🚀 go-pugleaf

LOL, I agree.
It could easily have been forty or fifty missions long.
365 would be even better then you could do a mission a day
for a whole year.

"Medieval Phreak" <fucka...@nospam.ca.de> typed in message news:vhcmo29hrp6m7e@corp.supernews.com...
> I think I would say that unreal II was the best game I have ever played. 
> The storyline was so good that it almost felt like a movie in places. 
> The only problem I had with it was that it was too fucking short.
> 

"Medieval Phreak" <fucka...@nospam.ca.de> wrote in
message news:vhcm...@corp.supernews.com
> I think I would say that unreal II was the best game I
> have ever played. The storyline was so good that it
> almost felt like a movie in places. The only problem I
> had with it was that it was too fucking short.

I'm at the end after they place the final piece of the artifact and I'm
trying to kill the monster it created.  I've really enjoyed playing it.  I
don't undersand why people were saying it sucked.

 > I don't undersand why people were saying it sucked.

I can't explain why otherpeople disliked it, but I can offer my perspective.


It sucked because it was a film - one long interactive cutscene.. and not a
game - the greatest games ever created don't have narrative.. ( tetris for
example )
the narrative was so strong that they focused on the artwork rather than the
gameplay
(no bad thing for us artists, but still.. people expect to be challenged)
and the story/script was weak.. it felt like it was written by people who
thought they could write screenplays, rather than people who genuinely can..
and actually felt like it could ahve been written on the back of a beermat.

The wish to have story was so strong that you were kept on rails throughout
the whole game. going exactly where the developers wanted you to. the
rolling fly through at the very start was summing the whole game up for
you.. no control over progress, same pace, nice graphics,

I found that having played the first episode 5 years ago, I was properly
dissapointed with the 2nd part.
because the A.I of the enemies used "spoilsport" tactics?..

in the first episode, the Skaarj were really lean, muscular and fast.. they
used what seemed like really intuitive dodging to escape your attacks,
you could respect them because it was as if they were a match for your
tactics. in this game, at the first sign of troulbe, the skaarj stayed still
and used their knives to deflect the rounds.

 The slow walking/running speed i think was a big part of people's (and my)
criticisms, there was no pace..
it was almost as it legend had finished the game at the speed they had
originally planned, and it only took them an hour to complete..
"Dudes - .. lets like... Half the Running speed? it'll take these dudes
longer to finish.. "
and of course, inserting an hour's worth of machinima to pad out the agony.

there was very little left to the imagination, everything was spelt out for
you.
the best partof the first unreal was that you were on your own totally, and
had to discover everything for yourself.. you didn't have some leatherclad
(not a complaint) woman spouting the story,  objectives and blatantly
obvious at you.  Unreal 1 hinted at narrative, you followed your nose from
clue to clue. and at the time the artwork was revolutionary, but was matched
by the gameplay..

If anyone's read this far, .. I need to stop.. because these people A.. made
me wait 5 years for this, B.. separated me from my cash on the day the game
came out, and C.. led me to believe it was worth the wait and the cash,

it was a big art demo, props to the art team that worked on U2, ( except
those black/purple/orange/yellow spiders - the "crayola texture/UVWmapped by
my mother" spiders..P

saying nothing about game styles... UT2K3 was a more complete game in my
opinion,
the gameplay was there, the artwork was there, the weapon balance was there,
and the A.I was there.

anyone that has played this game, and not played the first, is doing
themselves a huge dis-service.
U1 was a far superior GAME. and Unreal 2 would have made more money, and
arguably would have been more successful if it were marketted as another
title..

Sorry if i'm treading on toes, but this game was a waste of time, and did
nothing for the progression of gameplay.
it ultimately goes to show that games are sold on artwork.

I don't wonder why Legend didn't release a demo of this first - they'd seen
the hundreds of thousands of pre-orders and din't want to put people off.
anyway.. you have your AAA title guys.

again.. Sorry..

** bitter **




Nick.





"NuQ" <NuQ@77777.com> wrote in message
news:YNDRa.387850$ZC.52850@news.easynews.com...
> "Medieval Phreak" <fuckamerica@nospam.ca.de> wrote in
> message news:vhcmo29hrp6m7e@corp.supernews.com
> > I think I would say that unreal II was the best game I
> > have ever played. The storyline was so good that it
> > almost felt like a movie in places. The only problem I
> > had with it was that it was too fucking short.
>
> I'm at the end after they place the final piece of the artifact and I'm
> trying to kill the monster it created.  I've really enjoyed playing it.  I
> don't undersand why people were saying it sucked.
>
>

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 08:14:19 +0100, "Nick Sadler" <zender@**no
spam**blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>It sucked because it was a film - one long interactive cutscene.. and not a
>game - the greatest games ever created don't have narrative.. ( tetris for
>example )

Deus Ex disproves that theory.

DeadDred(ShaMaN)

to look at what a "game" is -

Deus ex is an interactive nararative, a sophisticated one, but nonetheless
that's all it is

"game" implies "play" - chess is a game,  it's not shipped with a story
about 2 rival monarchies.
poker's a great game.. Baseball, cricket, soccer,  Golf.. great games,
games are about skill.. performance, goals, rewards, progression and style,
the attainable perfect performance/virtuoso performance
games outside of the digital realm are hardly ever guided by stories - maybe
except cluedo but then the story is the reward at the end, so we can't count
it..

Deus ex/Half life/unreal they're all interactive narratives using fpp
gameplay as a vehicle to get from the start to the finish

Games don't need narrative, and what I was attempting to say is that a truly
great game doesn't need a backstory, no matter how deep.
Unreal 2 is certainly not a great game - it's mediocre as a story, mediocre
as a game, mediocre as a film
and it would make a nice change for a game to come to the market that had no
story to cloud it.

something like tetris that was pure play -
Vib Ribbon seems interesting although I haven't played it..

Deus Ex 2 and half life 2 do excite me though - Can't wait.




<DeadDred@nospam mail.com> wrote in message
news:929fhvchrmj5h30hkndj098hlvqm4c3q04@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 08:14:19 +0100, "Nick Sadler" <zender@**no
> spam**blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >It sucked because it was a film - one long interactive cutscene.. and not
a
> >game - the greatest games ever created don't have narrative.. ( tetris
for
> >example )
>
> Deus Ex disproves that theory.
>
> DeadDred(ShaMaN)

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:02:23 +0100, "Nick Sadler" <zender@**no
spam**blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>Games don't need narrative, and what I was attempting to say is that a truly
>great game doesn't need a backstory, no matter how deep.

No, they don't need one, but my point was that Deus Ex is a truly
great game and it does have narrative as well. DE's story is engaging,
U2's story is pap.

DeadDred(ShaMaN)

> [Unreal2] sucked because it was a film - one long interactive cutscene..
and not a
> game - the greatest games ever created don't have narrative.. ( tetris for
> example )
> the narrative was so strong that they focused on the artwork rather than
the
> gameplay

    This is a good criticism.  There basically is not enough for the player
to do, not enough freedom for exploration, and its too linear, with little
environmental interaction.  The StarTrek EliteForce1 game struck me as
exactly the same type of game.

    Its a hard problem.  As an outsider to how game production proceeds, I
can only imagine that individual workers get so lost in the details that
overall goals, desires for gameplay get lost, while the executive producers
set their sights too low, and tell individual workers to make all-too-linear
levels, which then are attached to one another like C++ code segments.

    Its certainly easier to partition the gameplay into straightforward
video/linear-mission sections, but an experienced player quickly sees this
for what it is and is disappointed.

    More effort needs to be put into integrating individual levels into an
overall scheme, and interweaving the missions so they are less obviously
separate entities and flow into one another.  I'm thinking here of
SystemShock1 and SS2, where you had separate missions, but missions which
occurred within a connected space and which reinforced the player's
immersion.  Unreal2's missions were presented as completely separate worlds,
and were so short as to be perceived by players as disjointed, which
decreases immersion.

    Another approach is to have missions in separate environments (with
common elements, like sound and basic architecture elements), but which are
large and rich enough that the player has time to lose him/herself in the
individual missions and regard each mission as a worthy goal in itself.  I'm
thinking of the Thief games and DeusEx as examples here.

    I believe the Unreal2 engine is a magnificent achievement, and hats off
to Sweeney and the other brilliant developers.  I do not think the engine
has been utilized properly to date.  The original Unreal1 had more
environmental interaction, atmosphere, and storyline than its sequel did,
what, several years later ?

rms

"Roger Squires" <rsquires@flash.net> wrote in message
news:F6ZRa.1494$IA7.834@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
> > [Unreal2] sucked because it was a film - one long interactive cutscene..
> and not a
> > game - the greatest games ever created don't have narrative.. ( tetris
for
> > example )
> > the narrative was so strong that they focused on the artwork rather than
> the
> > gameplay
>
>     This is a good criticism.  There basically is not enough for the
player
> to do, not enough freedom for exploration, and its too linear, with little
> environmental interaction.  The StarTrek EliteForce1 game struck me as
> exactly the same type of game.
>
>     Its a hard problem.  As an outsider to how game production proceeds, I
> can only imagine that individual workers get so lost in the details that
> overall goals, desires for gameplay get lost, while the executive
producers
> set their sights too low, and tell individual workers to make
all-too-linear
> levels, which then are attached to one another like C++ code segments.
>
>     Its certainly easier to partition the gameplay into straightforward
> video/linear-mission sections, but an experienced player quickly sees this
> for what it is and is disappointed.
>
>     More effort needs to be put into integrating individual levels into an
> overall scheme, and interweaving the missions so they are less obviously
> separate entities and flow into one another.  I'm thinking here of
> SystemShock1 and SS2, where you had separate missions, but missions which
> occurred within a connected space and which reinforced the player's
> immersion.  Unreal2's missions were presented as completely separate
worlds,
> and were so short as to be perceived by players as disjointed, which
> decreases immersion.
>
>     Another approach is to have missions in separate environments (with
> common elements, like sound and basic architecture elements), but which
are
> large and rich enough that the player has time to lose him/herself in the
> individual missions and regard each mission as a worthy goal in itself.
I'm
> thinking of the Thief games and DeusEx as examples here.
>
>     I believe the Unreal2 engine is a magnificent achievement, and hats
off
> to Sweeney and the other brilliant developers.  I do not think the engine
> has been utilized properly to date.  The original Unreal1 had more
> environmental interaction, atmosphere, and storyline than its sequel did,
> what, several years later ?
>
> rms
>
>

You must have played a different Unreal 1 than I did :)  The storyline was
thin, there were no NPCs to interact with at all, and no scripted sequences
after the first 2 levels.

Open any U1 level in its editor.  Then do the same with any U2 level.
There's the answer to why U2 was so short, with so many features missing.
The level of detail that newer hardware has made possible (and that players
now demand) has exponentially increased the man-hours it takes to make a
level.  Even just placing the actors, meshes, etc in one U2 level involves
as much work as several U1 levels; and that's not counting modelling,
texturing, or animating the vastly more complex actors in the newer game,
recording dialogue, setting up the complex AI scripts . . .

This is common with recent games.  Do a Google groups search for the
bitching about the limited number of Mechs in recent MechWarrior games.  One
dev said he could have competed all the mech in Mech 2 in the same time it
took to do ONE Mech 3 mech.

When content creation is so much more labour-intensive, meeting gamers'
expectations is pretty hard.  The developer can hire a huge team and get the
game out on time, feature complete, and way over budget.  Or it can go the
Unreal 2 route and cut back on features/content, get the game out, and
hopefully make it up in patches.  Or, it can end up like Duke Nuken Whenever
:)

Also, don't forget the underlying business model.  Many of these games,
including U2, are unfortunately designed to be ported to consoles, which
usually leads to design decisions that anger PC gamers.

RedEye(Co30)

  The original Unreal was pretty bad.  Ok, not horrible, just nothing
inspiring beyond the first two levels.  It had so much tedium involved that
it became a bore.

"Randy Shrader" <randyshrader@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:ryZRa.456957$ro6.10988057@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
>
> "Roger Squires" <rsquires@flash.net> wrote in message
> news:F6ZRa.1494$IA7.834@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
> > > [Unreal2] sucked because it was a film - one long interactive
cutscene..
> > and not a
> > > game - the greatest games ever created don't have narrative.. ( tetris
> for
> > > example )
> > > the narrative was so strong that they focused on the artwork rather
than
> > the
> > > gameplay
> >
> >     This is a good criticism.  There basically is not enough for the
> player
> > to do, not enough freedom for exploration, and its too linear, with
little
> > environmental interaction.  The StarTrek EliteForce1 game struck me as
> > exactly the same type of game.
> >
> >     Its a hard problem.  As an outsider to how game production proceeds,
I
> > can only imagine that individual workers get so lost in the details that
> > overall goals, desires for gameplay get lost, while the executive
> producers
> > set their sights too low, and tell individual workers to make
> all-too-linear
> > levels, which then are attached to one another like C++ code segments.
> >
> >     Its certainly easier to partition the gameplay into straightforward
> > video/linear-mission sections, but an experienced player quickly sees
this
> > for what it is and is disappointed.
> >
> >     More effort needs to be put into integrating individual levels into
an
> > overall scheme, and interweaving the missions so they are less obviously
> > separate entities and flow into one another.  I'm thinking here of
> > SystemShock1 and SS2, where you had separate missions, but missions
which
> > occurred within a connected space and which reinforced the player's
> > immersion.  Unreal2's missions were presented as completely separate
> worlds,
> > and were so short as to be perceived by players as disjointed, which
> > decreases immersion.
> >
> >     Another approach is to have missions in separate environments (with
> > common elements, like sound and basic architecture elements), but which
> are
> > large and rich enough that the player has time to lose him/herself in
the
> > individual missions and regard each mission as a worthy goal in itself.
> I'm
> > thinking of the Thief games and DeusEx as examples here.
> >
> >     I believe the Unreal2 engine is a magnificent achievement, and hats
> off
> > to Sweeney and the other brilliant developers.  I do not think the
engine
> > has been utilized properly to date.  The original Unreal1 had more
> > environmental interaction, atmosphere, and storyline than its sequel
did,
> > what, several years later ?
> >
> > rms
> >
> >
>
> You must have played a different Unreal 1 than I did :)  The storyline was
> thin, there were no NPCs to interact with at all, and no scripted
sequences
> after the first 2 levels.
>
> Open any U1 level in its editor.  Then do the same with any U2 level.
> There's the answer to why U2 was so short, with so many features missing.
> The level of detail that newer hardware has made possible (and that
players
> now demand) has exponentially increased the man-hours it takes to make a
> level.  Even just placing the actors, meshes, etc in one U2 level involves
> as much work as several U1 levels; and that's not counting modelling,
> texturing, or animating the vastly more complex actors in the newer game,
> recording dialogue, setting up the complex AI scripts . . .
>
> This is common with recent games.  Do a Google groups search for the
> bitching about the limited number of Mechs in recent MechWarrior games.
One
> dev said he could have competed all the mech in Mech 2 in the same time it
> took to do ONE Mech 3 mech.
>
> When content creation is so much more labour-intensive, meeting gamers'
> expectations is pretty hard.  The developer can hire a huge team and get
the
> game out on time, feature complete, and way over budget.  Or it can go the
> Unreal 2 route and cut back on features/content, get the game out, and
> hopefully make it up in patches.  Or, it can end up like Duke Nuken
Whenever
> :)
>
> Also, don't forget the underlying business model.  Many of these games,
> including U2, are unfortunately designed to be ported to consoles, which
> usually leads to design decisions that anger PC gamers.
>
> RedEye(Co30)
>
>

> > "Roger Squires" <rsquires@flash.net> wrote in message
> > news:F6ZRa.1494$IA7.834@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > [Unreal2] sucked because it was a film - one long interactive
> cutscene..
> > > and not a
> > > > game - the greatest games ever created don't have narrative.. (
tetris
> > for
> > > > example )
> > > > the narrative was so strong that they focused on the artwork rather
> than
> > > the
> > > > gameplay
> > >
> > >     This is a good criticism.  There basically is not enough for the
> > player
> > > to do, not enough freedom for exploration, and its too linear, with
> little
> > > environmental interaction.  The StarTrek EliteForce1 game struck me as
> > > exactly the same type of game.
> > >
> > >     Its a hard problem.  As an outsider to how game production
proceeds,
> I
> > > can only imagine that individual workers get so lost in the details
that
> > > overall goals, desires for gameplay get lost, while the executive
> > producers
> > > set their sights too low, and tell individual workers to make
> > all-too-linear
> > > levels, which then are attached to one another like C++ code segments.
> > >
> > >     Its certainly easier to partition the gameplay into
straightforward
> > > video/linear-mission sections, but an experienced player quickly sees
> this
> > > for what it is and is disappointed.
> > >
> > >     More effort needs to be put into integrating individual levels
into
> an
> > > overall scheme, and interweaving the missions so they are less
obviously
> > > separate entities and flow into one another.  I'm thinking here of
> > > SystemShock1 and SS2, where you had separate missions, but missions
> which
> > > occurred within a connected space and which reinforced the player's
> > > immersion.  Unreal2's missions were presented as completely separate
> > worlds,
> > > and were so short as to be perceived by players as disjointed, which
> > > decreases immersion.
> > >
> > >     Another approach is to have missions in separate environments
(with
> > > common elements, like sound and basic architecture elements), but
which
> > are
> > > large and rich enough that the player has time to lose him/herself in
> the
> > > individual missions and regard each mission as a worthy goal in
itself.
> > I'm
> > > thinking of the Thief games and DeusEx as examples here.
> > >
> > >     I believe the Unreal2 engine is a magnificent achievement, and
hats
> > off
> > > to Sweeney and the other brilliant developers.  I do not think the
> engine
> > > has been utilized properly to date.  The original Unreal1 had more
> > > environmental interaction, atmosphere, and storyline than its sequel
> did,
> > > what, several years later ?
> > >
> > > rms
> > >
> > >
> >
> > You must have played a different Unreal 1 than I did :)  The storyline
was
> > thin, there were no NPCs to interact with at all, and no scripted
> sequences
> > after the first 2 levels.
> >
> > Open any U1 level in its editor.  Then do the same with any U2 level.
> > There's the answer to why U2 was so short, with so many features
missing.
> > The level of detail that newer hardware has made possible (and that
> players
> > now demand) has exponentially increased the man-hours it takes to make a
> > level.  Even just placing the actors, meshes, etc in one U2 level
involves
> > as much work as several U1 levels; and that's not counting modelling,
> > texturing, or animating the vastly more complex actors in the newer
game,
> > recording dialogue, setting up the complex AI scripts . . .
> >
> > This is common with recent games.  Do a Google groups search for the
> > bitching about the limited number of Mechs in recent MechWarrior games.
> One
> > dev said he could have competed all the mech in Mech 2 in the same time
it
> > took to do ONE Mech 3 mech.
> >
> > When content creation is so much more labour-intensive, meeting gamers'
> > expectations is pretty hard.  The developer can hire a huge team and get
> the
> > game out on time, feature complete, and way over budget.  Or it can go
the
> > Unreal 2 route and cut back on features/content, get the game out, and
> > hopefully make it up in patches.  Or, it can end up like Duke Nuken
> Whenever
> > :)
> >
> > Also, don't forget the underlying business model.  Many of these games,
> > including U2, are unfortunately designed to be ported to consoles, which
> > usually leads to design decisions that anger PC gamers.
> >
> > RedEye(Co30)
> >
> >

"magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Mh_Ra.2820$647.209@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com...
>   The original Unreal was pretty bad.  Ok, not horrible, just nothing
> inspiring beyond the first two levels.  It had so much tedium involved
that
> it became a bore.
>
> "Randy Shrader" <randyshrader@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:ryZRa.456957$ro6.10988057@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...

Great posts, BTW.

I thought Unreal 1 was "revolutianry in its time" - which is almost
backhanded insult.

Either way, UnrealII wasn't in the same league - much of U1's appeal was in
the difference between it and Quake.  Compare UII to any contemporary FPS
and it comes off a poor second IMO.

UnrealII suffers from the fact that the prequel was realeased before Deus Ex
etc and the sequel was therefore expected to be an improvement on all that
had been released since.  This was not the case in a big way.

Well, Epic has said they will be releasing a free online multiplayer
expansion for Unreal II very soon and that should take care of the too
short problem. If it is co-op, which it would seem the story tends to
support, beyond deathmatch and capture-the-flag, plus if it comes with
expansion maps, would really make a good game even better. It seems
like a lot of people were overly critical of Unreal II for no other
reason than it became a follow-the-herd thing to do. It is true there
was no way it could hope to live up to all the hype surrounding it and
these days, even the slightest perception of a let down makes a lot of
people want to commit suicide if a game doesn't meet their
overinflated expectations.

Medieval Phreak <fucka...@nospam.ca.de> wrote in message news:
> I think I would say that unreal II was the best game I have ever played. 
> The storyline was so good that it almost felt like a movie in places. 
> The only problem I had with it was that it was too fucking short.

"Blig Smirk" <blig_smirk@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2bfa904.0307191923.18f05fdb@posting.google.com...
> Well, Epic has said they will be releasing a free online multiplayer
> expansion for Unreal II very soon and that should take care of the too
> short problem. If it is co-op, which it would seem the story tends to
> support, beyond deathmatch and capture-the-flag, plus if it comes with
> expansion maps, would really make a good game even better. It seems
> like a lot of people were overly critical of Unreal II for no other
> reason than it became a follow-the-herd thing to do. It is true there
> was no way it could hope to live up to all the hype surrounding it and
> these days, even the slightest perception of a let down makes a lot of
> people want to commit suicide if a game doesn't meet their
> overinflated expectations.
>

In the U2 editor, the alien artifacts are named as the artifact of speed,
invis, etc, obviously for multiplayer like UT's artifacts.  There's also a
grappling hook . . . hope that is incorporated into the patch.  The
forcefields, turrets etc will make team games interesting.

RedEye(Co30)

Randy Shrader wrote:
> "Blig Smirk" <blig_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2bfa904.0307191923.18f05fdb@posting.google.com...
>> Well, Epic has said they will be releasing a free online multiplayer
>> expansion for Unreal II very soon and that should take care of the
>> too short problem. If it is co-op, which it would seem the story
>> tends to support, beyond deathmatch and capture-the-flag, plus if it
>> comes with expansion maps, would really make a good game even
>> better. It seems like a lot of people were overly critical of Unreal
>> II for no other reason than it became a follow-the-herd thing to do.
>> It is true there was no way it could hope to live up to all the hype
>> surrounding it and these days, even the slightest perception of a
>> let down makes a lot of people want to commit suicide if a game
>> doesn't meet their
>> overinflated expectations.
>>
>
> In the U2 editor, the alien artifacts are named as the artifact of
> speed, invis, etc, obviously for multiplayer like UT's artifacts.
> There's also a grappling hook . . . hope that is incorporated into
> the patch.  The forcefields, turrets etc will make team games
> interesting.
>
> RedEye(Co30)

Man, that Randy dude is a smart-ass, ain't he?!  I knew we kept him around
Co30 for some reason.  Seriously, you've pointed out some things that I (as
a non-designing neophyte) would never truly consider.  That said, I thought
that the visual aspects of U2 were gorgeous.  Yeah, I did go back through a
second time and kick up the player walking speed.  And I LOVED the sniper
rifle and flamethrower.  I enjoyed the turrets and assigning marines to
stuff.  It did feel very linear and I do wish it had been longer.

As for the guy who said original Unreal was awful, I have to totally
disagree.  It was the first PC game to really capture my attention and get
me into so many other aspects of gaming, including on-line.  I really
enjoyed the length of many of the levels, even when it did seem that they
would go on forever - what  a sense of accomplishment was felt when a level
was completed, not to mention the anticipation of the next, the environments
and nasties that would be there to greet me.

feldrewco30

The other thing unreal II could use would be some Melee weapons IMO.

Medieval Phreak wrote:
> I think I would say that unreal II was the best game I have ever played. 
> The storyline was so good that it almost felt like a movie in places. 
> The only problem I had with it was that it was too fucking short.
> 

The editor contains sounds for gun-butt strikes; guess that's another
feature that was cut.

RedEye(Co30)


"Medieval Phreak" <fucka...@nospam.ca.de> wrote in message
news:vi3ctcs2dotaeb@corp.supernews.com...
> The other thing unreal II could use would be some Melee weapons IMO.
>
> Medieval Phreak wrote:
> > I think I would say that unreal II was the best game I have ever played.
> > The storyline was so good that it almost felt like a movie in places.
> > The only problem I had with it was that it was too fucking short.
> >
>

It was and is a pathetic, tedious, very short and unfunny joke.

"Phil-on-a-hill" wrote:

> It was and is a pathetic, tedious, very short and unfunny joke.

Less than steller opening levels, really insulting finale, but does 
actually have some pretty decent moments in the middle, if you ask me. I 
certainly don't regret buying U2, but then I did wait until I could get it 
for half it's release price.

The upcoming multiplayer freebie sounds quite interesting, too.


Dave.

higgy <higgyslacker@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bl4iio$cf6$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> "Phil-on-a-hill" wrote:
> 
> > It was and is a pathetic, tedious, very short and unfunny joke.
> 
> Less than steller opening levels, really insulting finale, but does 
> actually have some pretty decent moments in the middle, if you ask me. I 
> certainly don't regret buying U2, but then I did wait until I could get it 
> for half it's release price.
> 
> The upcoming multiplayer freebie sounds quite interesting, too.
> 
> 
> Dave.

It wasn't that bad, I really liked the scenario, it was pretty decent,
so I'm not sorry for the time I spent with Unreal2




http://www.lonex.com/
Affordable web hosting from http://www.lonex.com/
· Business plan - 400MB Disk space/5GB Transfer-$4.95/mo
· Corporate plan - 600MB Disk space/10GB Transfer-$9.95/mo
+ FREE domain name!

"Vassil Stoyanov" <vasko@bastun.net> wrote in message
news:de4941dc.0309290722.2865c2de@posting.google.com...

> > blah, blah

With new 3.8 Radeon drivers on my 9600pro I am seeing details I never saw
before. Stunning! Gameplay, well, average.

Ron

Unreal 2

5/10

Same score I'd give the PC versions of FireWarrior, and HaloPC...

SeanR

"Rockin Ronnie" <joinernospam@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Y6akb.16951$M71.464311@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>
> "Vassil Stoyanov" <vasko@bastun.net> wrote in message
> news:de4941dc.0309290722.2865c2de@posting.google.com...
>
> > > blah, blah
>
> With new 3.8 Radeon drivers on my 9600pro I am seeing details I never saw
> before. Stunning! Gameplay, well, average.
>
> Ron
>
>

SeanR wrote:
> Unreal 2
> 
> 5/10
> 
> Same score I'd give the PC versions of FireWarrior, and HaloPC...
> 
> SeanR


The levels are far too linear. In one end, fight your way through to the 
other. No exploring. Some of the weapons are good, but they did have a 
chunky feel to them - I constantly felt like I should be lugging a 100Kg 
cannon with me, not dodging missiles. Flamer was well-implimented, its 
very hard to write something like that. A lot of detail went into the 
story, that was a nice touch that Unreal I was lacking.