# Games You SHOULDN'T Buy #4 - Unreal Tournament 3



## Ryukouki (Jun 14, 2014)

​

​*GUEST PIECE*​​And look at that, everyone! With the rush of E3 having ended, and with all of the tears having been collected (or excitement, I suppose), it's time to return to business as usual and resume the articles. Did you miss me? Don't be shy! Well, anyways, I'm just the messenger today, because we have a guest contribution. Let's give a nice warm welcome to Taleweaver! I'm going to go ahead and pass him the talking rock now, I've said all I needed to say. *coughs* And here is Taleweaver, talking about _Unreal Tournament III_!​ 
[prebreak]Continue reading[/prebreak]

I probably shouldn't need to introduce _Unreal Tournament_. Released in 1999, it was the direct competitor for Id's _Quake 3_ and known by probably all PC gamers. Those two games put fast-paced action first person shooters on the map and into the collective consciousness as gamers. _UT_ holds high places in many "best game ever"-lists of gaming fanatics, and that's not taking into account that the game shipped with great mod support and a full-blown editor. It sprouted a community of only very few games can compare to. In fact, there are still maps being made for it this very day!

Of course it had sequels. _UT 2003_ was quickly forgotten as _UT 2004_ was released a year later with all the content of _UT2003,_ as well as about twice the maps and stuff it had from itself. The movement mechanics were quite different but each one had a flourishing community that created maps, models, mutators (a kind of mini-mod that only changed small parts of the gameplay and could be combined with other mutators) and mods.

Meanwhile, Epic - the creators of the _Unreal_-franchise - worked on other projects. For community members, this went mostly below the radar. They patched it where serious bugs arose and created a couple map packs for free, but went on with their own projects that had nothing to do with _UT._

Then came _UT3_. This was...a disappointment. History-wise, it ended up as just another generic shooter. And comparing it to today's game launch failures or money grabs I shouldn't even be talking about it. But the more I read up on those, the more it all sounded familiar. I had seen it all at the end of 2007. And that's what this article is about. And why, if you're new to the unreal franchise, UT3 should be the last one to try out...


*Before Release*

I think the first news of "a new_ UT_" came early 2006. There wasn't much known at that time, so aside from a few visual teasers, there was nothing to go on. But there was some critique as to the name. _UT2007_? The original_ UT_ (or _UT99_ as it is often referred to) took place somewhere in the far future, so _UT2003_ and _UT2004_ were pretty weird names nobody asked for. _UT2004_ introduced vehicles (in the onslaught mode) of which _UT_ fans weren't fond of, so discussions on epic's boards were pretty hectic. However, when it came to the name, pretty much everyone agreed that it should have been changed. This was a forum maintained and moderated by some key epic employees, mind you, so it's not like this wasn't known.

We got our wish in the end. The name was changed to _UT3_ at a certain point...when it became clear that it wouldn't be released until the end of 2007. Nevertheless, the community remained loyal. After all, it was said the PC community was whom they made the game for (their "bread and butter", to quote Mark Rein). Sure, the game would be released for PS3 and xbox360 as well, but while some were concerned, it was just a minority. At that time.

Things would change with the demo. This was said to be released at a point where feedback was still appreciated and would make it into the game. Nonetheless, two things clearly stood out:
1. The interface. This was almost immediately pointed out to be a monstrosity. Numerous different windows that were slow to navigate (there was a level flyby in the background that you could hardly see but slowed down things considerably) and had you confirm even stupid things.
2. _Gears of War_ feeling. This was even advertised: "from the makers that brought you_ Gears of War!_!!". No doubt it was aimed at console-owners (_GoW_ wasn't even released on PC at that time), but why was the overall feel one of dark and grey-ish tone?



​Despite of what was said, when the game was released a few months later, that and more was still prevalent.It was the beginning of what would became known as "a lousy PC port of a console game".​​​*Console Port*

I'm not a PC-master race enthusiast in the slightest. I play both, and roughly on an equal basis. They're both fun. But it's important to know that they are fundamentally different. Both from designer perspective as from gamer perspective.

At first, I honestly couldn't imagine why that interface was so horrible. Even more so because _UT2004_ and_ UT_ had a totally different interface, but a great one nonetheless (you had pretty much all the options a few mouse clicks away). It was because it was built for consoles. Text had to be big and options were limited. Since the previous games were PC exclusive, this didn't matter that much. Heck...you even had an 'advanced options' item in which you could turn on lens flares, set advanced keybindings, hack .ini files and so on. Now, with three different platforms to design for, epic had to make concessions and dumb down something that was (admittedly) a bit too complex to begin with.

It was less forgiving that multiplayer was a downright disaster. You needed a Gamespy account to log into the game, even when playing single player. That needed a name you couldn't change, so some of my friends had to pick a different name because their own was taken. But it gets worse: the server browser didn't work properly most of the time. Favorites or buddies were impossible to add. And for a game that is so focussed on multiplayer, that it was almost like forgetting the jump button on a Mario game. Every game has their newbies and their veterans, and it's important for both groups that you can find players of your own skill. UT3 did the exact opposite.

Movement tricks were also severely neutered compared to previous versions. I admit _UT2004_ was taking things too far in the opposite direction (_UT2004_ had the 'dodge jump', which pretty much had players do that constantly) but playing _UT3_ felt like playing as a concrete brick. Levels were designed with less vertical movement than in previous games, and then we should probably be thankful that the idea to have PS3 and PC gamers play on similar servers got canceled. If I recall correctly, the console versions are 30% slower than the PC counterpart. Again: this isn't to rub in the superiority of keyboard/mouse over a gamepad but in a fast paced game like _UT_ there's just no contest.

And let's not forget linux support. Or rather: let's actually do exactly that. Up to_ UT2004_, that support was there. Not exactly high-end stuff but it worked natively. And from what I read, most servers hosting online matches ran linux. Nonetheless, nothing was there for _UT3_. From insider information I've heard that this wasn't because the engine couldn't run it or that it took too much effort...it was because of political reasons. It's not that hard to point a blaming finger, but without solid proof to back that up, I'd better not go there. And keep it at "_UT3_ had no linux support".

Lastly...level creation. I haven't made _UT3_ levels myself, but I've heard that while the editor itself was as good as before, you not only had to compile a level but also to "cook" it. IIRC, the latter one ensured that it could be played on a console. Not that that mattered much, because levels had to be checked by epic before they could be pushed to consoles. I admit my memories of this are a bit vague, but I do remember some grievance from mappers who plain refused to make a map for the ones with a console version. Sort of blaming those users for the decisions that were made in the creation of the game.

*Influences of Other Games*

It was only years later that I've played _Gears of War_ (and for what it's worth: it's both a fun game and one where gamepads are the better option). So it is only since then that I can say the complaints that _UT3_ leaned too much on gears of war's visual style is absolutely correct. And it was damaging this game.



_Bulky and generic armor? Check!_​​Perhaps it is better to look at it in a broader context. Remember when in the mid-nineties 3D became the latest thing? Suddenly every game had to be 3D, no matter what. Then there was the multiplayer hype: even the most single player heavy had to have a multiplayer component. Why? To have a multiplayer component.​ 
_UT3_ was what you would could call a "too realistic" fest. I'm not putting it in words very well, but you know what I mean. What isn't gritty is grey. What isn't grey is shiney or oily. That sort of thing. _UT3_ was like that. It was what you would get if you let a gothic teenager decorate an abandoned factory or a blown up castle ruins. One of the signatures of the game was its diversity in map themes. From skyscrapers to pyramids to lava castles to futuristic cities. This was seriously nerfed down to oriental, industrial and heavy gothic theme (Necris).
​

_Generic and gritty. Gotta love those visuals._​​And the singleplayer campaign...sigh. It's that I can't facepalm and write at the same time or I would be doing it. The gameplay is still traditional deathmatch, team deathmatch, capture the flag and warfare (which is basically 'capture their base' with vehicles). All previous _UT's_ had the minimal story of a bloodsports where teams where shooting it out over some huge-ass trophy that was only shown in the end credits. Not exactly an awardwinning story, but it got the job done. _UT3_ tossed that out of the window in exchange for a story of a team of ronin whose colony is invaded by...erm...some guys...and they want to get revenge by taking out respawners that somehow...​ 
Ah, screw it. On paper, it may have looked campy and hilarious. But with aforementioned gritty and dark look, it failed horribly. _Zelda CD-i_ kind of horribly (don't get me started on how retarded "Field Latent Generators" is as an excuse to capture a flag). I can understand epic wanted to show the world their engine (which is their MAIN product they're pitching) is very capable of making great-looking cutscènes. But it is totally separated from the game to begin with. And that would have been a good thing if there was any reason to have that story to begin with.

Aside the striking similarity to _Gears of War_ (that protagonist could be Marcus Phoenix's brother), I'm wondering just how much of warfare is shaped to be similar to call of duty or warfare. _UT2004_ had onslaught and assault. Onslaught had each team spawn in a base with control points (nodes) inbetween. The intention was to connect those points and use vehicles to push the team back in their base and attack them there. Assault had one team as the attackers and the other the defenders in a sort of obstacle course, where the winner of the game was the team that completed the objectives the first/fastest. They each worked fine by themselves. Warfare was said to attempt to combine those two and created something that was worse than each of those (in fact, warfare is a downright insult to both onslaught and assault players).
But like those traditional modern shooters, you cannot say they're boring. Submissions are shouted in your ear pretty much the whole game through and it's usually other players who actually accomplishes them.


*The Community and the Future*

While the above may sound like a huge rant from one guy not liking a new entry, this isn't really the case. In none of those instances I wasn't the only one who noticed them. And they added up fast (especially the lack of decent multiplayer). Epic attempted to fix things with the titan pack (which added one or two forgettable mods for deathmatch and made the UI less obstrusive) and later with the 'black' edition (which included quite a number of bonus maps that brought some color to the oeuvre), but it was too little too late. There are some people still doing things in _UT3_ (the community bonus pack is worth checking out, and foxmod actually fixes the interface), but the size of the community never even got close to previous ones. Online servers are a wasteland and the single player campaign...yeah. Bot support is more than decent, though.

I have to mention that for all its flaws, I recently picked it up on a steam sale (again). Kind of strange, seeing how I advise you not to buy it, right? Well...it's because I bought it in a pack together with all the previous versions. And while graphically inferior, they shine in the field of gameplay. And that's what games like these are about. If you've played _UT or UT2004_, you already know what I mean when I say these can entertain you for years. If you're new to the series, pick either of those over_ UT3_.

In a final statement: Epic is planning on making a new UT game (on their Unreal 4 Engine). It's going to be PC, Mac and Linux exclusive and will be available for free (no, not free to play. Free!). In addition, they want to build it in collaboration with the community. Yes, this all sounds way too good to be true, but thus far I haven't found the catch yet (no consoles and no more Cliff Bleszinski at least removes some major doubts).
It's way too soon to tell anything more and I know y'all aren't exactly the audience for these kinds of games anyway, but hey...it won't hurt.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Jun 14, 2014)

Unreal Tournament 3 is bad  
But Unreal Tournament 2004 = Best game.


----------



## Jayro (Jun 14, 2014)

OP doesn't know what he's talking about, this game was awesome when it came out, and is still fun to play. In my opinion, UT2003 still had the best maps...


----------



## Ryukouki (Jun 14, 2014)

JayRo said:


> OP doesn't know what he's talking about, this game was awesome when it came out, and is still fun to play. In my opinion, UT2003 still had the best maps...


 

Pssst, it's a guest column.  The only part I wrote is the part visible on the portal.


----------



## Jayro (Jun 14, 2014)

Ryukouki said:


> Pssst, it's a guest column.  The only part I wrote is the part visible on the portal.


 
Like I know how these things work..? I just see a forum with this on the front page, and reply to it.


----------



## Joe88 (Jun 14, 2014)

there is still tons of people playing ut2k4


----------



## Vipera (Jun 14, 2014)

>Console Port

Nuff said.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jun 14, 2014)

JayRo said:


> Like I know how these things work..? I just see a forum with this on the front page, and reply to it.


So, do you not read it then? The introductory paragraph says that this was done by a guest writer. You can disagree, but at least figure out what you're supposed to be disagreeing with.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 14, 2014)

JayRo said:


> OP doesn't know what he's talking about, this game was awesome when it came out, and is still fun to play. In my opinion, UT2003 still had the best maps...


That would be me, in this case. And I'm sorry, but I really have to disagree on this. I stand by all the points I've written and could easily have made it twice as long, but upon release, it was anything but awesome when it was released. You could give yourself a clan tag, but there was no way to check which of your clan members were online. Or near impossible to find ANYONE you knew, for that matter. Returning to the menu from within the game showed a loading screen (yes! a loading screen to load the MENU!). The demoguy-bug kinda screwed the purpose of choosing any character, as pretty much everyone online showed as the same guy.

I could go on. I won't deny that it has its strong points, but it hardly showed because the aforementioned things are so crucial you shouldn't even be noticing them in the first place. Kind of like the foundation of a house. No matter how pretty it is, with a weak foundation it'll fail. Actually PLAYING the game at release was sort of fun. But getting there was like jumping through hoops. And compared to the prequals, it's not even a contest. IMHO, of course. But though it may sound arrogant: I DO know what I'm talking about.


----------



## pwsincd (Jun 14, 2014)

Onslaught rocks... UT2k4 all the way.. this one was lame by comparison.


----------



## Arras (Jun 14, 2014)

I liked the original UT from 19xx or however old that was. Never really got to play any of the others.


----------



## laudern (Jun 14, 2014)

But the real question is - Who has the better gibs? Q3 or UT????


----------



## MindBuddah (Jun 14, 2014)

Have UT2004 on my Power Mac Pro (Power PC) with (Games Workshop) Ork and Space Marine skins that I still fire up every now and then!


----------



## Dork (Jun 14, 2014)

You know it's a shame, Unreal Tournament 3 Black Edition really isn't bad. If they had gone with that at launch and not a millennium later it maybe would have done better.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jun 15, 2014)

After the first Unreal Tournament they all sucked...

The number of mods alone made that one the best.

You could even play Tetris on it!!! (I liked U4EA and the Marvel Skins.)

Edit: I should add that the game looked and played the best under GLide, and now I miss my VooDoo 5500 again... lol

Edit 2: downloading GLide wrapper and installing again!!!  lol


----------



## Gahars (Jun 15, 2014)

You really have to wonder which doofus decided that Unreal Tournament needed to look "realistic."

Then again, I suppose we should ask which doofuses decided that "realistic" meant drab and lifeless, but that's a whole nother topic altogether.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jun 15, 2014)

Gahars said:


> You really have to wonder which doofus decided that Unreal Tournament needed to look "realistic."
> 
> Then again, I suppose we should ask which doofuses decided that "realistic" meant drab and lifeless, but that's a whole nother topic altogether.


 

Could not agree more, and the pace of the first one just is so much faster than the newer ones!!! (I just got back from finishing the first 10 levels against bots, sure they suck but it's a nice warm up...) 

Also I would like to retract my statement about GLide being the best... It works and it OK but I like the HD texture pack better under OpenGL better now. Latest patch seems to have fixed a lot of crap or it's just GoG magic at work? What ever they did they fixed the hell out of it. 

Thank you Good Old Games!!! This is like the 5th game you have made work again like magic!!! (I could always get it to work under Vista and 7 but I always had to resort to GLide wrappers so my screen wouldn't be all jerky...)


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 15, 2014)

Gahars said:


> You really have to wonder which doofus decided that Unreal Tournament needed to look "realistic."


Probably the same doofus that decided that unreal tournament (3) needed a war rather than tournament.


----------



## Count Duckula (Jun 15, 2014)

Loved the original and 2k3. 2k4 onwards I'm not a fan.


----------



## ReigningSemtex (Jun 15, 2014)

I absolutely loved Unreal Tournament 3


----------



## BvanBart (Jun 15, 2014)

JayRo said:


> OP doesn't know what he's talking about, this game was awesome when it came out, and is still fun to play. In my opinion, UT2003 still had the best maps...


 

200% agree with that. Story was kinda meh... but gameplay was nice. Also the space fights were very awesome online.


----------



## dubbz82 (Jun 19, 2014)

eh, I could've listed off a hundred games easily that would come before this in a list of games not to buy.....it's obviously got flaws, and hasn't aged particularly well, but there's FAR worse than this out there.


----------



## Hells Malice (Jun 20, 2014)

i'm not really a UT junkie, so I haven't played any of the other games. UT3. It was quite fun. I remember having a blast with multiplayer back when it was released. Especially with friends. Barely touched it on PC though. Only picked it up cuz it was dirt cheap one christmas.


----------

