Talk:Unreal Tournament 3

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A request for a screenshot has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department)

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

No Pictures

Why are there no screen shots? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.179.213 (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name Justification?

In the intro paragraph there is claim made that it was named UT3 because of similarities between this game's single player campaign and unreal 1 & 2 along with a link, #7, to back up the claim. This would be fine if not for the fact in the final game the campaign got so trimmed down that the point the posted was making is now false. Whould we edit it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.231.73.242 (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summary?

Shouldn't a good article have at least some plot details, or maybe even a description of some of the main characters. All I see on here on this page is boring details about specs and engines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.148.187 (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's ardly any plot at all, while those boring details are important. 24.188.131.67 (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Release date has now changed

Confirmed November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.183.3 (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main article says in January of '07. Now it has changed to second quarter, more specifically June 1st, 2007.--72.202.129.98 22:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"On Gameplay Shop the realese date is thought to be September 28th, 2007, while Amazon.com believes the release date to be March 31st, 2007.". Oh for God's sake... You see? Do NOT put any dates until *EPIC* makes it official. Using dates written by any nerd on a website does NOT make it official. These dates are totally useless. -- Lyverbe 12:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again with the damn date. Pyrogenix, why not leave it to "When it's done" until we get an official date (as in -date-, like a day-month-year thing, like a specific moment in time) instead of a "Maybe sometimes during the year"?! You very well know that putting anything else than "When it's done" (as Epic -officially- stated) will start an edit war again. -- Lyverbe 12:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Lyverbe, from what I hear from Epic they are "shooting for" November 2007 now.

"While they didn't give a specific day, Epic has said that UT3 will be released in November, 2007. I believe the demo is supposed to be out a couple weeks earlier than the release date."

There is a new HD trailer out there you should check out too.

HD Version

http://download.beyondunreal.com/fileworks.php/official/ut2007/ut3_e307_trailerhd.zip

The grammar has been updated

I took the time to update the grammar and rearrange some of the sentence structure. One person took the time to point out a "General Discussion" web forum that is definitely not official, but I did not delete that information, like I probably should have. Instead, I simply pointed out that Midway's highest ranking authority--their CEO--has officially confirmed that Midway will Publish Unreal Tournament 2007 for the Xbox 360. Although Epic currently does not acknowledge that they are developing an Xbox 360 version of Unreal Tournament 2007, that definitely does not prevent Midway from Publishing the game for the Xbox 360.

Midway could easily develop the game for the Xbox 360 on their own, or they could outsource the development to another developer. Let's not forget that the PC is the primary development platform for Unreal Tournament 2007. Midway or an outsourced developer could easily port the game to the Xbox 360 because the Xbox 360 is so easy to program games for, since it is so similar to the PC. However, the Playstation 3 is very difficult to develop games for, and it likely requires skilled developers such as Epic to work on both the PC and PS3 versions at the same time. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that Midway CEO David Zucker has made it 100% clear that Midway will Publish Unreal Tournament 2007 for the Xbox 360, regardless of who the Developer of the game is.

As a result I also made the decision to remove very speculative information that was labeled as "official" by the person who included it. The person had written information that came from Epic's Games Forums Unreal Tournament 2007 General Discussion Chat Room. The information was written by a person called, "Flak," that is certainly not as high-ranking as Midway's Chief Executive Officer, David Zucker.

The bottom line is that Midway is the publisher of Unreal Tournament 2007, and their CEO has made it clear that Unreal Tournament 2007 will be Published for the Xbox 360, the PC, and the Playstation 3, regardless of who the Developer is. As a result, we NEED to keep the accurate information that was Officially announced by Midway CEO, David Zucker, at the 2006 Electronic Entertainment Expo, and we need to eliminate the nonsense that comes from Online Chat rooms and are innappropriately labeled as something "official," when they are definitely NOT official!

Thank you for your time.Mike mgoblue 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the body of the article still mentioned a release for the Xbox 360, while the infobox had been edited to remove reference to a Xbox 360 port, I've reverted this edit. --Oscarthecat 14:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Deleted some spamvertisement in the citations and the external links. People need to get a life --Phopojijo

Restored the fact-based information provided by Midway's CEO at the 2006 E3

I have updated the page to once again include the Xbox 360. The Staff Members of Wikipedia Encyclopedia have actually talked to me about this before. Wikipedia is actually supposed to automatically update that information and hyperlink, because I provided such indesputable proof. The hyperlink I provide will take you to an interview where Midway's Chief Executive Officer, David Zucker, talks to the editor's of Next-Generation. In this interview, Midway's highest ranking authority makes it clear that Unreal Tournament 2007 is being published by Midway for the Xbox 360 when he specifically names the Xbox 360 as one of the platforms that it will be released on.

It is very important for us to remember that the thoughts of Online Chat-Room Administrators are certainly not as valuable or reputable as the information provided by a Chief Executive Officer during an interview at an industry convention. Midway's CEO, David Zucker, obviously knows which games Midway will be publishing, and for which platforms they will be publish on. As a result, we need to place his words at a higher level of importance than "rumors" or the things that "Online Chat-Room Administrators" or "Discussion Board Administrators" might have to say.

Please make sure that this information related to the Xbox 360 version of Unreal Tournament 2007 remains on the website at all times.

I would like to thank the Staff of Wikipedia for all of your time and all of your help. Mike mgoblue 04:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Macintosh

stop removing Macintosh, it will be for Mac before Xbox360 and PS3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.141.130.139 (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

O rly? Epic Games has said nothing about Mac or Linux. Although they most likely will eventually be released on those OSes, nothing has been confirmed as of now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ringtails (talk • contribs) 02:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There was supposed to be a Linux version, but it didn't happen because of licensing issues with Ageia, the guys who created the PhysX engine (which Unreal Engine 3, and therefore UT3 happens to use (see this article, but you can find more if you just Google for it.)

Don't know about Mac though, but if it's been until now, why not?

Darkuranium (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has ALLWAYS been a mac version of UT from the classic to 2k4

True, but there haven't been licensing issues (see my post above) Darkuranium (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Rein clarifies on Epic forums: http://utforums.epicgames.com/showpost.php?p=24890693&postcount=25 24.92.20.94 21:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, if there is a mac version. Where to get it? Steam certainly does not offer it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.204 (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unreal Tournament 3 has officially been announced for release on the Xbox 360

Today, Midway announced that Unreal Tournament 2007 will be now be called Unreal 3. Midway also made it absolutely clear that Unreal 3 will be released for the Xbox 360, PC, and Playstation 3. You can read about this here: http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/758/758367p1.html Mike mgoblue 00:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DirectX 10?

Will this be a DirectX 10 game like Crysis and Hellgate: London? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.123.251.204 (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It will run on DirectX 9 (Windows XP). There will likely be a patch to upgrade it to DirectX 10. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ringtails (talk • contribs) 02:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showpost.php?p=2265739 http://utforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=570096

Yes, the Unreal Engine is DX10. · AndonicO ^Talk 14:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements

What are the requirements going to be for this game?--Daniel Berwick 08:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far, we can't tell about the system requirements. Expect the system requirements to be like a slightly more demanding Rainbow Six Vegas, as they are both base off Unreal Engine 3. Epic is well known for making their games work on a wide range of machines.--Da newb 01:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posting bogus release dates

Guys, get one thing straight.

According to wikipedia criteria anything you say or post must be VERIFIABLE. Stop posting specific release dates. Anything you post that states a month or day is SPECIFIC, and no specific release date has been given by any reliable source. That being said, stop reading pre-order dates on retail websites like EB games. ANY preorder date you see has been 100% fabricated and does not count as a verifiable source. So, until Epic games makes a press release statement providing a specific date, I don't want to see another "June 1st playstation 3, July 1st xbox 360."

There is no substance to this, and it is ridiculous that the article contained that entirely fabricated rubbish for three weeks before I caught it.

Stick to the general verifiable timeframe given by EPIC THEMSELVES, q3-q4 2007, or go back over the wikipedia rules and guidelines.

Agreed. I changed the dates to reflect this. I wasn't aware of a q3-q4 time frame though. If you could readd it with a source that would be helpful. For the meantime I think it should be TBA until that happens, as I haven't found a source citing that I can add myself. I also edited out the part under the "Release Date" section that was stating there would be a demo/beta, as it was redundant (it's already stated in the second paragraph at the top of the page). Metalhead0043 00:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This topic already has its section above called "Release date has now changed". The date was changed to "When it's done" with a link to why it's "When it's done". It was perfect. Unfortunately, Pyrogenix had the brilliant idea to change that and, of course, we're starting to make 1000 edits related to the date again. The official news from Epic is not "November 2007", and not "Q3-Q4 2007"... it's "WHEN IT'S DONE". THAT is the official statement from Epic. -- Lyverbe 12:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up pictures for weapons?

I'm not good at layout things, someone should clean up the pictures for the weapons to prevent those ugly line breaks. --bassgoonist Feb, 12, 2007.

The name

Why is it called UT3? It's the fourth UT game and the eighth game in the Unreal franchise. (This is by my count and I could be mistaken.) Are they ignoring UT2k3 or what? Ayavaron 02:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the answer of the first question on http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200702/N07.0201.1358.43054.htm?Page=1 -- Lyverbe 16:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone should add a section in the article explaining why Unreal Tournament III will not be named Unreal Tournament 2007. I was confused too as to why it was named UT3 when it is actually the fourth UT game. --Leon Sword 04:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say that, IMHO, Unreal Tournament 2003 was basically an embarrassing flop that many players despised and that Epic would (IMHO) like to disown. The official rationale is probably that both UT 2003 and UT 2004 used, essentially, the same engine and/or that UT 2004 was really an update of UT 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhipperSnapper (talk • contribs) 18:08, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

hahaha you dont know much do you RoyalAbidi 01:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linux/Mac

Linux and Mac Support, as well as Support for Windows XP/DirectX9, was finally confirmed by an Administrator on the official forums: http://utforums.epicgames.com/showpost.php?p=24890693&postcount=25 - please change the article. 62.117.29.171 08:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Engine : UE3: include info on multithreading/multi-core support

As UE3 is (one of) the first game-engine that specifically takes advantage on multi core CPUs (the way of the future),

shouldnt it be included in the info?

http://www.beyondunreal.com/daedalus/singlepost.php?id=10539

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~117412,00.html?redir=dtqc01

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2377&p=3

http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=279&page=3

Sounds like a good thing to include in the article. Perhaps just add a small blurb stating that it will support multi-core CPUs, as well as DirectX info (9 will be supported, as well as 10(?)). I'm not sure if it's enough for a new section, but it could be given a heading such as "Hardware Support", or similar. Once system requirements are finalized/announced, they can be merged together into one heading. XMog 17:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:UT2007Golaith.jpg

Image:UT2007Golaith.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XBOX 360 release date ... again

First looked at EBGames website, and they said the 360 release date will be Nov 1st, 2007. That is ship date, and the PS3 ship date will be 01/01/08. Amazon.com says the XP version will be available the 15th of Nov. Pretty sure the game will release sometime in November. I think the official UT forums said that there would be tons of information released about this game at this year's E3, which is known as E for All, and is taking place mid-Oct. They also had said that the demo would release one month prior to the official retail release, so my guess is the demo will release around the time of E3 - middle of October. --72.202.132.123 06:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E3 is happening in 4 days. The E For All and E3 events are two seperate things. Epic would never confirm any information being announced that far ahead.

Also, those release dates are bogus. Nothing is confirmed unless stated by Epic. The retailers are just guessing because they need a date in order to sell preorders. Metalhead0043 03:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah so it looks like the dates were good enough, eh? Bogus release dates, and then 3 days later you post up the trailer with the release month being exactly on November, which I had already stated. And also, did you hear anything about Unreal III at this E3 that just past? I didn't hear anything, so my speculation that it will be at the E for All is pretty much correct. Sucks to be you, doesn't it. --72.202.132.123 05:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*shrugs* Some people have to be right, even when they are wrong. -metalhead0043

Release Date

IGN says the game will be released september 3rd http://pc.ign.com/index/release.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.8.55 (talk • contribs)

...and Mark Rein, vice president of Epic Software, says "We don't know when the game will be released but it won't be ready in time for September 3rd." [1]. I don't know why, but I trust his statement a liiiiiiittle bit more. -- Lyverbe 11:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new trailer has been released by Epic/Midway (http://utforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=573468). It says the game will be out in November 2007. Date is not precise, but it's better than "When it's done". -- Lyverbe 12:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XBox release date went from "2008" to "Early 2008". Don't start annoying people with these changes. We had the same bloody problem with the original release date (ie. "Spring 2008" to "Q1 2008" to "1st quarter 2008" to "Q1-Q2 2008" to "February 2008", etc.). Keep it simple until we have something official date. If it's too specific, people will start changing it constantly. We don't want to go there again. -- Lyverbe 11:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube video says November

Judging by this video at YouTube (also shown at E3) the release date is in November

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XJdF_O0Xk5E

Please source the new link, as it does seem to be the most reliable news on a release date to come so far. As it is now it looks like more speculation on the page without being sourced.Metalhead0043 17:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS3 Exclusivity

Correct me if I'm wrong, but judging from the statement made by Sony, it sounds like they are saying that it will only be a PS3 exclusive during 2007. TooMontrangle 19:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EuroGamer and other gaming sites confirm this, so I put it in. HertzaHaeon 23:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, no, it seems that it's only console exclusive. The PC version is out in November as well. [2] HertzaHaeon 01:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it's exclusive for the PC/PS3 for 2007 and will launch in mid to late "note not early" 2008 on the xbox360 also. Markthemac 03:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and this is exactly why we must not be too specific with the dates until we have official statements from EPIC. If we try to be too specific, there will be 100 useless changes only related to the dates until it's eventually official.

Cross Platform...or not?

The same forum thread that was linked to citing the cross-platform capability has Mark Rein saying this: "Cross platform play isn't decided yet. Please keep this thread about keyboard and mouse for PS3. There are other threads on cross platform."[3]

All the current citation confirms is that a keyboard and a mouse will be able to be used. -- 65.12.179.178 23:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war for WP:NOT

PKaulf, the reason why people keep reverting your change is because we don't agree with it. I've read the WP:NOT and it's not that clear to me why all this needs to be removed.

We have to stop this edit war, discuss and reach a verdict. If most people agree, we'll indeed remove the info, but until then, it should remain. You cannot take such a drastic decision all by yourself. -- Lyverbe 16:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game guide material, fancruft, whatever you want to call it, is routinely removed from other games' wiki pages. It has to go. There are plenty other resources for all these lists of crap. It's all outlined here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines --Pkaulf 19:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, cool the jets. No need to get hostile over the material. Second, the material you removed had a number of sources, and does show differences between versions in the Unreal Tournament series, in weapons, vehicles and game modes. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 19:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PKaulf, it has NOT been discussed. Damn man, can you be more egocentric? Looks like you *AND ONLY YOU* believe that it should go. Like I said, if most people agree, then fine, but it's not the case here. Edit wars are not the way to go. If you're alone in your little world believing the article needs to be gutted, let it go. -- Lyverbe 02:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PKaulf, please stop vandalizing the article. If you need something to do why don't you clean up this talk page. Coyote Pete 03:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree to PKaulf removal of weapons and vehicles. Adding this can not be tolerated in wikipedia. Read WP:NOT, WP:VG/GL and WP:INTERESTING. Adding game modes is OK, Adding Vehicles,Units,Weapons and Structures is NOT to be added in any gaming article. --SkyWalker 05:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So perhaps it needs a clean up, but not a complete destruction of half the article. Half-Life 2 does have a weapons section and it was a featured article. It's just frustrating to see some totally unknown dude with no credentials whatsoever come in and blindly delete half the article without talking to anyone about it. I find this unacceptable. -- Lyverbe 11:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Half Life 2 article has a concise, well-written weapons section. Not a giant exhaustive list of everything found in the game with excessively detailed descriptions thereof which would be best left to a fansite. BTW I find your attempts to belittle me ("unknown dude with no credentials") unacceptable. --16:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkaulf (talk • contribs)

Well, you can't say you went the right way with this. Half the article is removed with the explanation "game guide material and trivia - GONE". Nothing more. I'm like, wtf did this?! and find out the guy doesn't have a user page (experience/contributions/credentials can't be verified), AFAIK has never edited this article before ("totally unknown dude") and doesn't talk to anyone about his decision ("egocentric"). Even you were getting frustrated when people were reverting your "vandalism", so imaging how we felt when this silent ghost kept gutting the article. You had to expect a negative response for this.

So, now that we have a better discussion than single lines from change comments, the weapon section might need to be rewritten rather than being destroyed. How about this? -- Lyverbe 19:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lyverbe. PKaulf, you've taken it upon yourself to remove huge swaths of information from the article and you're clearly confrontational about this. For someone so interested in the rules (as you see them) you're awfully quick to ignore the consensus-building aspect of wikipedia. Would someone please reinstate the article as it was, so the deleted sections can be rewritten if/as necessary, and according to some kind of consensus. Coyote Pete 23:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated the article as it was. My current suggestions are to condense the weapons section to a paragraph or two, specifically focusing on the differences that will be between UT3 and UT2004/UT-GOTY, as well as popular returning weapons. Additionally, the vehicle gallery should be kept, but the vehicle descriptions are probably excessive on par the Wikipedia policy. Similar to weapons, this should be a 2 - 3 paragraph section covering differences from UT2004 vehicles, as well as the new vehicle set being introduced. Additionally, please do not delete the current section until some kind of consensus is achieved. Thanks. --Rake 21:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC) (Oops, that was me).[reply]

Sorry for taking a pair of scissors to the article without realising there's an edit war of sorts going on; feel free to revert the weapons/team sections if you decide to keep it how it was, but I have edited bits outside of that, such as the introduction (merged info with the article), section organisation, engine/development, infobox, and a few references, so if you could hold off doing a straight revert it would probably be beneficial. I didn't tackle the Vehicles section though it looks quite hefty as is; I reckon it could do with a bit of a shortening as well? SynergyBlades 00:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've archived pre-2007 discussion from this talk page, too. Might be worth archiving some of the older 2007 material to a separate archive as well. SynergyBlades 01:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicles and Weapons list

That list got to be gone. Adding list of weapons and vehicles violates wikipedia policy. Please read WP:NOT. Wikpedia is not a game guide. --SkyWalker 14:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say "gone" but "shortened". I do agree that they have too much detail, but believe they should at least be listed. I suggested this change (See User:Lyverbe/UT3) earlier while we were discussing it in the previous topic. -- Lyverbe 16:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had cut down on some of the weapon list content, shortening their descriptions and reorganising what was there, but I do think that ultimately it, along with vehicles, should just be a short paragraph each. SynergyBlades 19:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naa, it's ok to list the vehicles and give a short description because it states how the game is different from UT2k4. 64.236.121.129 13:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just edited the Weapons list, to give people something to work with. It needs to be expanded a bit, but that's the general idea. I'll redo the vehicle list later. --Rake 17:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed the Stinger description, again. Stop saying it follows people it doesn't according to the game devs: http://forums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?p=25009048#post25009048 KriLL3 04:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SkyWalker here. Delete the whole thing, and maybe just add a paragraph on each race, describing the general differences. Then maybe a section listing the differences between 2k4 and this one. · AndonicO ^Talk 14:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey woah! The weapons of Unreal are the whole game. Without any weapons it would be pretty pointless to play the game right? So i say leave the discriptions as is, there short enough while still explaining the main concept of the weapon right? Kou Nurasaka 14:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must partially concur. The paragraph as-is is good enough (not too little, not too much info) but could be edited for conciseness and ease of reading. Mesodreth Blackwing 06:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.29.169.144 (talk)

Okay, I just made the vehicle list for Axon a lot shorter, but that paragraph needs a lot of work, specifically in regards to the changes in UT3 vs 2004. Should we do the same for Necris vehicles? --Rake 07:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding the weapon lists. They violate wikipedia policy, and as much as I'd love to have a detailed explanation of each, we have to keep it more concise, preferably in paragraph form. --Rake 16:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The policy is simple. The weapons/vehicle list should be added on StrategyWiki, not on Wikipedia. ResurgamII 13:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask a quick question then, why are the Necris vehicles still on the page if the rest of the weapons and vehicles are removed. I say delete the current list or include a list on the weapons and vehicles. 65.124.8.131 16:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objections to create a shorter list of vehicles (if not to remove it completely) with MUCH less detail, one like the weapon list? I don't want to get into a revert war... -- Lyverbe (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please do not make any more lists, I will personally delete them as they are a violation of Wiki policy. The current list may be incomplete, but that's the format we are going to stick to. Thanks! Rake (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can somebody give some references to all these weapons and vehicles? They will be deleted otherwise. I put them there before, and subsequent renditions apparently deleted them. Why would people do that in the first place. ...sigh Rake (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. So now we have a shorter weapons list and a shorter vehicles list. It seems people are now "attacking" the teams list putting tons of useless information instead of just the basic stuff. Anyone with me on this? -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally does anybody want a seperate page for weapons and vehicles? other games have similar things like the Legend of Zelda so why not Unreal? For or Against? 65.124.8.131 (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No more "team link"?

I was just playing the demo and I noticed that apparently you cannot team link (as in, multiple people use link gun to increase power or heal) anymore. Can anyone confirm this? --Rake 19:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really not the right place to discuss this, but since you asked I'll answer. You no longer create a link chain. The way it works is if you're in close proximity to someone else who has the link out whoever is in front gets the boost. Metalhead0043 17:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, from what I have read this is no longer the case and you can now create a link chain again. Nothing's confirmed by I'm sure the Germans will be reporting stuff like this over the next couple days. Metalhead0043 01:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UT3 PS3 delay

I think the ps3 version is back on track http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305042,00.html. It says "Unreal Tournament 3 will be out for the PS3 and PC in November." Date is Friday, October 26, 2007. Karbfg10k. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karbfg10k (talk • contribs) 07:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PC Version gone gold

The PC version went gold according to a post at the official Epic forums, following a press release by Midway. I can't update it myself since I'm at work but someone should do so. Metalhead0043 19:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Release date redux

I've removed a couple assertions from the lead... Epic has made it very clear on their own forums and in external sources that the PS3 version will come out in 2008, and I find no evidence that the Mac version will be released "soon after the Windows version", or that they've announced anything at all for that. I have, however, asked for that info. We'll see what, if anything, they say. Grand master ka 02:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proofreading

There were some absolutely abysmal spelling/grammar/capitalization/syntax issues on this page (check the history). I've cleaned them all up afaik; if people could give the rest of the article a quick glance that'd be grand. Kflester 14:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed Wording under "Patches" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.249.18 (talk) 07:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small Changes Based on German Version

I just took out Thunder Crash from the list of teams seeing as how they are not in UT3. I'm mostly new to Wikipedia so if I broke any rules sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.252.2 (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rating

anyone have a up to date ESRB rating for the game? I'm guessin its gonna be M but just for clarification? 65.124.8.131 16:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Link Spam.

193.172.25.211 has been posting a link to a commercial guide site for a few days.

83.85.242.238 is also doing this. - Simeon87 (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion Mode

Quick question: anyone know if Invasion is in UT3? If not, it needs to be mentioned as a mode not carried over from a previous version. If so, it needs to be on the list. Buspar (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   nope, no Invasion there  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.105.140.49 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Limited Edition

On the section covering Limited Edition features it states the dvd contains 10+ hours of video tutorials. However the box of the UK version states 20+ hours. 83.166.185.82 (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LAN

Anyone have the problems of a LAN game not showing up? It just won't appear on the menu when my dad or I start a game to play over LAN with each other. Has anyone had the same problems and/or knows how to fix it? thx S-m-r-t (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Online Multiplayer Community?

Would anyone complain if I remove this section? It has nothing to do with the game in particular, and is really just a generic feature of most online games. Next thing we know there will be a section on how players can use WASD or arrow keys. Gundato (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking along the same lines - honestly it seems more like an advertising speech than anything else and I'll approve any motion for removal. Cpl Syx (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I've removed this section. - Simeon87 (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree. The Online Multiplayer section pointed out that (1) UT3 is primarily an online multiplayer game (even though Epic seems to be marketing it as a single-player campaign), (2) mappers will produce hundreds of custom maps for it (unlike many other games, especially console games), (3) people will play the game competitively, (4) there are discussion forums and IRC channels for the game, (5) there are PUG matches for the game. I'm going to restore it; UT3 is an online multiplayer game and people should know that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhipperSnapper (talk • contribs) 10:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about the community is fine, promoting it in a POV way is not. The tone of the "Online Multiplayer Community" is promotional ("if all goes well, the game will be great great fun in clans and we'll have nice custom maps too") so rewriting should definately be considered. Of course it's a multiplayer game but this is not how we should discuss it in an encyclopedic article. Please reconsider adding the same text again because in its current form, it's not encyclopedic writing but promotional content (which should be removed imo). - Simeon87 (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've received a comment about this on your talk page as well - but let me clarify further: the purpose of this article is simply to inform the reader what Unreal Tournament 3 is, not how people can get the most out of their purchase. Such information should be on Unreal fansite; I'm sure people who are looking for information about the game will be able to find such sites as well. Like the comment on the talk page said, the article isn't a soapbox to promote the game or to tell others that it's so unique and special (which is an opinion and not neutral). I have the game as well so I'm not opposed to promoting the game, I like it too, but this is not the purpose of an article on Wikipedia. - Simeon87 (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I suppose I could rewrite it so that it's less fanboyish and more objective. I don't see any reason why legitimate information about the community that springs up around the game shouldn't be regarded as encyclopedic content. WhipperSnapper (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is arguable. My original point was that the section in and of itself had absolutely nothing to do with the game specifically. Like I said, it would be like having a sub-section on the merits of WASD versus Arrow keys. It might be a key part of the community, but it has little to do with the game itself. If the game used some sort of internal match-making program it would be different. But it was basically saying "People can use IRC for this", which is true of everything and probably belongs in the article on multiplayer gaming. Most of the article seems like an advertisement (mainly because it is still mostly based off the previews) and that is a beast I don't feel comfortable tackling. But this seemed like a pretty open and shut thing (but people tend to freak out if you delete even blatant things without a talk page entry) Gundato (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree that the online multiplayer community that sprouts up around the game has nothing to do with the game itself. The online multiplayer aspect of the game is not merely a garnish; rather it IS the game. The types of activities that people use the game for is very relevant to the game's identity. Why isn't the phenomenon of people playing PUG matches or clanning relevant informational content? You can't just assume that it's obvious to people who read the Wikipedia entry; a great many computer games are solitary single player games and the game is being marketed that way to a significant extent. (Go visit http://www.unrealtournament3.com and tell me where it mentions online multiplayer as a selling point for the game.) If we can't have an online multiplayer section for the game, then it deserves to exist as separate entity on the Wikipedia with a link to it in the UT3 entry. WhipperSnapper (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've composed a new, more objective entry that focuses on presenting the facts and that is devoid of cheerleading. Obviously, some of the information is going to be incomplete, such as the lists of IRC servers and channels offering PUG matches, but few initial lists are complete and the Wikipedia allows others to make additions for completeness and accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhipperSnapper (talk • contribs) 08:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, would you consider a sub-section on WASD versus ESDF versus arrow keys to be something that should be here? Controlling your character "IS the game". And as for your update goes, I really don't feel like getting into an edit war (let the other guys handle that), but I nuked the parts that are completely generic and, yet again, don't belong in this article. There is (most likely) an article on multiplayer gaming in general, and I am sure such information is there. Gundato (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong to compare information about PUG matches (which many UT players have never heard of since most are not members of the IRC or clan community) to a subsection on the merits of WASD versus arrow keys. Also, the information about the IRC servers that UT players use is specific to UT and not generic for online multiplayer games. Also, many online multiplayer games do not have a clan community. You seem pretty determined to conceal this objective and very worthwhile, factual and relevant information from people, so I'm going to go ahead and create a new article called "Unreal Tournament 3 Online Multiplayer Activities and Community" and link to it. WhipperSnapper (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are also pretty determined to use a Wikipedia article for promotional purposes (either in this article or in a new one). Like we explained, that's not the purpose of a Wikipedia article so such articles could be nominated for deletion. General information, like currently in the article, is fine but the article shouldn't be a substitute for Unreal fansites; such sites can discuss the clan community in great detail but that's not the purpose of a Wikipedia article. - Simeon87 (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before we have an edit war on our hands, if you feel the need to reference specific sites or IRC servers in this subsection, don't. Find a link to a page that has a lot of useful information (Try Beyond Unreal, they tend to be good for that) and add it to external links. Gundato (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promised Content Vs. Delivered Content

Though it is mentioned in the game's description of the AVRiL, there are no spider mines in UT3, and the target painter weapon was also not included in the final release. The whole weapons section consists of info from magazine, website, and E3 interviews, rather than info on the actual content in the game. This naturally makes it misleading to someone reading, as they are not reading about the final content, rather, content that was promised. The two are often very, very, different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.163.71 (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah there is spider mines but they're a deployable on Warfare rather than a weapon. Dunno about the target painter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.25.15 (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xan Is Not In

I did a few changes, one of them editing the corupt team. It said it was lead by Xan. This is not true this time. It is actuly led by Matrix. Also UT3 is the 8th Unreal game. Lord Vipes (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism.

There was a user repeatly vandalizing this page (as in over ten times). Appropriate action was taken, but there may still be some factual discrepancies on the page. If you see something that seems fishy, it might be leftover vandalism. HoCkEy PUCK (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplayer game label

There seems to be a slight discrepancy with the opening description.

Unreal Tournament 3 (UT3) is a first-person shooter and online multiplayer video game by Epic Games

However, Mark Rein commented:

Rein: Multiplayer STYLE game! Ahhh! That's one of the perceptions that holds back UT, is that people think it's a multiplayer game - it's a multiplayer style game, that is a great multiplayer game, but is also a great play-it-by-yourself game. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by ResurgamII (talk • contribs) 22:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean bots will stay in like in the previous games. I always have trouble confirming this.86.54.82.19 (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bots do exist in the game. He's just stating that it's not a multiplayer *only* game. The wording is fine in the heading, and doesn't need to be changed. XMog (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm and Thundercrash

It seems that Malcolm only appear in cutscenes, he is not a playable character.--60.242.159.224 01:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section

It really needs to be added and it should be noted that UT3's critical reception was lukewarm compared to that of it's predecessor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.233.100 (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but find something to support it. Gundato (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Metacritic and Gamerankings can be seen as reliable sources for this, i think. Both show ratings of 92 and 93 for UT and UT2004 respectively, while rating UT3 with "only" 83.

The general community census is also to rate the game lower than it's predecessors, mostly because of it's heavy emphasis on the warfare game mode, but also due to it's pretentions of being a console game rather than a PC game. This can't be verified by any direct means though, obviously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.99.199.227 (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could also reference something like www.game-monitor.com. A simple search for UT3 shows 570 people are playing it. In contrast, 1500 are playing UT2004, a game that's much older and with a dying community. Call of Duty 4 released around a similar time has nearly 32000 players. I think anyone can deduce from this that it has not been very popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.185.146 (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to GameSpy's stats page there are generally over 4000 people playing UT2004 and less than 1000 at most times for UT3. I did see a spike where there was around 1100 players online for about a week after Christmas but then it dropped back to to 400-600 range. I do agree that the game has been very unpopular among players especially the existing UT2004 community, despite that the game has received favorable reviews. Most criticize weapon and foot-versus-vehicle imbalances, lack of features, lack of game modes, the Orb and side objectives in Warfare, poor UI, and so on. This might be something worth adding but I don't know how it would be verifiable. Metalhead0043 (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name Resemblance

Should we post somewhere in the article that it shouldn't be confused with Unreal Tournament 2003? I can see some resemblance between the two games' names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.47.124 (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLOT SPOILER

I think the Plot should be modified to either not include the ending or have some kind of PLOT SPOILER section after PLOT before giving out the final scene for those that haven't played yet. I would have been pissed if I just got it or was thinking about it and see the ending by just reading the plot.

SonicBrew (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the end of game stuff to Plot: End of Game SPOILER since there were no comments back regarding this. I think it's only right for people who haven't bought the game or played through.

--SonicBrew (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it... There's been a lot of discussion (and vitriol) about spoiler alerts in the past and the general consensus to date has been that they have no place here. I can find and link you to a past discussion or two about it if you want. Grand master ka 07:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly one reason no-one has responded is because you stuck this section in the middle of the page. I've moved it to the bottom. Grand master ka 07:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying. I guess Wikipedia editing community has a completely different opinion of plot than most people. To actually give the way an ending without indication is wrong but I see it's policy to do so in movies and books as well so forget that I ever posted.

--SonicBrew (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox 360 (March 28, 2008)

I was looking at the article, and the release date states that it will release on March 28, 2008. I'm just wandering if this is true or if it is a sourc e of vandalism. There is no citation to the change either so it is up to you guys to decide what it its...I'm just bringing up the topic.Dcwil477 (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)dcwil477[reply]

Yeah that's probably vandalism. On the other hand I'm too bitter about there still not being a Linux client that I'm not going to bother looking into what actual official word is on the 360 version :P No seriously now, I'm pretty sure it isn't being released today, but as far as I know there's no official position on when it *will* be. Phil Urich (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Released for PC and PS3

"All Websites still site that there is no release date as of yet.(citation's needed)"

Removed from "Gameplay" section.

~Ark =^-^= (talk) 05:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Shouldn't the introduction of the article mention the 360 version, as well as the PC and PS3 versions? Frvernchanezzz (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claims that one of the "exclusive" maps for the 360 version is a stolen version of a user made map

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=282352 not sure of the validity of this, but the way that epic's support for the community has been as of late it wouldn't surprise me.

Misinformation in 'Patches'

The current text claimed that users with a different patch version than the majority of servers will not see those servers - this is not the case; the player will see all servers running all versions, and will be able to join them too, but will not benefit from the patch fixes or content, and probably score a lot of warnings on the server side. Additionally, the player is made aware of when patches are available in the community tab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.214.88 (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sales info?

We all know the game has sold pretty poorly but I was wondering if anyone had any concrete info to add on to the page about the sales for UT3 to date. I know Epic certainly isn't making any announcements and I don't think NDP does numbers anymore (just rankings). I know the game is pretty much dead but some updates would be helpful. Metalhead0043 (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ohh word —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.221.222 (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.thesimexchange.com/search.php?string=Unreal+Tournament+3 it doesn't look pretty for any platforms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.182.57 (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keyboard and mouse support

I read that UT3 qould have keyboard and mouse support for ps3 (not just for chatting). Is this true and how is it implemented so it does don't give an unfair advantage over controllers. -NeF (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deep voice

hey, I searched for this article hoping to find some info on a deep voice you hear during the game. What is that and I believe it is good to have that in the article. Since I was looking for it. Mallerd (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example in this video: ut3. Mallerd (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I heard the Krall, "Corrupt" Liandri Robots, and the announcer. Not important or necessary to note in the article. Flyingbox (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicles Section

I disagree with this section being in the article, as Wikipedia is not a game guide, but I fixed it so that it has reasonable grammar and spelling. Thoughts on removing the section entirely? Dragonmaw (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linux Release Date

The link used as the source to the linux release date specifies that the release date is unknown. That means the reference is bad, so until you find another reliable reference for the release date for the linux version, it should be removed. Venomx3 (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UT3 Reviews

Ok, I added a big list of UT3 reviews by reliable sources such as IGN, Gamespot, CVG, GamesRadar, The Guardian ..etc. I hope that is enough. Hakken (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Unreal Tournament 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=107420

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Unreal Tournament 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141108232019/http://www.kevinriepl.com/wordpress/index.php/credit to http://www.kevinriepl.com/wordpress/index.php/credit

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]