lol I dont. Thats why I said it I personally dont agree that its worth the money.

Yeah, I'm not too crazy about spending more than $30 on any game unless its really worth it, and I feel very few are, particularly UT3.

I have spent $40 on a game before, but it was definitely worth. Only game I ever played where I didn't get bored of it an hour or two into the game. And that game, of course, was the legendary System Shock 2.

Good boy.

Mark said there would be a bonus pack, but when?

Ive only spent more than 30$ on a game and that was Age of Empires Gold Edition. And it was worth every grimy dollar.

Oh how I wish I still had that game, my friend discovered I had...borrowed his copy.

Back on topic, Epic's Mike Capps showed some courage and commendable respect to the Unreal community by saying some stuff about UT3. The following bit is from the site: http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/02/epi ... -pres.html

While speaking on what went right with the recently released Unreal Tournament 3, Epic Games President Mike Capps revealed a sentiment not at all unfamiliar to long-time UT gamers: "Unreal Tournament 2003 was a misstep."

Of course, anyone who played the game (and its sequel Unreal Tournament 2004) could point out that the latter game was what 2003 should have been from the beginning. Many saw the title as being half-finished, and it's impressive to see Capps agree with that sentiment.

You know after all that time it took him THIS long to figure that one out after everyone in epic that was getting interviewed saying that "It would be like UT" well,as good of a game that it was,The only thing UT-ish about it was the title,and most of the contenders in the SP ladders.But of course now UT3 isn't a misstep,it's a step backwards into the wrong direction.But thank god for Patch 1.2
Posted by: K-Bone | Feb 22, 2008 7:44:08 PM

ut03 and 04 where both rushes bjossi same with unreal 2 i wish it wasn't and i saw an add for ut03 witch was in early development and it was called ut2 at the time but nooo they couldn't stick to what they where doing and had to screw it all up curse you epic curse you

UT2004 wasn't rushed.

it wasnt? seemed like it tho ut2003 was bacaues unreal 2 came out before it and that was in 2003 then unreal 2003 came out witch was also in 2003 XD unreal 2 could of ben so much better same goes with ut03

When a game sucks, the reason isn't always that it was rushed. Believe it or not.

there was no excuse for unreal 2 sucking because they only did the single player what the hell was epic and atiari doing when they made these games?

So Unreal 2's single player campaign sucks because the game didn't have multiplayer originally? You are making no sense at all.

I thought U2 was pretty nifty. It ran pretty well on my older machine, given the prettiness of it. Granted, I did tire of the same sequence of going to your mothership, getting an assignment, going somewhere to kill stuff, go back to the mothership, etc. It didn't have the flow HL and HL2 made me take for granted, but it was still pretty fun to play.

Wait, I could've sworn thetrunkmonkey was saying MP meant nothing in a game, only SP matters...

Ah yes, here it is.



Hmm...

That makes me laugh...Multi_player means nothing to people who have absolutely NO skill.

actually i meant that single player has a friken ending unlike muti and besides theres no screaming mic spamming little kids to deal with on single player games unlike mutiplayer.

and yes i do have some skill but nothing impresive

I understand now..I'm just screwing with you.

Online play is 20% skill and 80% luck

For you maybe Guild Wars boy.

No matter what mode you play, it is always skill (or lack thereof) mixed with luck.

Ya know, almost every multilayer game has players arguing about PK vs. non-PK. Here we go again, maybe varied a little bit form the standard form of arguments.

The only thing I connect with PK is the game Painkiller. And I assume you're not talking about that one in this context.

I dont play Guild Wars bud...