not on pc of course. You game makers should try to keep up. Pc has faster load times better graphics better performance in general and controller support. CMON!
UFC Undisputed 3 Review
UFC Undisputed 3 raises the bar for MMA games and is harder to put down than a heavyweight champ.
- New submission system rewards skill rather than speedy stick rotation
- Comprehensive tutorials make MMA accessible to all
- Career mode now focuses on fights and fight preparation
- It's fun to rewrite history in Ultimate Fights mode
- Option to share highlights online is a great addition.
- Lengthy Title Defense mode lacks a save option
- Clicking through TV-style intros and such takes too long.
While UFC Undisputed games have always offered great mixed martial arts action, UFC Undisputed 3 is the first in the series that also succeeds outside of the octagon. It's also a significantly more accessible game than its predecessors, so you don't need to know a reverse mount from a rear mount to enjoy it.
If you're a newcomer to the series, or just in need of a refresher because you haven't played a UFC game in months, UFC Undisputed 3 has you covered with its comprehensive tutorials. Play through the Guided Tutorial mode's 62 quick exercises, and you learn how to perform everything from simple punches and transitions to dangerous moves like foot stomps and soccer kicks that, while effective in the new Pride competitions, are illegal in UFC matches. Some of the tutorials deal with new or significantly changed gameplay mechanics, so they're worth checking out even if you have previous octagon experience. Submissions are now attempted and defended using an entirely new system, for example.
Rotating the right analog stick as quickly as possible was an inelegant way to resolve submission attempts in previous games, and while it was technically skill-based, it wasn't at all analogous with the struggle onscreen. Thankfully this has been addressed in UFC 3, where submissions employ a minigame of sorts. Two icons representing the fighters move around the perimeter of an octagon-shaped graphic and, depending on whether you're attacking or defending, you either chase or try to stay away from your opponent's icon. It's unfortunate that you end up focusing so intensely on this visual representation of the struggle that you lose sight of the actual fighters, but it's a great system regardless, because it's always clear how well you're doing and what you need to do to improve your situation.
Another interesting improvement inside the octagon is the all-new interaction that you have with your trainer. Not only can he occasionally be heard yelling legitimately useful advice over the noise of the crowd while you're fighting, but in between rounds he offers feedback on both positive and negative aspects of your performance. He might congratulate you on your excellent ground-and-pound work while pointing out that you need to do a better job of blocking your opponent's transitions, for example. Furthermore, you have the option to look at an expanded version of his comments that, often, details what you need to be doing with your controller to act on his advice. MMA fighters have such vast repertoires of moves at their disposal that these reminders can prove invaluable.
If you find the move lists of pro fighters such as Anderson Silva, Cain Velasquez, and Scott Jorgensen overwhelming, a great way to familiarize yourself with the basics is to jump into the much-improved Career mode. There, you start out as a relative newcomer to MMA with a much smaller repertoire and significantly lower ratings for your physical attributes and fight skills. You might feel sluggish and underpowered early on, and it's an odd sensation to find yourself in a position in which you simply don't have good moves available. This forces you to master the basics though, and there's a great sense of progression as you train between fights.
Training hasn't always been much fun in UFC games, largely because so much of it was menu-driven. Thankfully, that's no longer the case. Minigames replace mathematics in UFC Undisputed 3, so where physical training used to take place on a spreadsheet, now it involves punching bags, focus mitts, and the like. Training exercises do a great job of reinforcing the idea that you're improving as a fighter, not only because you inevitably get better at them as your career progresses, but because they employ the same controls as the moves that they most obviously benefit. Grabbing large tires and flipping them around on a mat plays in much the same way that taking down opponents does, for example. Also, you no longer need to concern yourself with working training into your schedule in such a way that you leave enough time before a fight to recuperate.
In UFC 3 you typically get to choose one of five opponents for your next fight and then get just two training sessions beforehand, which you can choose to spend improving your skills and physical attributes, or visiting camps to learn and level up moves. You never have to rest, and you never have to waste time clicking through menus that are presented as media opportunities. You might still end up devoting chunks of time to arranging sponsor logos on your shorts and banner, but you don't need to do this often, and the systems in place for doing so (which also include a new option to design your own logos) are far less unwieldy than in previous UFC games.
One thing that Gamespot is good at is letting the users of this site rate their experience with video games as well. Maybe ratings aren't the best way to go, but if you like a game, what do the ratings matter. I, personally have played games that I liked that were rated badly and vice versa. Each person has a specific taste, that's what makes us different. I don't blame Gamespot, IGN, Gamefaqs, or any other site or magazine for their game ratings. There are still rental places out there that allow you to try out the games before you buy them. That way, you as the gamer can check out the gtame yourself, rather listen to opinions and basing your purchases there. Everyone has biases about a game, or anything for that matter and are subject to agreement and disagreement. The best way to find out if a game is good for you is to check it out yourself.
i dont like this rating. ratings mean everything to me. i live by gamespot ratings. how can life exist outside of gamespot ratings? ratings, ratings, ratings. gamespot reveiws keep becoming more and more disagreeable with me, something has to give. ...and since i dont know where this guy lives, and therefor can't kill him, i must do the only dignified thing left. I must kill myself. FU all
@gorgonaut I guess the troubling thing about the rating is that they have made significant improvements, according to the review. The main things about previous games they noted as issues have been fixed, and they don't really mention a significant flaw in the game (outside of the long survival mode), so I'd have expected the review to be higher. It doesn't matter really, what they say is more important than the actual rating in terms of whether it convinces me to make the purchase. And that's what everyone should be looking at - what they say and not the number they give it.
@gorgonaut...not sure what you mean by grow up. I'm simply stating that a score system where basically anything below 6 (in most people's minds) is completely unplayable.....when in actuality a 6 should be slightly above average.
Admittedly, though, I don't think I've enjoyed Gamespot's reviews quite as much since they swapped to the 0.5 increment scale.
@neotheinstein: I guess I need to be a little more blatant about my sarcasm; I meant that, if you were to go to IGN to read their poorly written/edited garbage, you would immediately find Gamespot to be a superior site (I guess ";D" doesn't quite cut it for a sarcastic remark mark these days). XD
The demo was incredible. I've been playing since Undisputed 2009, and U3 is by far the best in the series fighting wise. I can't wait to get the full game.
I understand GS are trying to move towards a European style marking system, but its coming off as inconsistent and its punishing games that dont deserve it.
@dbene I don't think a five star system would be much better than a numbers based system. In my opinion, the problem is trying to place an objective score (of any kind) on an ultimately subjective experience.I like how Kotaku reviews their games. In the main area they have their full review. Then on a side bar they highlight a couple of things they liked about the game and a couple of things they didn't. They still recommend whether you should buy the game or not, but I think that is better than trying to place an objective score on the game.
http://us.gamespot.com/misc/reviewguidelines.html everybody has the right to his own opinion.
@codymcclain14 Maybe because the game is better in a lot of ways and worse in other aspects. When have you seen reviews of sequels jump 1-3 points? Rarely as they usually drop in score.
In general, Gamespot's reviews are bad. It seems like they send a COD freak to review Sport's games. Or the other way around, etc".
@james_324 The reason the score makes sense is very simple: They have had ALMOST TWO YEARS to tweak and improve on 2010. Improving the game is a minimum requirement for a sequel. Just look at Assassins Creed... - AC = 8.0 - ACII = 9.0 (significant improvements) - AC Brotherhood = 8.5 (limited improvements) - AC Revelations = 8.0 (more limited improvements) - next AC game... = probably 7.5 if they keep up the pace. You can whine and complain about Gamespot not giving games the high rating YOU think they deserve, but don't call them unfair just because you can't take the time to understand them
@codymcclain14 ---I totally agree. UFC 2010 got an 8.0 rating and he says this game improves on it in every way! Make absolutely NO sense.
Whoa? Why am I being "bashed" ? lol, all I was saying is that from what the review said, and what the score is, it doesn't add up? The review sounds good. but by the sound of the review, it sounds like more of an 9/10. Never said, 8 was a bad score. But I was saying that Gamespot reviews in general, doesn't make much sense.
i didnt like the other 2 ufc game but i played the demo of ufc 3 and its incrideble . to much fun , coll graphics , nice control . a great game .ill buyit
I still think a 5 star system is better than 100 point rating system, because in 100 point systems....people tend to think of it like school grades. Anything below a 70 is horrible....anything below 75 is really questionable. Where a 5.0 should be average...it's just not. with stars everyone knows 3 stars is average.
They have ruined this game, it was so well balanced in 2009, slightly less balanced in 2010 and now they have just ruined the ground game.
@codymcclain14 @xs_paine ign gives almost every game a 9/10 or more. do you think thats really possible?
Good review Justin. Thanks for upholding the review scale that 5 = average. Despite having the same score as UFC Undisputed 2010, it seems that improvements to the submission system, career mode, and presentation result in a very fair 8.0. It's an excellent score for a fighting game.
Whilst the old submission system wasn't perfect, it certainly provided a sense of tension and struggle that the new system utterly fails to capture, not to mention the fact that it's distracting and gets in the way. A system which takes in to account momentum, stamina, direction of force and position would have been much, much better.
is there no way to play with the old submission system to avoid that ugly arcade snake lookalike minigame gamebreaker thats all over the screen
I hate Gamespot's reviews honestly. They don't make much sense, and it seems like the reviewer is someone that hates the genre. And this is sopost to be better than all the other UFC's, but I'm pretty sure they rated it lower? Anyways, sounds good. Will be picking it up. Excited to get a friend over and fight.
How effed up is the video game world? THQ (who published this game) is going basically going bankrupt, but all their games get good scores. on top of that new original games that improve the genre like Kingdoms of Amalur get lower scores than okay games like this (and COD, and maddan, and etc etc etc) that offer half the game play and are basically are just mild improvements at best. I am not saying anything bad about this game, in fact I kinda want to pick it up... but its like hey! lets get a UFC fan to reviews this game, lets get a nascar racing fan to review this RPG, this get a this guy who works for Actiiviosn to review COD, hey lets get this guy who only plays sports games to review a FPS game. just feels so inconsistent.