Unreal Tournament 2004 is close to a master work, containing tons of new levels, new modes, and a great excuse for upgrading your video card... It's polished to a shine, it plays like a dream, it's gorgeous, and best of all, it is an absolute blast to play.
Give me back these FPSs, where really if you were good, you were REALLY good in this genre. Not like now they do a royal victory on Fortnite or win a game on Warzone and feel like pro gamers... But EpicGames wanted to do the EpicFails by drowning UnrealTournament 2014 by making room for Fortnite...
God forgive us
Onslaught alone makes this game a must by for all the fans out there. If you are an online gamer and looking for the very best death match game out there today, there is no better, more polished game out there.
Eventually I had to venture online, and the first sounds I heard (no lie) were "Oh yeah, you f******, I am the mother-f******'s s***!" It turns out UT 2004 has built-in voice support, and as easy as it is to set up, it's mercifully easy to turn off. [June 2004, p.79]
The improvements are so varied, polished and deep to make any devotee of the game consider upgrading. In fact, its range is extensive enough to make those who turned their nose up at the business-as-usual nature of UT2003 come storming back. [May 2004, p.98]
Single Player/Multi Player (2/2)
(If the single player is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no multplayer) (If the multiplayer is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no single player)
(If the visuals are better than the story, review this section as if it had no story) (If the story is better than the visuals, review this section as if the visuals didn’t matter)
(Review this section only on Accessibility if the game has no longevity) (Review this section only on longevity if the game isn’t accessible)
This is a guideline for how to properly review games. Many reviewers like to get a “feel” for a game, and arbitrarily give a game a score that they believe it deserves. This results in wildly different scores between different reviewers, and vastly different scores between similar games. This guideline addresses these problems and scores games fairly and consistently. This guideline also gives scores that are usually similar to the metacritic score.
The review score is based out of 10 points. There are no “half” or 0.5 increments. It is impossible to have a score above 10 or below 0. The review score will change as the game gets new dlc, drops in price, or if more secrets are found through the game increasing its appeal.
The scoring is split into 6 sections. The first five sections can add a possible 2 points to the final score. The first 5 sections are Single Player/Multi Player, Gameplay, Visuals/Story, Accessibility/Longevity, and Pricing.
Notice that 3 of these sections have two parts. These particular sections will be scored based on the stronger part of the game of the two. For example, **** has a lousy single player campaign, but an excellent multiplayer component, that section will be based solely on the multiplayer as if the single player did not exist. This allows games to be based on their own merits, as many unnecessary features are shoehorned into video games by publishers to reach a “feature quota”. Games that excel in both areas of a section don’t receive should be noted in the written review, but cannot increase the score past 2 in that section. However, it can be taken into account in the final section
The final section can add 1, add 0, or subtract 1 to the final score. This final section is the “wildcard” section. This section is for how the reviewer “feels” about the game, but limits this only to this section, rather than the entire 10 point review. This section can include any positive or negative point that was not covered in the previous 5 sections.
Maybe in my gaming life, I will never like an arcade type shooter game. Counter Strike, Modern Warfare and this highly acclaimed UT 2004 all seem very average to me. It's just a mindless shooting game. You run around boringly repetitive 'arenas' and shoot other people who are trying to shoot you. Most gameplay modes are just feeble attempts at making the run-and-shoot idea which in my narrow mind is an inferior gameplay design. For example, the 'capture the flag' mode, which should involve strategy, planning, and team coordination (similar to Battlefield 2). But no, you just run. And shoot. And when you get a flag, you run, while being shot at. Yet, I am not suggesting people not to try this game, I believe some people who are obsessed with this type of shooter would love it anyway. However, if you think a small amount of deliberate gameplay on the part of the design is important, just get away from this game.
SummaryReload, rev up and ride out. The new Tournament is faster, higher and meaner. Land and air based vehicles take combat to a new level; while an arsenal of new weaponry, daunting arenas and battlefields and the challenge of the Assault and Onslaught modes make the gladiator blood sport of the future a brand new experience. Buckle up; it?s ...