not that there is no candy, just it is not as important) I like the look of it honestly, new and old at the same time. :) 
November 27, 2007 5:01:22 PM

antifanboy said:
LOL @ sojner and his quote about EPIC being lame. No man. EPIC was lame in 2003 when they turned
UT into Jumping Flash for the PS one. They killed the announcer, 2 of the four team options, most of the good maps, and they ruined the original play mechanic.
It would be nice if Ryan Lord had studied a little before writing his article. Most of the development time for UT3 went into tweaking the controls this time around. No more UBER dodge Batman/Kobe Bryant moves that allow any noskill button masher to fly half across the map with 3 key presses.
The fact is that EPIC has taken their best shot at fixing a broken, nearly unplayed franchise; trying to return it to former glory. I can only hope the Quake team comes around and does the same thing.


just noticed this addition... missed it first time around.

I am not saying that Epic is lame... did you notice my comment that they were a favorite of mine? That I have preordered all the UT games before this?

I agree on your take on ut2k3... more bad than good... They tried it and it bombed (tried to make it more 'quake-like'), then they made 2k4 and it was great. It had alot of the stuff promised for 2k3 (like vehicles) and added some brilliant gametypes while bringing back some of the older ones from '99.

It also shipped with all the mods necessary to make it play just like '99. Your complaint about the 'uber dodge' stuff is invalid b/c you could set that w/ or w/o it. simple as that. I still play 2k4 today.

'unplayable'? If you look at the numbers in sales and players as well as all the support and additional content that epic put to 2k4... new maps, vehicles, mods etc... it is the clear winner of any argument over 'glory' and 'playability'.

honestly, you are the one that sounds unsatisfied. I am merely pointing out that epic has stumbled where they have usually triumphed. Perhaps the patch will give us the PC-centric game that we have always expected from them.
November 27, 2007 5:34:28 PM

What this game is missing is the same as what was missing from the 2k series. The visceral fast insanity of the original. It seems simple enough to return the movement speed and jumping height of the original, but they won't do it for some reason. Do they have the modifiers? I don't remember seeing those in the 2k series, but I admittedly didn't play it all that much. The low gravity modifier was hella fun.

BTW, all of the UT games have had single player "campaigns" in which you played all the multiplayer maps in succession to win some tournament (thus the the game name).

Oh, and how does a game that you basically hated get an 8 out of 10? Reading the review, I was expecting a 6, max.
November 27, 2007 7:19:07 PM

As a long time UT player myself, I was really looking forward to this one. I've been there since the Unreal multiplayer matches back in the day. Each brings something fun and different to the franchise. My favorite being 2k4, but I love UT99 as well. I think this reviewer hit the real problem with this game dead on the head, the network browser. It's absolutely terrible. Admin'ing a server is a nightmare particularly without any webadmin and redirect support. Sure the beta patch adds the ability to spectate but it's still got some serious issues when it comes to actually listing servers. He's also dead on that this is a game that people look forward to play online. If they're going to gut that ability right out of the gate, why play the game? Especially with the release of the fantastic COD4 and TF2 to satisfy multiplayer FPS fragging? It's just really disappointing that Epic obviously was focusing on the console versions of the game over the PC one. Well let's hope that those on their Xbox Live network get a better browser than us PC folks.
November 27, 2007 8:04:58 PM

Until they bring back ol-school low-grav, instagib CTF, I'm not interested... ;) 

Seriously though, I fell off the Unreal bandwagon after my addiction to UT fizzled, but I bought a copy of UT3. Any true FPS fan needs to give this game a shot... like PCanalyst said, it's downright fun and exactly what an FPS should be.
November 27, 2007 8:26:24 PM

I'm with the dude up higher. What the hell? The reviewer bashes it to ****, then gives it an 8.0. I actually chuckled at that. I have UT3, still needs to be installed though,.... I've been busy.
November 27, 2007 9:21:29 PM

Could someone PLEASE explain to me what is so terrible about the UI?!? I just dont see it. I hold no opinions for any UI. I use them as a way to select my options then get into a game...thats it. The only time I have a problem is when they DONT WORK. As in the case with BF2 when it first came out. I fail to see any real problem that is worth truly being disgusted with the game over. Oh and I love the game...all aspects...all the way around.

For the person who said CoD 4 blows this out of the water graphically. It sure does, but they aren't the same type of engine. CoD 4 focus' on Photorealism...where as you can plainly see that UT3 is not...I like UT3's better, but that is just the way I like my games...I LOVE big weapon models. lol...just my 2 cents.

Best,

3Ball
November 27, 2007 9:39:46 PM

I played the demo and was rather surprised... after expecting some sort of reaction out of myself, I felt nothing. No part of the game really jumped out at me as good or bad, and I'm so used to good graphics that the game doesn't jump out at me in that respect. I was hoping for something special or new.
November 28, 2007 12:19:13 AM

Looks nice (though the desaturation of colours is really poor) and the important thing is it plays well. Kinda like COD4, you can pump the graphics and it still goes nuts. Cryris requires you to either run expensive hardware or run low graphics to get a good framerate for the multiplayer.

EDIT: Also, are you saying the ingame UI is bland? Because that's a good thing. I don't want my attention to be on the UI all the time, I want it to be on your left eyeball ;) 
November 28, 2007 1:55:02 AM

I was very disappointed with UT3; it reminded of everything great from UT2004 that was ruined by Epic in this installation.
November 28, 2007 2:35:41 AM

Hey guys - first, I want to thank you all for your feedback of my review, whether it was positive or negative. Per the submission rules here, I have to keep my reviews somewhat limited in word count (around 2,200), so I did the best I could to cover all of my concerns, and beliefs as to why Unreal Tournament 3 turned out the way it did.

Regarding my score of 8.0, I thought about it for some time, but came to the conclusion that I couldn't have given it less than an 8 when focusing primarily on the multiplayer. The truth is, an 8.0 is an above average to good game, and that's where UT3 falls as it is right now.

Those of you who have played UT3 will probably agree that Epic was perfectly capable of creating a higher quality product, and subsequently earn a better score from most reviewers. I believe that had Epic dropped the single player efforts on the PC completely, that gamers would have still purchased UT3 at near full price, and we would have had more game types to play or more features. Instead, I feel that the single player campaign, along with the high quality and expensive cinematics, were developed with the intention of adding value to the console platforms.

Usually single player efforts in a mostly pure multiplayer game are done at the demand or expectations of the publisher, with the goal of justifying the value of the title to those who approve games at Sony and Microsoft, along with retail chain executives and marketing gurus in charge of bulk buying. I have a background as a Producer in game dev, so I understand the hurdles that developers often need to take when pushing a game on a console, it's much much different than a purely PC release. Developers are sometimes forced into promising things like X amount of single player missions, and a full fledged campaign where you conquer the world. So what happens in those cases? Typically developers sacrifice and make cuts elsewhere, to deliver on the contract, even if poorly. This is just speculation in this case though, I do not work for Epic or Midway.

With that said, I was somewhat torn between a 7.5 and an 8 for a couple days. If you play UT3 enough online, you'd probably agree that an 8 is fair, as it's not a bad game. The series isn't dead, it just seems that Epic stripped away some things while only adding very little to take the place of the missing. While I may have seemed to complain about UT3 a lot, I also did mention there were things that I did enjoy as well. I just expected more of an evolution.

Regarding the original UT, it was definitely one of the greats of its time, and I spent many hours playing it each and every week for a good year, but my favorite of the series did become UT2004, which I thought was excellent.

In terms of quality games lately that other developers should try to learn from, I think Infinity Ward did an excellent job showcasing how to make a very solid single player and multiplayer experience with Call of Duty 4. They were able to accomplish a multi-platform release to boot, and still keep things very enjoyable. I understand that they're different games with different engines, and even styles, but I think that for UT3, and the time spent working on it, the sky should have been the limit.
November 28, 2007 2:55:19 AM

Nice that you got back to us :) 

Though could you clarify what you meant about the UI? Were you talking about the ingame UI too?
November 28, 2007 2:57:00 AM

randomizer said:
Nice that you got back to us :) 

Though could you clarify what you meant about the UI? Were you talking about the ingame UI?


Sure can. Mainly I was referring to the menu tree UI more than anything else, as it is pretty obnoxious. The in-game UI could have been a little better too, but you're usually too busy fragging people to notice the flaws. :) 
November 28, 2007 3:01:48 AM

That's what I was hoping you meant, because a fancy ingame UI draws too much attention to itself. But yea, the menus couldn't really be much worse without actually being console menus.
November 28, 2007 5:21:35 AM

fair enough, and I agree... with 2k4 (I really see 2k3 as the red-headed step-child, and so does Epic as they ignored it by calling the new one #3...) they removed alot of stuff from 99 but added so much to make up for it. This one is almost like they were gonna add much more and then passed... ironically much like 2k3 was on release and then they gave us 2k4 which delivered on all the hype that came before 2k3...

of course, then the 'console' version was Unreal Championship and its sequel. Honestly not a bad console shooter at all and really what they should have done here as well.

but I digress...

rock on.
November 28, 2007 6:04:08 AM

sojrner said:
fair enough, and I agree... with 2k4 (I really see 2k3 as the red-headed step-child, and so does Epic as they ignored it by calling the new one #3...) they removed alot of stuff from 99 but added so much to make up for it. This one is almost like they were gonna add much more and then passed... ironically much like 2k3 was on release and then they gave us 2k4 which delivered on all the hype that came before 2k3...

of course, then the 'console' version was Unreal Championship and its sequel. Honestly not a bad console shooter at all and really what they should have done here as well.

but I digress...

rock on.


very good point!

Best,

3Ball
November 28, 2007 8:52:47 AM

One thing that has't been mentioned in the review, but that has set the UT series apart from most other FPS's, is the bot AI. It probably wasn't mentioned because it is so ubiquous in the UT franchise that we don't even notice it is there. You'll notice the AI when it is missing though.

Crysis, CoD4, are both great games, but they have no multiplayer bot support. I haven't played TF2, but from what I've read it looks like it is lacking bots as well. Yes obviously most FPS games have bot support for the single player missions. Any idiot can script a seemingly intelligent AI in an objective based single player mission. The challenge is creating one that can deal with a free form game types, and still manage to challenge the player.

Online gaming is not an option for everyone in the world, so being able to set up maps with dozens of bots all over the place makes an awesome frag fest. Plus if you decide to LAN with a couple of friends, bots fill in the gaps to make the game more enjoyable. For instance playing onslaught with two players is not really that enjoyable, but with 16, that becomes interesting.

The other thing that sets the UT franchise apart from other games is its mod community. Epic started nurturing its mod community a long time ago and has some loyal followers and modders. There has been some seriously awesome content created by the mod community.
It became apparent a while ago that the UT games ('99, 2k3, and 2k4) were slightly more than game engines with a bit of content. Don't get me wrong that "bit of content", has been really good, and I'm a fan of all the UT games in their original forms, but it seems Epic's emphasis is on getting something that modders can work with, rather than trying to pile a game full of content.

Most of the complaints listed by other posts are content based and can be easily changed by either mutators, or a little bit of scripting. Ultimately it is the mods that make UT the game it is, and only when the modders start complaining then I'll get worried.. When you read the review, notice that there weren't issues with the basic game itself. Most issues were about content, although having said that, the issues about the UI, esp the server browser are a bit worrying. Hopefully Epic will fix those.

Again Epic probably ditched Assault, because there didn't seem to be a lot of support for it from the modding community. I personally struggled to find a lot of decent maps for UT and UT2k4. There was more support for Onslaught than for Assault. So I can understand the shift in emphasis from Epic.

Lastly regarding the single player campaign. It is Unreal TOURNAMENT. The PGA doesn't have much of a storyline either. UT3 is not an adventure game, nor is it a RPG. It is a tournament FPS, and I think Epic has remained faithful to that in it's latest incarnation.

Carl.
November 28, 2007 11:07:25 AM

I have to agree with those here who point out that this is finally the true successor to the original Unreal Tournament which is exactly what we were after. Unreal Tounament 2003 was the biggest disappointment of my gaming life. Never have I been so let down. Unreal Tournament had that slight gritty realism that made it stand apart from the quake 3 engine which seemed to be everywhere at the time which we loved.

2003 then came alone and gone was the gritty tight scale feel to the game and in came cartoon nonsense. 2004 was no better.

UT3 feels like a modern remake of a classic which is just what the doctor ordered. now if only we can get EA to remake the original BF42 with a new engine and team dynamics we will all be happy.
November 28, 2007 1:09:54 PM

Carl the Giant Bunny said:
One thing that has't been mentioned in the review, but that has set the UT series apart from most other FPS's, is the bot AI. It probably wasn't mentioned because it is so ubiquous in the UT franchise that we don't even notice it is there. You'll notice the AI when it is missing though.

...

Again Epic probably ditched Assault, because there didn't seem to be a lot of support for it from the modding community. I personally struggled to find a lot of decent maps for UT and UT2k4. There was more support for Onslaught than for Assault. So I can understand the shift in emphasis from Epic.

...

Carl.


Yes, UT's bot AI has always been the metric that all other FPS games are measured by... good point. (and even those that think UT2k4 sucked would have to agree that the AI there was the best of any UT game)

As for assault... everyone tries to do it but honestly, a game like assault takes a good TEAM and not just a good PLAYER to win when attacking. That is hard to find online. That is why assault was never the most popular gametype in 99 or 2k4. QuakeWars should be finding that out soon... (it is just a copy of assault mixed with a little bit of onslaught/BF thrown in) They dropped it in 2k3 and now again in UT3. (yet another similarity between the two ;)  )
November 28, 2007 1:53:17 PM

u know what i find amusing (speaking as someone who never played any of the UT games a lot) but from what i gather '99 was great, then 2003 sucked, then 2004 ruled, then ut3..... sucked, so, get your hopes up people! (not that I care much, im not likely to buy the next one either, im not a twitch gamer, more BF for me...)
November 28, 2007 9:55:50 PM

magicker said:
now if only we can get EA to remake the original BF42 with a new engine and team dynamics we will all be happy.

I'll vote for that, BF1942 was da bomb. Bots were brain dead though :lol: 
November 28, 2007 11:35:40 PM

spuddyt said:
u know what i find amusing (speaking as someone who never played any of the UT games a lot) but from what i gather '99 was great, then 2003 sucked, then 2004 ruled, then ut3..... sucked, so, get your hopes up people! (not that I care much, im not likely to buy the next one either, im not a twitch gamer, more BF for me...)



Oh no no...ut3 doesnt suck, not al all!
I've played ut1 since 2000, but ut2k4 was not enough to get me out of it (although, it was not bad at all too), and now seven years later ut3 has been released, and i finally left ut1, and why? Because ut3 gave me the nostalgy of ut1...
This new ut brings the movement, the true feeling from ut1, and thats what i, a long time ut player require from this game.
So the game is great, it just needs some fixing on the UI yeah, but apart the bash and trash i see in this review which i find unfair, i think this is an awesome replacement for the previous uts.

UT3 is already bringing some ut legends back to stage like lauke(hopefully), shaggy, stevo, mTw|crush etc..
Hypno is brutally kicking ass too.
Maybe even gitz comes back.
November 29, 2007 6:44:45 PM

I know for myself I played UT99 for years....really until about 2005 or 2006 and it had the hard to define fun factor in the multiplayer world. 2K3 seemed to be rushed out the door and missed the mark on many levels. It looked pretty but the gameplay wasn't fun and the maps were HUGE. 2K4 did a pretty decent job of coming back. ONS was fun and the game looked great, but for the "hardcore" player, the play mechanics of the original were missing. The maps were often too big and it was hard to really "see" what was going on. UT 3 seems to have returned to the play style of UT99 and for myself and many UT buddies, that is what makes this incarnation of the game worth playing. They may never recapture the UT99 formula, but it is good to see the double dodge gone, smaller maps, and a the ability to "see" what is going on. The action is fast paced and the hitscan and non-hitscan weapons have a good feel. I say hurray for the return to UT99 gamestyle. I'd agree the singleplayer gets dull fast and the UI could have used a major overhaul. I also would love to see all the gametypes available. I miss domination...and even a gamestyle from UT2k3 (a game that wasn't great) ... which was like soccer! Overall a thumbs up from an original UT fan.
November 29, 2007 7:09:45 PM

the gametype you mentioned was bombing run. Loved it but evenly matched teams could have a single game last for HOURS... which turned some ppl from it.

I am a UT99 fan and while I like all the mechanics I really LOVED the larger size of 2k4. Multiplayer fps games are getting bigger. Vehicles need space. BF proved that. The rest of the mechanics (like I mentioned before) could be enabled/disabled by included mods. (many added with the editors choice pack) That large scale though (obviously) could not but then, you could play 1v1 or small 4v maps that kept it tight and close... many still do that.
November 29, 2007 7:26:24 PM

I was a pretty big fan of the original UT online MP play. I didn't play a ton, as when I was into it, I didn't have my own PC. I would play when I could on my step dad's PC, as his was the only one that could actually make it run good. This what when it first came out.

Then when I got a little older and had my own PCs, I got into UT2k3. I thought that was awesome. I played so much of that. Great controls and the graphics were nice, but not too nice that it would affect performance at all.

Never ended up getting 2K4, though I always think about grabbing a copy of it.

All this talk, I think I am gonna break out 2K3 and see how that one is holding up...
November 29, 2007 10:18:01 PM

basketcase said:
All this talk, I think I am gonna break out 2K3 and see how that one is holding up...


Pretty dead, thats how it is holding.
No one plays it, its totally useless.
I couldnt look at it in any other way that a shameless and unfinished atempt of a ut1 sucessor..

And small maps are pretty much necessary for a fast paced deathmatch, whether it is a 1on1 or a 4on4 tdm game.
Also gameplay is undoubtly important, which ut1 and quake3 were Pros at it in its time.
UT2k3 had boring and gameplayless maps, which made it quite bad for the competitive community.
November 30, 2007 7:59:46 PM

I don't understand everyone who is defending this release of UT. To put it simply, UT3 stinks!

Yes, The graphics are nice, but they are nothing to write home about. But that's where the improvements.

The game play is sorry. I read all of the posts comparing this game to UT2k3, but that is NOT what this game should be compared to. UT99, and the 2k series were special in what they brought to the gaming table.

New graphics, new engines, new combat.

UT3 is none of that. It is not even a logical progression of that.

The thing I find interesting in reading through the posts is that not one of you alleged UT fans has mentioned the obvious parallel to UT3.

It was a game that used the UT engine, and was the first game where we got to experience the Skaarj. It also had a pretty sorry story line, and a stupid ending that left you hanging. And did Epic ever do anything else with it? NOPE! It simply faded into Unreal non-existance...

That game was Unreal II, The awakening.

That is the game from epic that is most like UT3. The rating of 8 for this game is high. I have invested thousands of hours in all of the versions of Unreal. I think it should be rated more like 6 - 6.5, and at that you may have to deduct a point for the cheesiness factor.

UT3 is Midway's latest console release. Midway has never cared about computer gaming because they have always believed that consoles would rule the gaming industry. It's end-looser syndrome. And the people who built the franchise by buying the games, and playing them, and running the servers, and writing the mods, and offering suggestions, and finding the bugs, just got crapped on by the same company that took all your quarters from you in the 80's to play their "console" games in the arcade at the strip mall.

This is the Idiots version of Unreal. I feel like I got ripped for $60.

Hey, Epic and Midway, can I have my money back to buy a real game?




November 30, 2007 8:34:53 PM

uhh... epic did not make unreal2, Legend did (atari shut them down soon after) and for a single player game OF THE TIME, it was decent... better than many, not as good as some.

no where near the first one, but just ok.

UT and Unreal have always been different games, no comparison needed beyond the engine usage and similar art style. Any Unreal fan knows this.

Looking back at UT2k4's numbers... they did not do that well either. sitting around that 80% mark. This one is about where the others (after '99) have been.

quit whining.
December 1, 2007 11:52:02 AM

DumpTruck1 said:
I don't understand everyone who is defending this release of UT. To put it simply, UT3 stinks!

Yes, The graphics are nice, but they are nothing to write home about. But that's where the improvements.

The game play is sorry. I read all of the posts comparing this game to UT2k3, but that is NOT what this game should be compared to. UT99, and the 2k series were special in what they brought to the gaming table.

New graphics, new engines, new combat.

UT3 is none of that. It is not even a logical progression of that.

The thing I find interesting in reading through the posts is that not one of you alleged UT fans has mentioned the obvious parallel to UT3.

It was a game that used the UT engine, and was the first game where we got to experience the Skaarj. It also had a pretty sorry story line, and a stupid ending that left you hanging. And did Epic ever do anything else with it? NOPE! It simply faded into Unreal non-existance...

That game was Unreal II, The awakening.

That is the game from epic that is most like UT3. The rating of 8 for this game is high. I have invested thousands of hours in all of the versions of Unreal. I think it should be rated more like 6 - 6.5, and at that you may have to deduct a point for the cheesiness factor.

UT3 is Midway's latest console release. Midway has never cared about computer gaming because they have always believed that consoles would rule the gaming industry. It's end-looser syndrome. And the people who built the franchise by buying the games, and playing them, and running the servers, and writing the mods, and offering suggestions, and finding the bugs, just got crapped on by the same company that took all your quarters from you in the 80's to play their "console" games in the arcade at the strip mall.

This is the Idiots version of Unreal. I feel like I got ripped for $60.

Hey, Epic and Midway, can I have my money back to buy a real game?


The only similarity between Unreal Tournament 3 and Unreal 2, The Awakening is that Unreal is in the title. You simply cannot compare these 2 as they are 2 different. UT's focus is on the multiplayer arena style play, which U2's is not. I dislike nothing about UT3 and have probably put in just as much time playing all of the games in the series...even the console ones, which were terrible! Even if they would have charged $100 for this game I wouldn't have felt I was ripped off.

Best,

3Ball
December 1, 2007 7:37:08 PM

Did any of you guys play Unreal 2 : eXtended MultiPlayer (U2:XMP)? Now that was a fun online game type! Unfortunately the UT conversion didn't seem to capture the magic as much as the vanilla U2 version.
December 1, 2007 8:30:15 PM

agreed, XMP was fun... just no-one was out there and after Legend was killed there was no support...

December 2, 2007 12:45:49 PM

Indeed, you can not compare both games, you're comparing a sp game with a true game of hardcore competition.
UT real addicteds dont really want all those fancy graphics on screen (actually, when in real competitions, graphics are turned to their lowest leves possible, same thing for quake3 tho) nor story lines.
Unreal 2 would have been a good game, it it wasnt actually called "Unreal" 2, it should have been called Intergalatic War or something like that, because it had really nothing (but the skaarjs) to do with the original unreal!
Unreal 1 was really awsome for its time, i was expecting a great sequel in unreal2, and LEGEND (not epic) failed me in that perspective, although XMP was actually quite fun to play online in my opinion.
UT3 doesnt fail at all the players (or most of them) who play ut for competitive ends and not for the play_a_game_for_the_sake_of_playing_it_and_it_was_fun_and_lets_head_to the_next_game_now etc..
December 5, 2007 11:29:39 PM

Yea for sure this game appeals to the hard core competitors many who probably still play UT99 from time to time. I recall too turning down all the graphics settings etc. to get the best FPS, view of the enemy, etc.

Someone looking for the Call Of Duty or Half Life 2 single player experience won't enjoy UT3, those wanting to furiously chase around you friends in multiplayer will have a hoot.
December 6, 2007 12:29:18 PM

sojrner said:
you say spider mines are new?

nope, ut2k4 had them. Had a single player 'campaign' too, so that is also not new. Neither is the fact that it was lame and useless even back then. :-P

agree on the resource-eating console ports that are plaguing us all.

I am also a longtime fan. Had preordered every one except this one since playing the original Unreal. Was worried about UT3 though. Loved onslaught and other gametypes. Pissed they dropped them (or 'modded' them in the case of onslaught) Hated the UI after playing the demo.

console = death of 'true' pc gaming... but not b/c of lack of sales or anything the doom-sayers have been preaching. Rather, it is b/c of the dumbing down of 'real' pc games for the retard-console crowd.


grrr, epic was one of my last refuges that I had hoped would not succumb to this tide of lame-ness.

That patch had better be some hella-secret sauce that brings them back to glory.


Myself being a "true gamer" of many years... I have just bought an XBOX 360 a few months back, and I must say that your comment is completely false. Watching Gears of War or COD4 on a 42" Sharp Aquous in 1080P with home-theatre-based Optical surround sound rivals PC gaming at it's finest. The main reason I bought a console is because I can't and won't afford $1000 a week to keep my hardware up to date in my PC to play games like Crysis at good framerates, BUT the console costs me a fraction of what a nice video card costs now-a-days, and lasts for at least three years or more. So don't call us retards, because when your "down-and-out" you may pick up a console one day as well. Kthx.
December 6, 2007 2:08:55 PM

not calling you a retard per-se... rather that the majority of the console games are made on a more 'simple' level. Whether it is b/c that is truly what the console market WANTS, or it is what the game industry THINKS they want... it is still simplified. Complex gameplay is a hallmark of the PC (think Morrowind, the Original Ghost Recon/Rainbow Six and DeusEx) and every game (with very few exceptions) that has been moved to the console over time is eviscerated of that complexity in one form or another.

Those games I mentioned... each one represents a pinnacle of brilliant gameplay in different styles. Each one sold very well, and each one was ported (nearly) unchanged to the console to very good sales success... what happened next? Each one was followed by a console-centric sequel that removed all the very things that made them great. From interface to plot to forced contrivances in everything... completely ruined the franchise.

Now some games are making moves that take them back closer to what a PC game is (cod4 being a wonderful example), but there are still too many stupid 'hand-holding' elements that remove some of the mystery and actual suspense/difficulty that makes PC gaming so great.

I have played many console games. I own an xbox mainly b/c most fighting and sports games are console only (and some racers) and I enjoy it at times. platform/adventure (tomb raider, hitman etc.) games are also better (IMO) there.

But to say that your console lasts three years? My previous comp gamed for me for 4. My current one is 2 and will probably last for 3. The same thing plagues both consoles and PCs... the older it gets, the further down the performance curve it gets. You think just because ppl still use a ps2 means that it looks good? no! That console has not looked good for the last 4 years! They just code to its limitations and sell you that circa 1999 quality game at full price. A console is trapped in time at the point of release. 'nuff said on that...

Whether or not you have 'home-theatre-based Optical surround sound' (...I'll leave that alone) is irrelevant. I too have a digital surround system. Your 1080p is still well below what a pc can run as well. I agree that a 42" @ 1080p looks good, but that resolution is still not as fine as what a PC can run. Even the fine example of CoD4 shows up so much nicer on a PC at higher res... plus I can game with more ppl online... for free.

Leaving your ludicrous '$1000 per week' comment alone... Most ppl neglect to mention all the other costs for that "cheaper" console. You have your 'optical surround sound' system ;) , your not-cheap-at-all 42" TV and that lovely $50 per year fee for online gaming all on top of the console cost and the more expensive games. THAT adds up... even for one year I come up with a number that is MUCH more expensive than my PC... and you get the dumbed down games for your effort...

...yup, you are the smarter one for sure...

'Kthx'
December 6, 2007 8:02:04 PM

Jimtanis said:
Someone looking for the Call Of Duty or Half Life 2 single player experience won't enjoy UT3, those wanting to furiously chase around you friends in multiplayer will have a hoot.


Someone looking for a Call Of Duty or Half Life 2 single player experience alike in UT3 doesnt really knows what UT3 is at all.
About the bold part of your sentece, yes UT3 is all about that.


December 7, 2007 12:44:59 AM

Hah, you think your so smart. Sorry to say, but PC gaming has become a joke. To be honest, you are right about the quality on PC games, and the "better graphics", but I guarantee you didn't play all of the latest games at perfect framerates for four years on a PC, impossible. You had to have upgraded at least a video card in the machine. If you are saying that ANY machine from four years ago can play Crysis (at perfect frames), you are sadly mistaken. You seem like a very smart person, but I'd rather play my games from a lazy-boy in my living room, watching my beautiful TV (which I purchased for other reasons than just my XBOX 360 btw). With regards to the "optical surround sound" comment; if you are hooking up a full-blown amp/receiver through optical to your PC to achieve 5.1 surround sound; you are wasting your time.

The $1000 comment is obviously an overstatement... What I am saying is that the console is consistant for four years, theres no degradation in performance whatsoever, and when a new console comes out; you buy it. A PC however, you buy it as state-of-the-art, then a month after; a new video card comes out that plays games much better, then one year down the road a game like Crysis comes out, and you have to buy a better video card or more RAM or a better processor to play it "smooth like butter".

All in all; consoles provide a nice way to sit in your lazy-boy with a beer, have an always "smooth like butter" experience, stare at your beautiful TV (regardless what you say about Video cards having "nicer" video... not worth it buddy, hook that card up to a 42" monitor, then see how pixelized it is...), and play your games on your home-theatre surround sound that you probably already have.
If I had the money to go back into PC gaming, I absolutely would NOT, not because it doesn't look better "because it does, just on a smaller screen", it would be because Consoles offer a better OVERALL experience.
!