Viewing Thread:
"Unreal 2 only gets 7.3 on Gamespot"

Yep you read it right, 10 out of 10 for graphics but only 7.3 overall (even the site readers only give it an average of 7.0).
I'll still be getting it on Friday, will give my honest opinion over the weekend. Shame there won't ever be a demo released.

I agree, it isn't anything special, and there where certain things which dissapointed me, but on the whole a fun game, just nothing new or original.

Well ok, i was a bit harsh on it, i just PERSONALLY dont think that the game is very good, and there is definatley nothing special about it...

Worst game you've played for a while eh, hmmm couldn't see what was so bad with it to be honest, sure there wasn't anything new or groundbreaking, but then the same could be said about Allied assault, RTCW and Soldier of Fortune 2, which where great fun, but nothing special.

Stil, Oblivion Lost will saticfy me in the area of groundbreaking FPS, it's just too bad I have to wait until winter to play the damn thing.

7.3, that is very over rated.
i bought it and it was completley crap, the worse game i have played for a while.

Call me a cynic, but...
I regard Unreal II and UT2003 as nothing more than tech demos for the engines. Unreal (and Quake of course) proved how lucrative licencing your engine can be, and I think they just want more of the same. And Counter Strike proved what can happen with modding.
Both UT2003 and Unreal II aren't exactly feature packed games, UT2003 has less in it than the original, and Unreal 2 is apparently a short affair.
But if you look under the hood, both are driven by feature ladened systems. :) The games themselves were probably secondary to development. Unreal 2 is probably long enough to successfully demonstrate the power of the engine. :)

Totally agree

I hear console owners say things like 'new game release gotta have it' then 'I completed it in 4 hours'

doesnt sound a very good game to me especially as they can cost around £50 so thats over a £10 an hour cant spend that on arcade machines.

I understand what you're saying, but I think the only gamers who put graphics over game-play, are console owners. That doesn't apply to everyone mind, but search and you'll no doubt find a console gamers who'd put the good looks of a game before it's playability.

Sorry I wasnt pointing the finger I was just addressing the majority as a whole. And yes playabillity is a big selling point for serious gamers but the market is much bigger than this or mario bros would still be only plumbers

I "never" buy games soley because they look better than most, but I can't deny that the graphics in Unreal 2 are amazing and a big bonus to the main game.

No, I like Unreal 2 because it's fun, nothing new or original, but I'm enjoying myself playing it. There are only two things that matter to me when I approach a game, 1)does it have any grounbreaking, genre-defining moments or 2)is it enjoyable to play.

Actually, just so long as it's enjopyable to play, I couldn't care less whether or not it did have some exceptional new ideas to add to the genre, because I buy games for entertainment, and thus far Unreal 2 has kept very entertained indeed.

There have always been 2 camps with regards to gaming. Those who like the look of a game and consider it atmospheric and those who like the playabillity and consider looks a bonus. Now obviously if you have 2 games which are very playable and one looks and feels better your gonna play the better looking one. But if it comes down to playabillity alone which would you choose?

Its not that tough a choice for me. But each to there own