Unreal II Overrated

[RaptoR]

GameSpy has featured Unreal II in its 'Most Overrated Games of All Time' feature. Unreal II comes in at number 12.

Unreal II looks nice in spots, but the story is wretchedly awful, and the gameplay is astoundingly not fun. Playing through the game was a real chore, courtesy of linear levels filled to the brim with clichés and seemingly half-hearted game design. The last couple missions aren't bad, and at least the ending is somewhat unintentionally satisfying, but it isn't nearly enough to make up for the rest of the filler. Unreal II really isn't worthy of the Unreal name.

Read More

[RegularX]

From Gamespy:
Maybe it was our fault. We're optimists. What can I say?

They should be putting that as a disclaimer on most of these, I think. It seems that trade sites like GSpy haven't caught on to something most of us learned years ago: never trust the screenshots.

[Rooster]

I agree, Unreal II was very disappointing.

[Rodzilla]

What's new? Unreal 2's overrated-ness was known by everyone the day it was released.

What the... I just can,t belive what i read.
I own Unreal 2 and i love it it's not just a game it's a very powerfull tool for me and people who work with 3d editing, and of course the game it's not perfect but i know that is one of the best games that i have played ever!!!!. Unreal it isn't just a game it's an oportunity for every member of the unreal comunity to express what they fell inside.

I OWN UNREAL 2, AND I LOVE IT.

Ordagon the Unreal defender will keep defending it forever!!!

[DarkEmperor]

Originally Posted by RegularX

They should be putting that as a disclaimer on most of these, I think. It seems that trade sites like GSpy haven't caught on to something most of us learned years ago: never trust the screenshots.

I agree. But the article is just so ridiculous. Any game could be considered overrated, and Legend never claimed that U2 would be the revolution in gaming. gamespy and co. overrated the game by themselves.
Take Return To castle wolfenstein for example:

--gamespy review:
pros: Fun Nazi-shootin' action; good level design; excellent Allied-vs.-Axis multiplayer mode.
cons: Suspect AI; super-strong ammo-sucking enemies are boring; storytelling a bit stop-and-go; main game is a bit brief.

This game was rated with 74%

now to U2, which got 76%

--gamespy review:
Pros:
Excellent graphics; exciting final missions; polished and bug-free.
Cons:
Many missions feel uninspired; little replay value.

see the similarities? But U2 must be beaten to death!

The final words of the review were something like:
"the game is very good, polished etc, but it has no multiplayer so screw it, we 'll give it a 74 and you just go get ut2k3"

The situation is worse in other review sites like gamespot who gave RtCW 92%! and had to say this :

--gamespot:
The story is weak and the core gunplay isn't completely satisfying. These problems are compounded by the fact that there are very few surprises along the way, either in terms of unexpected gameplay elements or especially interesting scripted scenes. Even though the game takes only about 10 hours to finish on the default difficulty setting, it actually begins to drag a bit during the last few levels leading up to the anticlimactic final boss battle. The single-player game does not involve the go-for-broke, over-the-top shooting sprees of Serious Sam, the incredibly satisfying gunplay of Max Payne, or the density of scripted sequences and surprises of Alien vs. Predator 2. It's thoroughly competent and technically excellent--but it's also rather sterile and passionless.

Regardless of the single-player game, the multiplayer game is worth the price of admission

So the game is sh1t but it got 92% due to the mp!

For me these reviewers have no credibility...
I wonder if they have the guts to re-review the game after the arrival of XMP

[RegularX]

You are mostly right, I think.

When U2 starts to pick up hype, they start to praise it.

When it mysteriously doesn't live up to their praise, they write an article about how overrated it was.

It's one way to cook up content.

[SkaarjMaster]

I'll let you know when I actually get past the cut scenes on my new rig in about 5 months. My present machine will not play Unreal2, but I do have it. I'm sure I'll be installing Doom3, UT2004, Unreal2 and, of course, second installs of UT and UT2003 on the new and second rig (keeping the old one as well); anyone for one-on-one LAN, hehe.

[hal]

I enjoyed RTCW. I don't think it was overrated at all.

[Lizard Of Oz]

Originally Posted by hal

I enjoyed RTCW. I don't think it was overrated at all.

100% agreement. I've played through it twice. The only other games I've play more than once are...

Wolfenstien 3D
Doom
Unreal I
Deus Ex
Medal of Honor : Allied Assault

...and next on the list to get a second play... "No One Lives Forever II."

[Prophetus]

I like to put a spin on this discussion. I don't think we should blame reviewers, Legend or the game. We should blame ourselves. We expected the game to be the end-all of games and looked to previews and reviews to strengthen our wishes. In our hopes to receive a great game, we went overboard in our expectations.

Yes, U2 was a bitter disappointment, but it had some good qualities. At first, I enjoyed the game but the replay value really hit rock bottom. So we fed our expectations and hopes to receive a great sequel to Unreal and it was shattered due to the short comings. In that, we immediately overlooked and dismissed any good features U2 presented.

Now a game has to have a good story and captivating levels. U2 did not have great levels and I totally agree it was not what we "expected". However, are we so shallow that we all need to be ruled by another person's opinion about a game? No, we are more intelligent than that...at least I hope so. Previews and reviews are just one person's opinion about something and that doesn't mean their opinion should become ours. I know we look to the "experts" for advice, but that doesn't mean we should submit to any loyalties and become hypnotize into agreement.

U2 wasn't the greatest game, but it wasn't over rated. We placed high expectations on U2 that could not be reached.

[DarkEmperor]

I just don't understand ppl and reviewers. We all knew from the beginning that U2 would be developed by Legend, that it would be a mission based sci/fi shooter rather than an andventurous and continous quest, set in a fantasy world. We knew that the only returning race would be the skaarj, that the story would involve 3 other crew members and that the gameplay would be more like Halo.

So ppl knew from the beginning that the game wouldn't be a true sequel in every aspect of the original U1 but
bitched after the release about the above over and over again...

gamespy wrote:

You can't fault the game for not being something it claimed, and there weren't copious amounts of advertising and inane slogans leading up to its release.

So, was Unreal II really overrated? Maybe only in our minds because we expected so much.

So why was U2 over rated again? What's the point of your article then? You can't just beat the game over and over just because in YOUR mind you expected it to be THE best fps ever... but as I said before there are some ridiculous reviewers that can give a game 74% (U2 76%) and consider it as a hit.

[Yarr]

I didnt really fall into the hype at all because I wasnt an Unreal fan to start off with. I only got unreal II because I was dead bored and that box happend to catch my eye. I dont think it was the best FPS ever but it IMO was worth the money I put down.

I try to avoid reviews of games since it so subjective anyway. Just like movie reviews, you really cant trust what some one says.

[RegularX]

Originally Posted by Prophetus

I like to put a spin on this discussion. I don't think we should blame reviewers, Legend or the game. We should blame ourselves. We expected the game to be the end-all of games and looked to previews and reviews to strengthen our wishes. In our hopes to receive a great game, we went overboard in our expectations.

But didn't we get those expectations from the same trade rags now declaring it overrated? Wasn't Unreal II PC Gamer's "Most Anticipated" or something?

I mean, I agree, we should not flog the reviewers - we should be realistic. This is how this game (no pun intended) is played. Companies want to generate hype, so they prop up previews of games that are still in alpha production. Some poor developer thinking he got a day off gets stuck instead answering questions about blocks of code he hasn't even spec'd out yet ("So Unreal II will have some new revolutionary multiplayer mode, right?" "Oh ... yeah. It's like nothing you've seen. Or anything I've seen....")

Then the fans start talking about it, the trade rags see us talking about it, and keep feeding the fire. Meanwhile, two months later, Exec #3 tells some poor developer that, well, maybe that multiplayer thing isn't in the budget.

I think games should be advertised like movies. Don't start showing us still until it's mostly in the can. Sure, some scenes might get deleted that we saw in the trailer, or that really cool line doesn't make it in - but the movie I pay for is still the movie I saw.

Sure, occasionally there will still be lemons a la Highlander 2, but think of all the time and paper we would have saved by not talking about, say, Duke Nukem Forever -- ever?

[Prophetus]

Gah, Highlander 2...made me cry. Yes, I agree that reviewers, sites, mags and other publications can and will hype up a game, but the ultimate test of common sense still falls upon us. That is why I like the free demos, they don't lie, and in most cases, they are worse than the actual release. All I'm saying is that if we believe in the hype, without a bit of control, we will be disappointed...even if the hype is true.

[RegularX]

I would have walked out of Highlander 2 if my mind was so busy trying to figure out what the hell they had done to the franchise.

I love demos. If a demo impresses me even somewhat, I'm pretty likely to buy the game - knowing that it will be better when it's out. If it annoys me, I can still give the game a bit of a benefit of the doubt - or know safely that core gameplay is just not for me.

We should start a litany when discussing previews - like "I know it's only a preview..."

[Myrmecophagavir]

Originally Posted by Prophetus

I like to put a spin on this discussion. I don't think we should blame reviewers, Legend or the game. We should blame ourselves. We expected the game to be the end-all of games and looked to previews and reviews to strengthen our wishes. In our hopes to receive a great game, we went overboard in our expectations.

Yes, U2 was a bitter disappointment, but it had some good qualities. At first, I enjoyed the game but the replay value really hit rock bottom. So we fed our expectations and hopes to receive a great sequel to Unreal and it was shattered due to the short comings. In that, we immediately overlooked and dismissed any good features U2 presented.

Now a game has to have a good story and captivating levels. U2 did not have great levels and I totally agree it was not what we "expected". However, are we so shallow that we all need to be ruled by another person's opinion about a game? No, we are more intelligent than that...at least I hope so. Previews and reviews are just one person's opinion about something and that doesn't mean their opinion should become ours. I know we look to the "experts" for advice, but that doesn't mean we should submit to any loyalties and become hypnotize into agreement.

U2 wasn't the greatest game, but it wasn't over rated. We placed high expectations on U2 that could not be reached.

I don't see why our expectations couldn't have been reached - good games deserve good sequels. The previews for U2 often were very exciteable without presenting any actual information, which caused an increase in hype. But not all; in particular some of the earlier ones were very balanced and told us things that would be in the game, that never appeared. We didn't read anything into them.

[Prophetus]

Maybe you didn't...but my comments weren't for people like you. However, I believe the majority of gamers left little room for the shortcomings of U2.

[Prophetus]

Good points, but nobody forces us to believe. We control what we wish to accept and question. Therefore, no matter how much somebody else hypes up a product, it is utimately our decision to accept and believe. Nobody forces us to buy a game.

I will agree that devs contribute to the hype, but not more than the previewers and reviewers. Devs don't release all the information, they just give access or insites.

[Balton]

game spy says that donkey kong country on snes was overrated and hyped. I still love that game. there is a bunch of games on that list that dont belong there.