Unreal Championship 2: The Liandri Conflict Review

By Kristan Reed Published 22 April, 2005

The Jazz Odyssey of shooters.

Version tested: Xbox

Order yours now from Simply Games.

"I hope you like our new direction" says Spinal Tap bassist Derek Smalls as he kicks off the band's new 'Jazz Odyssey' project. But a restless demin-clad crowd look on in disbelief and quickly turn on the hairy rockers, aiming a chorus of boos, unkind hand signals and probably phlegm at the humiliated Brits before storming out of the gig in disgust. Unreal Championship 2 is the Jazz Odyssey of the shooter world. A project borne out of the admirable sentiment of splicing various gaming ingredients into something new, but one that ultimately tastes like ice cream pizza to this old hack. I wanted the old hits given a new lease of life, not Unreal Mortal Kombat Championship.

I don't normally read what other people have to say about games I'm playing until well after I've written a review. People's opinions can easily sway your own, especially in a negative sense, but in this case my brain wasn't getting anywhere near the enjoyment from playing the game I expected to. I wanted to find out what it was that other people were getting so excited about in dishing out their high scores like so much confetti. What was I missing here?

Breakloose

1

Essentially, as someone who plays more games and more shooters than can be strictly healthy, I applaud Epic's attempts to not just take easy street like everyone else and churn out A.N.Other Unreal Tournament port for the consoles. Clearly we've been there and done that and doing the same thing again would have been a boring, pointless retread and more than a little exploitative. The idea of breaking away from the PC roots of the series and creating something uniquely console-focused is potentially an inspired one; mix up the third-person fighting genre with first-person shooting mechanics. For once we have a shooting-based game with a decent selection of acrobatics and melee moves. The lines are so blurred here it's neither one thing nor the other; it's just simply jump, dodge, slash and shoot combat by whatever means necessary. Why not indeed? Let's roll.

As you might already be expecting, it's a game best played with your mates, and unlike previous UT or UC titles, the need to play it multiplayer is probably even more marked here thanks to a fairly short single-player campaign that really knows how to bust your balls, despite being something of a glorified training ground

The story-lead Ascension Rites kicks off proceedings with a typically earnest sci-fi yarn that an equal number of people will get and the other half will be rolling their eyes between fits of giggles, so we'll leave it up to you to decide which 'camp' you're in. It's not really important why you're tasked with shooting people for sport; it's just more arena based combat, okay? Get over the fact that the protagonist Anubis wants to assert his masculinity and prove he's got the correct amount of testosterone pumping around his torso, or that his uber-breasted ex Selket is a bit of a sour puss. There's killing to be done. Flags to capture, heads to be sniped.

Off the ropes

2

Early on it's a case of simply learning the ropes, or more specifically learning how to bound around wall-jumping, traverse large gaps with your super jump, pull off deadly melee finishing moves, and learn how to access one of the six abilities you have available to you. In UC2 adrenaline is your friend as it allows you to gain access to the specials in your arsenal, such as heal, nimble (jump higher), speed, or a move that repels other enemy attacks, and while adrenaline regenerates over time, it's lying around all over the place for you to scoop up and plays a key part in the combat balance.

Although a selection of familiar weapons make their comeback (Stinger, Flak Cannon, Rocket Launcher, Sniper, etc.), they play an almost equal role. While, yes, it is possible to just play the game as a straight-down-the-line FPS, it's fair to say you won't be getting the most out of what there is to experience here - and besides, sometimes you won't even have a weapon at your disposal, so it's best to try and get on with the melee combat as early as possible for when it's the only thing available to you.

Soon enough you're engaging in a selection of familiar ladder matches, getting to grips with the third-person perspective, and working out whether it makes much difference to shoot in first-person or not. The choice is yours, and although you can switch between the two with the touch of a button, it's a little jarring to even have to think about it. Probably the game's central problem is that the learning curve is steep enough for it to be a tough game to learn to love. Regardless of whether you've played first person shooters for the last 13 years, this isn't a game you can just jump into and expect to gel with immediately - mainly because there's a lot more to it than meets the eye, and the game doesn't exactly make it easier for you by populating it with some impressively tough AI bots.

Journey to the centre of the hearth

3

The same problems await you in Tournament and Challenge modes, with the former no more than a quick Arcade mode allowing you to choose any of the 14 fighters (eight of which are locked), while the latter is an immensely tough journey through against-the-odds battles where, for example, you may join the match already several kills behind and have to make up the difference. The 15-level Challenge mode, though, is pretty insane at times and only for those players who really know their maps and have mastered the controls properly. Newbies need not apply.

Certainly, the central problem for the newcomer in any of the single-player modes will be having to deal with a certain amount of 'cheating' prior knowledge from the AI - in terms of the fact that to begin with you'll have the massive double disadvantage of not knowing the map layout, nor where the power-ups are. It took quite a while to even realise the reason I was getting my arse kicked was because the sodding AI kept nicking them (especially Unreal Damage) and blasting me to kingdom come; but of course while the AI has a power-up you don't even know where it respawns, so frustration abounds. Of course, things get better the more you play it, but you're going to require a degree of persistence and patience to ever hope to get the most out of the game.

Such problems, of course, don't exist as such in the multiplayer mode and as a consequence is arguably the best way to experience the game, as was no doubt the intention all along. Whether via two-player split-screen, system link or over Live, the beauty of it is, as ever, that you can't blame the AI and can customise it exactly how you want it. If you want to play a traditional first-person match, then configure it that way and off you go; if you want a no-weapons melee match, then, again, that's up to you, but the real difference isn't so much the whole melee combat versus projectiles conundrum, but the degree of manoeuvrability available to you. You'll either love how different it feels or loathe the flea-match spectacle of what plays out. It certainly makes a change, but is that really enough?

Problem page

4

The problem for me wasn't anything to do with the standard of the game. Anyone with even a vague comprehension of gaming quality can appreciate there's plenty to admire here, and it's easy to understand why plenty of people will like it for many sound reasons. Bring on the but. But, without wishing to be vague, it wasn't for me. I just didn't get hooked in at any point, the whole single-player experience felt laboured and hard to get into (a major sin for any videogame, I would argue) the weapons didn't feel as rounded, as effective or as exciting as before, and the balance just felt unsatisfying, with players simply too nimble and too fast to make many of the weapons all that useful. It's all very well having powerful weapons, but getting some of them on target is like nailing jelly to a wall. It's a different kind of experience, but not necessarily different in a way that adds up to a more compelling game. Multiplayer does make up for a lot of the issues, but it still requires a hefty investment of time to get into - time that, in the context of a mere review, wasn't a luxury available to me.

There's a deeper issue, too, and again it's one of personal taste: with the exception of probably Soul Calibur I've never been the world's biggest beat-'em-up fan. Partly because I'm not especially good at them, but mainly because I find the whole idea of combos in gaming an instant turn-off. Up, Up, Left, R, Y, X, Touch your nose, belch, and R3 to finish your opponent by Death Breath. Rot. In. Hell. That Unreal Championship 2 wants to borrow them from its Midway chum Mortal Kombat might impress those looking to fuse their fighting skills with their shooting prowess, but me? The only finishing move I wanted to perform was the eye gouge on the person responsible for cross breeding one of my all-time favourite franchises with one of my least favourite. The bottom line? I simply don't want to flick to third-person view to perform twizzle stick Jedi moves when I have a Flak Cannon in my pocket.

Although we're dealing with an Xbox-only title here, the visuals aren't actually anything out of the ordinary for the platform at this stage. You certainly couldn't call it ugly in any way or bleat on about poor animation or bland environments. There's plenty to see of high quality; with 50 maps to work your way through it's not lacking in variety. I'd probably call it Generation Fatigue. We're on the very cusp of the next-gen consoles, we're already being spoiled by the current crop of PC shooters, and we're admittedly asking for miracles for console games to wow us with anything new right now. You could say the style's a bit done to death, and that the game's starting to look generic for all sorts of reasons, but looking at it objectively my lack of enthusiasm is rooted in the well worn feeling of having seen it all before rather than any issues of quality.

Different to be daring

Ironically, for a game that's evidently trying hard to be different, it's actually its decision to morph into something else that I didn't get on with. At my most charitable I felt like I was playing an experimental mod of a game I really love. All the time you're thinking 'well done chaps, nice work', but at the same time wanting to get back to the game you love. You want the hits. But what the hell; try it for yourself, rent it, you might like it. I just can't pretend I did, no matter the weight of the consensus.

Order yours now from Simply Games.

7 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Kristan.

About Kristan Reed

Kristan is a former editor of Eurogamer, dad, Stone Roses bore and Norwich City supporter who sometimes mutters optimistically about Team Silent getting back together.

Read more articles from Kristan by visiting the Kristan Reed archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (35) Latest comment 6 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • L0cky #1 7 years ago

    Welcome back

  • L0cky #2 7 years ago

    The player models are really good, in an artistic sense. FPS on a console will never appeal to me though.

    Edit: until they come up with touch sensitive controllers that work just like a mouse, that is. I'm hoping Nintendo is working on something that can do this.
    Edited by L0cky at 22/04/05 @ 16:53

  • asphaltcowboy #3 7 years ago

    Well, I for one will be getting this game - looks amazing.
    In fact, I think it'll probably be my next Xbox purchase :D

    Hey Kristan, is that a Flak Cannon in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me? *swoon*

  • #4 7 years ago

    T3h Sux?

    OMG LOL...

  • Feanor #5 7 years ago

    I wish Halo 2 had bots like this game does, wah. Good review, though.
    Edited by Feanor at 22/04/05 @ 16:58

  • Juriel #6 7 years ago

    Hah, FPS on a console...
    I just might glance at this when a PC port comes out.
    Dislike FPSes, but the marriage of melee combat in with that is appealing.

  • Xerx3s #7 7 years ago

    You grade €A games higher than this? Is this an upsidedown world? (Even though im not gonna buy this game either...)

  • L0cky #8 7 years ago

    'I just might glance at this when a PC port comes out.'

    A pc port won't come out.

  • smelliot #9 7 years ago

    I trust EG less and less every day. GameRankings.com for me.

  • lemonfist #10 7 years ago

    "i feel sad for this reviewer i mean get out of the game biz if you can't review for the majority omg

    this game is 10 out of 10"

    So, instead of giving us his honest opinion about games, Kristan should do some 'research' (which could be sponsored by, let's say EA, Sony or Microsoft) to find out what the 'majority' thinks and then write a bunch of bullshit based on that accompanied by a ridiculously high score.

    How clever.

    But, you know what, it's already been done thousands of times at IGN. You can just go there if you like.

  • IronGiant #11 7 years ago

    Having played this have to agree, it's a 6 or 7/10 which is a shame as i really really liked UT and UC.

  • Roamer #12 7 years ago

    I love the Eurogamer reviews, and quite frankly they're the only ones I trust.

  • spillz #13 7 years ago

    good review. demo turned me off too. I don't think the control layout that works for an FPS works nearly as well in third person.

  • Mirkan #14 7 years ago

    Since a long way back I find myself not so much "trusting" reviews as agreeing or disagreeing. I've usually made my mind up pretty strongly from just looking at developer, screens, movies and hard facts about the game, whether I'll buy it or not. At the most, a score can sway me a little in one direction, towards buying the game, or away from that.

    EG never does these days though. It used to in the past, a lot, but starting pretty much with the 10/10 for Half Life 2, which anyone can clearly see isn't even remotely a perfect game, these reviews carry about as much weight as IGN in ultimately deciding whether I'll buy a game or not. As smelliot mentioned, gamerankings is perhaps the most accurate way to get an overall feel for the quality of a game in the public eye, as one single person can rarely decide for another what's "good".

    One notion that I think a lot of people share is that we're somehow responsible for how a game is displayed in the press, especially if we've got strong feelings about said game's quality. It's something at least I, myself, need to work with, but it's hard when a reviewer's opinion that's so obviously just that, is taken as fact.

    EG remains the sole output for european/PAL based news I visit, and I do check out their reviews on a daily basis, but mostly the reviews are just me going "huh." over the countless concerns for all the wrong reasons. Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory springs to mind as a pretty scary example.

    In closing though, EG have always felt more like your circle of gaming friends that each offer input on games they've played. My friends are never a deciding factor in me buying games or not, but it's fun when we get along and like the same stuff.

    That said, I won't be buying this game, but I knew that already.

  • Freek #15 7 years ago

    I don't get what the problem with the review is. It explaines exactly what's great about the game and that if you like that style you should get it.
    Just that the reviewer in question diden't like that style, he doesn't like beat em up games, so that's where the second part of the review turned a bitt more negative while keeping it clear that if you do like beat em up games and FPS games you'll enjoy this allot.

  • asphaltcowboy #16 7 years ago

    "Just that the reviewer in question diden't like that style, he doesn't like beat em up games"

    Arguably, perhaps someone else should have reviewed it then?
    Edited by asphaltcowboy at 23/04/05 @ 16:30

  • Mirkan #17 7 years ago

    Okay, fine, I'll put it this way; HL2 had too many fundamental flaws to be considered worthy of 10/10 by just about anyone. 10/10 in this case felt more like a statement than anything else, one that said "okay, we're fed up with just shooting stuff, we want new things in our FPS". I agree with that notion, and also that HL2 executed some new things pretty well, but it's also in many ways stuck in 1998. Ultra obvious trigger based enemy spawns topped only by Doom 3, which basically puts monsters on top of your head when you enter a room. Map load in the middle of speedy boat/car chases, and what's essentially as dumb as it's predecessor in terms of actual shooting.

    All in all, it just isn't accomplished enough to warrant a 10/10. Very few games are.

  • smelliot #18 7 years ago

    Basically, UC2 sucks for anyone who can't be bothered to practice the controls.

  • MikeD #19 7 years ago

    Basically, UC2 sucks for anyone who can't be bothered to practice the controls.

    That still means it's a significant step down from te pc UT games. Those were fun immediately. And because there were all kinds of advanced moves and strategies it stayed fun. But you definitely didn't have t practice to have fun.

  • smelliot #20 7 years ago

    Unreal Tournament =/= Unreal Championship 2

    Hence the DIFFERENT NAME. So many people keep expecting it to be identical, despite it having a totally different name. Same with the Unreal 1 and 2 games, totally different to Tournament or UC2.

  • kentmonkey #21 7 years ago

    "he has obviously rated the game 7 out of 10 because HE didn't like it."

    No shit sherlock!

    "i feel sad for this reviewer i mean get out of the game biz if you can't review for the majority omg"

    Yeah cos that would make sense. I take it you're part of the majority are you? Well don't feel sorry for him, I'm sure Kristan would prefer it if you saved your pity for yourself....

    How many times are we going to have to have this score conversation with people? It doesn't matter about the score, the score will never suit everybody's gaming taste. Even a great game like Half Life 2, whom many would give 9-10/10 to, will still find people who dislike it. It's about the review quality. Those symbols before the number, you know the big part of the review, they're actually words. If you read them & the review was well written, you'll get a better understanding of whether a game is for you more than a poxy number out of 10 will ever give you.

    Kristan explained why it wasn't for him in such a way that you could make up your own mind whether the issues he raises would be issues or even plus points for you. He didn't like the fast, frenetic gameplay that meant some of the weapons were in his opinion, made redundant. You might prefer fast & frenetic shooters, like TimeSplitters 2.

    But then I shouldn't be hard on you, as you suggested, you're part of the majority, who seem to lack the ability to make up their own mind (much like their beds probably) & instead have to be told what is great or even have their ego's massaged so that they can be reassured that their opinion is the right one & anybody who says otherwise is a fool.

    If you want somewhere to read reviews that are written for your "majority" go buy OPSM.

  • kentmonkey #22 7 years ago

    Oh, I forgot to mention in my previous lengthy post the following comment:

    Zuki wrote: "this sites gets lamer by the day mainly because of their staff".

    See, I've gotta disgree with you there. I know you're not going to like it but I've just gotta. See this site doesn't get lamer by the day because of it's staff, it's frankly because of twats like you are allowed to come here & post crap. Please do us all a favour, go back to what your probably best at, standing outside your local train station & shouting abuse at passers by.

    oooh, look what I've just found, ignore poster........./clicky

  • MikeD #23 7 years ago

    Hence the DIFFERENT NAME. So many people keep expecting it to be identical, despite it having a totally different name. Same with the Unreal 1 and 2 games, totally different to Tournament or UC2.

    You obviously haven't played UC 1 then.

  • synkro #24 7 years ago

    mistake

    #1. naming the game UC2, they should have named it Unreal Unleashed or something but you sickos only buy sequels. . .

    #2. expecting a FPS, everybody who read at least one pre-view must have known that it won't be a traditional Unreal Tournament like FPS

    #3. expecting another UT

    #4. reviewing a game with a steep learning curve after a short time of playing

    --> who did at least one of these mistakes: please stick to Halo2 and never ever open your mouth again! EG was a nice place but after this review and the comments there is no differnece to gamespot or ign in quality anymore :(
    Edited by synkro at 24/04/05 @ 16:53

  • MikeD #25 7 years ago

    #1 The whole game reeks of unreal tournament. The graphics, the sound, the atmosphere. A bit of melee combat doesn't change that.

    #2 Read the 3rd paragraph and see that they made no such mistake.

    #3 Same paragraph. it specifies that it's good that this is not another ut.

    #4 EG is the only site I trust the reviewer has played the game for a good amount of time. it's often the reason they are a bit later than other sites. To even suggest they rushed this review is madness if you know EG.

    People who write off a site because they don't agree with a review deserve official playstation/xbox magazine, as far as I'm concerned.

  • spillz #26 7 years ago

    I don't know about all these user statements that UC2 is totally different from UC1/UT. It's obviously the same basic engine, just tweaked a lot more to include the third person meleeing. It still has a distinct unreal feel. plus some of the maps are just modified UT2004 maps. i'm a little disappointed EPIC didn't bundle a map editor like they are with the upcoming pariah.

    I think Kristan's score is perhaps a little harsh, but i definitely agree with the sentiment. The game is probably even more of a twitchy jump fest than it was in past iterations. The unfortunate part of this is that once you're online against experienced players the endless speedy slaughter stops being fun. A dull single player campaign (just like in UT2004) compounds this and isn't going to encourage the majority to improve their skills offline.

  • Genji #27 7 years ago

    I read reviews because I don't have enough money to buy a game just for the developer or whatever. A review is an honest opinion from someone who has played the game extensively. Whether I value that opinion or not often depends on what I know about the reviewer. The thing I like about EG is that the reviewers actually have a personality - it's pretty easy to see what sort of gamers they are. If a reviewer who shares my tastes likes a particular game, then chances are I'll like it too. IGN and Gamespy reviews never talk about anything worthwhile and, more importantly, they have no personality behind them.

    Occasionally, I'll be disappointed, like I was with HL2. Eurogamer are rightly stingy about which games they give 10/10 to - I disagreed with that one. If I were reviewing it, I'd give it about an 8. That's keeping CS:S separate, mind you ;)

  • speedjack #28 7 years ago

    Bought it Saturday after playing the demo - great game.

    I do see Kristan's point - this is no pick up and play shooter, but in my opinion is all the better for it. I also agree with his comments re: combo moves - I can't be arsed either... but its a take it or leave it option and not one that impacts overall gameplay if you choose the latter.

    It also looks stunning too... if you like the whole Unreal tech look and feel.

    Unreal Tournament (the first one) was one of my fave games ever for the PC. This is a more than adequate console substitute and one that really pushes the genre forward - (and how many times have you heard that about a FPS only to be dissapointed).
    Edited by speedjack at 25/04/05 @ 13:21

  • ssuellid #29 7 years ago

    Bit late for the RSS feed?

  • asphaltcowboy #30 7 years ago

    "However, I find it slightly alarming that a review of a game that has been marketed on the basis of a 50/50 split between FPS and beat-em up mechanics would contain a phrase like "I've never been the world's biggest beat-'em-up fan."

    Personal opinion is all well and good, but if Kristan and the other members of staff at EG knew that in advance, you do have to wonder why he was given this game to review. Eurogamer's own guide to their scoring system actually says that they will not give a game to a reviewer if that game lies outside their preferences, as "there is no point giving an RTS game to an FPS junkie".

    In this instance, it seems to me that they have done pretty much exactly that, given a beat-em up to a reviewer who doesn't like beat-em-ups. Its no surprise therefore that the overall tone of the review comes across as "what have you done to my precious UT?". By EG's own rules, they should have sought a another member of staff (or failing that a freelancer) who liked both beat-em-ups and FPS games."

    That was what I was getting at. But it's just much more eloquent and better written :) Regardless, It's stilla good review and you do make it obvious as to whether people will like it (based on the style) I just think someone else (perhaps who likes beat 'em ups) should have reviewed it.

  • kentmonkey #31 7 years ago

    ManicMiner fair point - can not disagree with that at all. I think giving this to somebody else as you mentioned, plus perhaps FIFA Street to somebody who liked footy games (could be wrong there, haven't been coming here that long, but I do seem to recall somebody saying that Kristan dislikes Pro Evo as it's too complicated. As I said, could be wrong there).

    Out of interest, did you see my reply to your reply in the Splinter Cell discussion we were having?

  • siro #32 7 years ago

    If you didn't like it, you shouldn't give it a 7. Even though the crowd wouldve been even wilder than now...

  • demonflesh89 #33 7 years ago

    I think this game is bad this game rocks on.

  • demonflesh89 #34 7 years ago

    this game is bad and this game rocks on.

  • SomaticSense #35 6 years ago

    Just got this the other day for a fiver from virgin. Absolutely brilliant graphics (especially considering this is the first Xbox game I've bought since getting a 360), make it hi-def and add a smidge more texture detail and lighting and the graphics would truely be 360 quality.

    Gameplay is exactly how I like it as well, fast paced mayhem. And I loved the first UC as well so adding the melee stuff which I thought really improved things made it that rare thing, a sequel that is exactly that and not a clone (which lets face it is what most 'sequels' are nowadays).

    This has filled the gap right up until Dead Rising is released (which is more than can be said for my imported US copy of PSP Tekken, damn thing doesn't work), and for a fiver was ridiciulously good value for one of the better Xbox games I've played. Shan't bother with the challenges though, absolutely ROCK hard to the point of virtually impossible, and that's coming from someone who always played the first UC with the bots set to 'godlike' using the instagib mutator and did ok!!