Originally posted by: loudog40
In response to all the b!tching about gameplay of Unreal2.... the thoughts of Chris Hargrove, a member of the U2 dev team, in response to two harsh reviews by two of the larger gaming sites:
==================================================================
Okay, this is just ridiculous.
It seems that both Gamespy and IGN had some kind of strange notion that this game was going to be something other than an FPS, as both reviews seemed to dock the game points for not "raising the bar" in every single gameplay area (even though they basically admit we did so in the graphics department, and some of the gameplay features too), or something to that effect.
What I'm reading from these reviews seems to fall along the lines of "the graphics are great, the story is nice, voice acting is good and all that, and it's a lot of fun at the beginning and the end but kinda slow in the middle, and underneath it all it's really just more of the same (and we're gonna deduct points for it)", in other words, yes, it is a shooter, and you spend a lot of time simply going around and shooting things... Well, guess what guys, we know.
I have no problem with people reviewing the game and expressing their opinion, positive or negative... but c'mon guys, if you don't like the simple act of running around and shooting things, why would you want to play the game in the first place? "Little replay value" implies that if the plot isn't brand spankin' new to you, the game wouldn't be that fun to play again. But in the same reviews, we're told how satisfying the weapons are, which means the actual act of shooting isn't a problem. Hence I wonder, have these reviewers lost sight of what this genre actually is? The GameSpy reviewer even said he hates boss battles.... uhh, hello?
I mean, it's a sad day when we get compared to such incredible titles as Halo, Half-Life, etc... only at the end to have reviewers recommend that people wait until the game is in the bargain bin. Am I the only person that sees something incredibly wrong with this picture? I've played Halo in multiplayer for a couple hours at most, but I've beaten the single-player game at least 3 or 4 times all the way through, even when the plot was no longer new, simply because the raw act of shooting down your enemies (and getting some kind of story progression to boot) is fun. You can take this entire sentence and replace "Halo" with "Half-Life" and it's the same result. There is replay value in single-player shooters, if you actually like the core gameplay mechanic, i.e. giving the player weapons, and baddies to use them on (There is a reason that the game provides a DVD-style missions menu, so you can pick your favorite missions to play whenever you like).
Let me just say this right now: Unreal II is a First Person Shooter. The view is first-person, and you Shoot Things. There is a lot of other stuff to the game too, and I think it turned out to be a pretty darn polished product... but none of that will matter if you don't like shooting.
I'm finding it amazing that I'm even having to explain stuff like this. It's as if we did something wrong in the game by understanding what this genre actually is...
- Chris
(Disclaimer: The above is a PERSONAL opinion/rebuttal, and has no affiliation with the official stances of Legend, Epic, Infogrames, etc.)
==================================================================
I happen to agree with him.