GameSpy reviews UT3: 'it's not the instant classic its predecessor was'

GameSpy writes:

"If nothing else, Unreal Tournament III is a game faithful to its franchise. The combat is as tight as any FPS fragfest out today, the graphics are bleeding-edge, and it's loaded with a ton of gameplay modes that can be played online or off against some of the toughest AI bots around. UT3's got a lot of game, and most of it's pretty kickass. And yet, over the course of a few days of playing UT3, one question kept nagging us: why did this game take three-and-a-half years to make? After the stellar Unreal Tournament 2004 -- one of the best multiplayer games of the decade -- UT3 feels strangely skimpy and unpolished in comparison, from its oddball attempt at a single-player campaign to the lack of anything particularly innovative in multiplayer. It's still one of the best games in town, but after such a long wait, it's a little disappointing to find it's in many ways a step back from a game we've been playing for years."

Score: 4/5

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
FirstknighT3891d ago

Unreal 2004 was one of the most fun and most competitive fps I have ever played. But UT3 looks to be the same but just prettier. That's fine with me but sony boys used to bash on Halo 3 for being "Halo 2.5" but isn't UT3 also a prettier Unreal 2004? Sony boys always contradicting themselves.

Does anybody know if the ps3 version will have "instagib" as the PC version?

clownfacemcgee3890d ago (Edited 3890d ago )

This is PC. You're the first one to even mention the PS3 in this thread. I haven't played UT 2004, but I loved the UT3 demo even on my craptastic PC. It looks like crap because my PC is terrible, but the gameplay was fantastic. Just looks like another great game to me. The gameplay is great. Why mess with perfection? The graphics can get a little tune-up since 2004.

rushbd3890d ago

the graphical improvement was not what everyone expected. As I'm a fps fan , i didnt pass up Halo and Halo 2. But compared to them Halo 3 is not a very good advancement . I expected Halo 3 to have the graphical wow factor that Halo on xbox had. But sadly it didnt. It looks very good, the textures are highres and lighting was awesome. but the ever similar artistic direction didnt let this one feel newer .

on the other hand , UT3 looks far more beautiful than the previous one. And previewers are saying that it looks very similar to the PC version running in a high-end computer. Also it has been said that it already looks better than GeOW on 360. That is a huge achievement if u ask me. because GeOW didnt have maps that were miles long and almost 100% visibility. And last of all UT3 gameplay is perfect. I see so reason to change it (also Halo ). But still there are some elements present that makes it a better game. e.g. overboard ( might not sound much, but it is when you are playing) These reasons make UT3 a very good new game , not some UT2004.5

also UT is one of the best (if not the best) multiplayer games around . There are nothing like this on consoles. there have been UT ports in PS2 but none of those were as great as this one.

EZCheez3890d ago

Floxnard said it all right there.

If you have the perfect mix of everything and you do everything right the first time, why not copy yourself? You can't tell me Capcom is going to change resident Evil 5 much because "it's already been done." This goes for a lot of great games including Halo. The only thing games like this suffer from are that feeling that you're playing the same thing. You never change the original mix, but you HAVE to find a way to keep it fresh. That's the biggest rule for all of the great franchises.

Keeping the original recipe shouldn't be a negative, but a lack of newer options should be.

scrillakiller3890d ago

i dnt cre about reviews im gettin this game

ruibing3890d ago

Same here, I'm just concerned over the specs needed to enjoy it.

PMR_213890d ago

im still picking up my ps3 copy of UT3 when it comes out next month

Wozzer3890d ago

Looks like a nice game

killer_trap3890d ago

i'm not a fps expert. in fact the only one i played and finished was RFOM
on ps3 and i had no problems with it. some people told me it's because RFOM wasn't as fast as other fps.

my question is, on a scale of 1 to 10 how fast is unreal? your feedback will determine if i buy the game or not

cr33ping_death3890d ago

motion sickness pills my friend, they are your friends :)

killer_trap3890d ago

i don't know, i'm not willing to take pills just to play a freaking game!!!!!

OOG FunK3890d ago (Edited 3890d ago )

if you play pc its as fast as can be with certain jump techniques and people who have insane skills in the game......Ill say the consoles will be lucky to keep up half the speed on the pc players on UT jus because of strafe jumping etc.

So on pc your talking the fastest fps game prob on the market....on consoles...not so fast....esp when people start taking advantage of the movement abilities on pc...

SilverKiller3890d ago

well the speed of a game depends a lot on the difficult that you are playing (or the online experience)if RFOM is a 7 or 8 in speed Unreal is like 9-10 but with time you usually get used to the speed ;) i'm going to buy UT3 anyway

EZCheez3890d ago

I can't remember where I read it from, but i'm almost positive that the PS3 version is "20%" slower than the PC version. I will try to find the link, but I can't promise you anything because I'm drinking.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3890d ago
Show all comments (19)
The story is too old to be commented.