Top
670°
9.0

IGN reviews Unreal Tournament 3

Epic's Unreal Tournament 3, actually the fourth version of the series on PC, represents a blend of progressive and old-school elements. It's a nod to fans of the original UT, released in 1999, with the return of weapons like the impact hammer and enforcer, which replace bits of the arsenal from UT 2004 like the shield gun, lightning gun, and assault rifle. Moving beyond the ballistic loadout, IGN sees Epic pushing forward their most distinct draw, the warfare mode, an augmented version of UT 2004's onslaught. While so much of this game will feel familiar to series veterans, particularly in the deathmatch and team deathmatch modes, it's with the vehicular, large-scale combat that UT 3 makes its largest strides forward, though it still doesn't move that far ahead. Mostly, it's about delivering to fans what made the series so good to begin with: insane, ultraviolent combat, gorgeous graphics, and the most nerve-searing, vein-throttling action around.

The story is too old to be commented.
MK_Red3350d ago

Great review and score but I don't get 9.5 for graphics and 9 for lasting appeal. This is the best looking game with UE3 and is beyond stunning with graphics at max while still being beautiful even on weaker systems. And lasting appeal, 9!!?? If there is a game with more lasting appeal as an online shooter, I'd like to see it. This is UT, THE multiplayer game to play.

sticky doja3350d ago

because Crysis got a perfect 10, and even though this game is beautifull it is not as good looking as Crysis.

INehalemEXI3350d ago

Agree @ MK_Red UT3 is excellent.

Whoooop3350d ago (Edited 3350d ago )

You know what I think is the problem with reviews at least this gen???

They are just reviewing the game by how they feel after playing and having fun for a while...

They are rarely concentrating in the amount of time they should spend in every specific area of the game.. They are not pointing out the real pros or the real cons, because they are just trying to enjoy the game instead of slowly reviewing it like it should be.

Most of this reviewers are professional game critics, but they are gamers too and this gen games have been victims of their personal liking instead of their professionalism..

For example: They play a game which they personally like very much (HALO3) and give it a great review, then they review another great game, but this time around he's not liking it much and he's still thinking in how much fun he had with HALO...

So my point is... Reviewers are just reviewing the games based on how much they liked it or how much fun they had playing it. I know that a game being fun is a factor on its review, but it should not decide what score it gets at all.

Of course this is just what I think

spikormikor133350d ago

Wait... So they shouldn't rate a game based on how much they liked it? How does that make any sense?

"I know that a game being fun is a factor on its review, but it should not decide what score it gets at all."

Are you joking?

actionjackson3350d ago (Edited 3350d ago )

I think the point Whoooop is trying to make is that the reviews are way too subjective. There seems to be no objective criteria left in these reviews. Frankly, if an action/adventure game, or a FPS was reviewed by solely a sports gamers, then of course the review is not going to highlight the aspects of the game which make thee genres great. Instead, people will be left with reading a review that is very skewed and somewhat biased. Technically, the reviews should have at least some objective criteria that are established prior to review. This then translates into a review that is less biased towards whether the reviewer actually liked the game or not. As pointed above, if a Halo gamer reviews Halo 3, then the game is likely going to get a higher score. If a MGS gamer reviews MGS, then it's going to get a higher score. But these scores aren't really telling for what the game's potential truly is. That's what reviews have come down to.

MK_Red3350d ago

Good points Whoooop :)
Great explaining actionjackson :)

I agree with you both. The reviews are now only based on reviewers joy but sometimes a person may not like a great game. I know people who hated GTA:SA and giving them GTA to review would result in a 6/10 to 7/10.

The thing is that as you said, the reviews are now too personal instead of being professional. Sure, the reviewer's fun and personal experience should play a part but not like now that it's BIGGEST part.

Kururo3350d ago

ut3 multiplayer will be the best.

Show all comments (15)
The story is too old to be commented.