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.

If you are actually into games..... you will see whether it shines or not.
Otherwise you'll be staring at the graphics and won't notice how bad the gameplay is. I dunno what Unreal 2 is like but they say it has not so good gameplay over graphics but the average person won't notice, and i heard it doesnt last very long.....

I agree although the graphics are a marvel and the engines rock on these puppies there game play and addictiveness leaves a lot to be desired. Bring back old style playabillity and tag on nice graphics we'll all be happy.

I've played the game and to be honest I can't see whats wrong with it. Yes t is average in certain areas, but then so are MOH:AA, SOF2, NOLF2, IGI ect, those games did nothing new, yet where great fun to play, as is Unreal 2.

You're only going to be dissapointed with the game if you're going to it expecting something groundbreaking like Half-Life.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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. :)

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