New review from Gamespot

[Da_Junka]

Brett Todd is a retarded reviewer, who only likes sports games, and I have let it be known on their forum, spotty little freak isnt going to rubbish my game.

http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/ufoe ... pid=927132

[LitFuel]

About graphics, at first I thought I was just being resistant to change and not open minded enough but lately I've been scooping up older games I never got to or never finished because frankly I just like the old school /retro look better then games now. Is it just me or does most  current truly 3D games just look kind of fugly. I just don't see where it adds to game play, in fact it takes me away from the gameplay for me. It seems the only place I'll get that retro look these days is from european developers and even they are all starting to switch now.
 
Anyways, when this game got close I picked up a bunch of older games to mess around with and that work on XP...Enemy Infestation, Abomination, Odium, Incubation...fun stuff.

[NefariousKoel]

If that reviewer thinks the missions should be real time, then he can go buy one of the Aftermath games and STFU.  I bought this because it has a turn-based AP system.

[siRkid]

ORIGINAL: NefariousKoel

If that reviewer thinks the missions should be real time, then he can go buy one of the Aftermath games and STFU.  I bought this because it has a turn-based AP system.

Same here! I bought this because it was turned based. I will not but any follow-on products that even hint at being real time.

[gunnergoz]

I've been waiting for this game for a long time and those of you who have bought it and remarked about it have convinced me to buy it online after I move later this coming week to a new home with a very fast cable connection (finally!  no more crappy ATT DSL! [:D]).
The reviewer at Gamespot has some points, but coming from a small development team (not Matrix, the original design team) I think this game was a labor of love and the moddability will make it even better.

[Gu1do]

I read Brett Todd's review and wondered if he and I were playing the same game. My 2 year old box hasn't had a hint of CTD and the wonkiness he is referring to must be his own poorly setup/maintained test system. As someone else previously posted, this game is one of the less buggy releases he played and I would concur. Looking at some of the big ticket releases (Here's looking at you, Bethesda) that barely run out of the box, I'd say CC put together a fine release. I too own Oblivion and while the eye candy was fantastic, the story arc was passable, the stability was horrible. My box far exceeded every spec and it would BSOD (not CTD, but BSOD) upon realm change nearly every load. After hacking out the autosave from of the ini file, it became better, but certainly not perfect. Not at ALL worth a 9.3, Mr. Todd.

Sure, ET has some spelling mistakes (Gating gun?) and English butchery (I have the American version) and text formatting issues, but what would you expect from a bunch of guys who probably don't speak English as a primary language, if at all? Todd mentioned he was looking for a RTS out of it...OK, but that wasn't the idea behind the original game, why should it be with with the remake? Didn't Interceptor make a flailing attempt at RTS and it bombed miserably?

CC did a great job with this game and I would think the original developers from Microprose would look at it as a fine reimaging of the product....provided they don't sue CC for infringement [:D]

I couldn't immediately find any previous work that CC did, so if UFO:ET is their first release, well I for one would call it fantastic. Any follow on, would be better, most likely.

A 5.2 score isn't at all justified. Something around a 7.5-8.0 is.

[Raindog101]

Here's a better review from someone who appears to have actually played it:

http://www.gamepro.com/computer/pc/game ... 0731.shtml

[Oleg Mastruko]

Wow rampant fanboism & lotsa harsh words for a reviewer who IMO does not deserve this...
 
I think the review was pretty much spot on. Come on guys, do you ever play anything that is not turn based, with decade old graphics, to draw a fair comparison? I mean, decade old graphics may, and do, work very well for wargames. Hell I play half a dozen titles with what I would describe as decade old graphics all the time, and enjoy them immenselly. However those are wargames, and this was meant as semi-mainstream title, to compete out with the Big Boys, be reviewed my mainstream game mags (like Gamespot), places which usually simply ignore more niche Matrix titles. If you're going to play with the big boys then of course your game will be compared to the latest offering from Activision and EA in the graphics department.
 
UFO: ET graphics are bad, and sounds and animations are simply terrible - on those two counts alone, it's fair for any reviewer to take down 20% from the starting score. Yes, as Hertston says the world did move on in the last 10 or 15 years. What is good in the gameplay is direct 1:1 copy from a 14 years old game. However, what is tweaked and "improved" compared to that old game, is arguably worse (mission design, non dying team members, etc)
 
Intro movie.... oh don't get me started. Erik you should have killed that atrocity at first sight [8D] It has "cheap production values" written all over it, and has no connection whatsoever with the rest of the game. Whole package would look MUCH better without that disjointed horror at all. (IMO)
 
Also, people, Brett in his review never said the game "should" be real time (as opposed to turn based). He said missions are mostly boring with some quirks in game mechanics etc. Real time might, or might not help here, but the criticism was towards the mission design, not the turn based mechanics per se (and I agree with him completely here).
 
This is not a bad game, and whoever liked original UFO (Enemy Unknown in Europe, Defense in the US) will likely find his money's worth in ET, however, seems to me some people here need a little reality check.
 
I am not dissing the game (my own review will be in the area of 70-75%) nor trying to start a flamewar just trying to give different perspective, or say yes it's a cruel world out there, but perhaps cruel with at least a grain of logic and reason? Peace [8D]
 

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Da_Junka

Brett Todd is a retarded reviewer, who only likes sports games, and I have let it be known on their forum, spotty little freak isnt going to rubbish my game.

http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/ufoe ... pid=927132

Brett Todd is one of the guys that keeps wargame reviews alive in the mainstream gaming mags and certainly does not deserve to be treated like this!! [:-]

So what if he plays a sports game from time to time? [8|] Don't we all?

I do not have my copies of Games for Windows (GFW) mag handy, but he's pretty much the only person there to review a decent wargame from time to time. (I also usualy happen to agree with his reviews but that's another matter.)

[LitFuel]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Da_Junka

Brett Todd is a retarded reviewer, who only likes sports games, and I have let it be known on their forum, spotty little freak isnt going to rubbish my game.

http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/ufoe ... pid=927132

Brett Todd is one of the guys that keeps wargame reviews alive in the mainstream gaming mags and certainly does not deserve to be treated like this!! [:-]

So what if he plays a sports game from time to time? [8|] Don't we all?

I do not have my copies of Games for Windows (GFW) mag handy, but he's pretty much the only person there to review a decent wargame from time to time. (I also usualy happen to agree with his reviews but that's another matter.)

Wow, rampant Brett fanboism going on there Oleg...lol...sounds like you're not so unbiased yourself [;)]. You even gave more ammo for the argument that it should have been higher then 5.2. I would say 70-75% would be fair...or 7.0 to 7.5. but not 5.2...hell he even liked the AI and how many games do we pick up these days that you can say that. You should know that in being a reviewer that he is open game just as the games are open game to him. Just for the time spent playing this game is worth a 6.0 compared to most I pick up and put down these days. No sympathy here.

[Erik Rutins]

Oleg,

I agree, the reviewer should not be slammed like that, but I still disagree on the score in a few key areas.

The graphics may not be top notch, but they are not a 4. The vast majority is crisp 3D graphics that run at high resolutions. It's not in the 8-10 range, but I could easily see giving it a 6-7. The Gameplay, albeit a copy of X-Com, is definitely not a 5 - this category probably bothered me the most. The game is fun and while you may not agree with all the changes, most are for the better and there are mods to change the rest to your preference. I really would give this an 8 or 9 for Gameplay. In terms of Value, when you look at how much gameplay there is, the game can take significantly longer to play than the original X-Com and many other titles released at the same price point. Value, IMHO, is at least an 8 but that's a bit of a strange review stat in any case because value is quite subjective (if you like the game, it's fantastic value, if you hate it, what good does having a lot of it do for you?). Those three scores were my main disagreement. If his score had ended up around 7.0 - 7.5, I would have felt it was a fair review. I still feel a 5.2 is simply ridiculous.

Personally, I'd rate it about 8.0 because of the gameplay, which IMHO when combined with graphics that are fine, should be the deciding point.

I agree on the intro movie, but that was not our call. I understand the Russian version may be much better in terms of the dialogue and the English dubbing is the problem, but be that as it may the US version definitely needed a re-do on the voice acting.

Regards,

- Eri

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: LitFuel
Wow, rampant Brett fanboism going on there Oleg...lol...sounds like you're not so unbiased yourself [;)]. You even gave more ammo for the argument that it should have been higher then 5.2. I would say 70-75% would be fair...or 7.0 to 7.5. but not 5.2...hell he even liked the AI and how many games do we pick up these days that you can say that. You should know that in being a reviewer that he is open game just as the games are open game to him. Just for the time spent playing this game is worth a 6.0 compared to most I pick up and put down these days. No sympathy here.

I raise objection because a guy is called "retarded" and is obviously unable to defend himself here (because he does not visit this forum)? And that's "Brett fanboism"? I'd say it's just common decency. And why is he retarded? Because he plays sports games!

In all honesty before I go further with "Brett fanboism" I'd need to check GFM mag and his articles just to be sure I didn't confuse Brett with somebody else [:D] I think it's Brett reviewing wargames and strategy titles and playing games vs Tom Chick in GFM, but I need to check and don't have GFM handy, so that'll have to wait....

Yes, I think a game deserves a higher score than 5.3..... However.... in all honesty Gamespot review criteria is consistently somewhat harsher than my own or the magazine(s) I write for. I am also (believe it or not) positively biased to everything Matrix does, AND most important of all, 5,3 or 7,5 I think Gamespot reviewer raises some fair issues in his article.

[cdbeck]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
UFO: ET graphics are bad, and sounds and animations are simply terrible - on those two counts alone, it's fair for any reviewer to take down 20% from the starting score.

Completely subjective, Oleg. I think the graphics are passable, even nice-looking in a spartan, gritty way. And to take 20% off of a game for graphics alone!?! That is crazy. What you are suggesting would mean that a great game like, say, Take Command: Second Mannassas would never be able to get higher than an 80% simply due to its use of 2d sprites and and old style textures. It is this very attitude that kills indie developers, who have big ideas but small budgets to use up on art development.

Take for instance, Dominions 2 and 3. These are some of the finest, turn based, fantasy empire building games out there (I like them better than the main competition, Age of Magic). Lots of gameplay choices and customability. Terrible graphics (make UFO:ET look like Doom 3).

Graphics are great, and are really critical to first person games that are trying to build immersion, like Oblivion, any FPS, or an MMORPG (although Ultima Online still has the coolest system of any MMORPG, when you fact all of the things you can do, collect, mine, craft, wear, and fish). But in other genres, graphics can be less important, or sometime downright distracting. I like Europa Universalis 3, but the graphical 3d update was not needed and causes more problems than it fixed. In some cases 3D can really mar the game, Titan Quest stutters and sputters on many systems for no apparent reason. Don't even get me started on the monstrosity that is Supreme Commander, supposed to be the "next big thing in RTS" and due to poor graphic programming and coding it went from $49.99 to $29.99 in a month or two after release. UFO:Afterlight, which I own, is another account of where poorly done 3D can mar a game. It is overly cartoony, while still attractive, makes me think I am playing World of UFO-craft instead of presenting a dark, scary, tense, and gritty fight against aliens.

This is just one man's opinion, and you are the game reviewer, but I really wish graphics would take a back-seat in reviewers mind, at least initially. Blame it on me growing up in the Atari and Nintendo age, but back then, gameplay was all one had. Now I know UFO:ET isn't exactly novel gameplay, it is a tried and true method that many love. Do I expect it to be a seminal gaming moment like X-COM:UFO Defense, no. Do I think it is a nostaligic, entertaining, and fun, yes.

SoM

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort
Take for instance, Dominions 2 and 3. These are some of the finest, turn based, fantasy empire building games out there (I like them better than the main competition, Age of Magic). Lots of gameplay choices and customability. Terrible graphics (make UFO:ET look like Doom 3).

Good point and note that GameSpot did give Dominions 3 a 4.0 in Graphics and a 5.0 in Sound, but the other scores were high enough that they ended up with a 8.2. I was just expecting to see a bit more recognition of the fun and gameplay with the UFO review as they did with Dominions 3. Frankly, I think UFO's graphics are a lot better than Dominions 3, but both got a 4.0 in this category and both got a 5.0 in sound. Honestly I think scores that low should be reserved for instances where the graphics of the game actually break your gameplay experience or where graphics or sounds are blatantly missing, not just that they are not up to Company of Heroes or some other recent RTS.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/dom ... ary;review

[cdbeck]

Well, comparing Dominions 3 with UFO:ET is a bit like apples and oranges. I like them both, for different reasons. I wouldn't say, if I had to arbitrarily sum up the drastically different gameplay into a number, I would have given the gameplay such vastly different numbers (they would both be about an 8, like you said Erik) as Gamespot.

Isn't a bit silly to give a "score" for graphics. Like I said to Oleg, graphics are very subjective. I like UFO:ET's graphics quite a bit really. Nostalgic, functional, nice lighting, atmospheric, and the weapons shots are nice (as are the explosions). Why don't reviewers just skip putting a "number" on graphics and instead put enough screenshots up that the reader knows what the game looks like. If the buyer feels they can handle the graphics they see, then they will buy it, if not, then they won't be interested. It is that simple. Active use of resources, such as screenshots and gameplay clips can serve as the whole obligatory "this is what the game looks like," part of the review so that the reviewer can spend more time actually talking about the important thing what the game plays like. So many games with good graphics really are terrible (like the aforementioned Doom 3), just like many games that look "dated" play very well.

SoM

[GalacticOrigins]

Ever notice some reviewers probably should not review a game since they are not from that school of thought? heh

This game is much improved over the original (which could be beat in 9 game months). The style of play is not for everyone, since it is phase-turn based in combat (and that gives the player complete control during your turn.) Also, this is an alien invasion, one where the aliens have a serious technolgical advantage early on. They hit harder. They take more punishment before they drop dead. They have greater sight range. Maybe some players do not like there things (dunno why not). Basically, someone who is looking for an RTS clone or an 'easy, quick' play should look elsewhere. This a a strategy game, not Real Time Stupidity, and I for one like this game.

Besides, since S+ went dry, who decides on a product based on just one review anymore?

[Tophat1815]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Da_Junka

Brett Todd is a retarded reviewer, who only likes sports games, and I have let it be known on their forum, spotty little freak isnt going to rubbish my game.

http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/ufoe ... pid=927132

Brett Todd is one of the guys that keeps wargame reviews alive in the mainstream gaming mags and certainly does not deserve to be treated like this!! [:-]

So what if he plays a sports game from time to time? [8|] Don't we all?

I do not have my copies of Games for Windows (GFW) mag handy, but he's pretty much the only person there to review a decent wargame from time to time. (I also usualy happen to agree with his reviews but that's another matter.)

Bah! His review was rubbish based on the 5.2 score he saw fit to dole out. Plug in sage's Mod and its X-COM to me and I'm a happy camper. As for what this reviewer deserves or doesn't I could care less. If you have that much love for him start up a collection and buy him a watch.[:'(]

[owl208]

ORIGINAL: Tophat1812

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Da_Junka

Brett Todd is a retarded reviewer, who only likes sports games, and I have let it be known on their forum, spotty little freak isnt going to rubbish my game.

http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/ufoe ... pid=927132

Brett Todd is one of the guys that keeps wargame reviews alive in the mainstream gaming mags and certainly does not deserve to be treated like this!! [:-]

So what if he plays a sports game from time to time? [8|] Don't we all?

I do not have my copies of Games for Windows (GFW) mag handy, but he's pretty much the only person there to review a decent wargame from time to time. (I also usualy happen to agree with his reviews but that's another matter.)

Bah! His review was rubbish based on the 5.2 score he saw fit to dole out. Plug in sage's Mod and its X-COM to me and I'm a happy camper. As for what this reviewer deserves or doesn't I could care less. If you have that much love for him start up a collection and buy him a watch.[:'(]

This reviewer lost all credibility with me because he should play a significant portion of the game (more than a few months worth in game time) before he hands out a 5.2 score. Need proof? I'll draw your attention to the snapshot pic of the laser pistol in his review that states, "Research high-tech weapons, such as this laser pistol, to get a leg up on your ET adversaries." Since when is a Laser Pistol a high-tech weapon in ET? Its one of the weakest weapons is the game, period! One does NOT use this weapon to get a leg up on, well anything in ET. I think it's pretty clear this reviewer never advanced to different eras or did much of anything in ET to draw some of the conclusions he did. Its not right for this reviewer to hold himself out as a fair reviewer when these are the kind of statements he makes when he didn't even progress far enough in the game to really experience it and he couldn't have if his technology level was low, say first era. True, some of his observations were fair and could be made at first blush, but not all of them and certainly not enough of them to give such a low score. This is just simply wrong. We who paid for the game and played it in its entirety, are not going to accept this unfair review without saying something in response about it. [:-]

[ravinhood]

Ever notice when a game you like or a publisher or developer you like gets a bad score how those that like them become fanbois? lol Now, I'm probably as unbiased as they come. I review the game in an unbiased light. (except in Paradox's case lol), but, even Paradox gets some high scores for some of their games from me even though I just loathe the publishers. At any rate. Because X-Com:ET is not exactly like X-Com origional or TFTD it cannot be reviewed as such, BUT, it can be COMPARED with such and that is what drives its score down with me. Things taken away that many enjoyed in X-Com. I could see ADDING things to an already great engine, but, changing it around and taking stuff away? What do you expect when you put the Prefix of a Title people have grown to love an enjoy for over 10 years now? Certainly 5.3 is a bit Paradoxy lol for a score. It's like a score I would give to Paradox if there was an ability to review Publishers a 5.3.

From what I have gathered of this game I would give it a sound 7.0 max. It's not X-Com origional or X-Com TFTD, it's something different and not the way it should be. It has more unbelieveable in it than the origional, that in every single mission every single battle if one individual soldier drags every "near dead"/wounded soldier back to the ship they will be saved. Now, while I can believe that action as a reality, I cannot believe someone or anyone would really enjoy playing that out in 100's of missions, every single mission battle you have to play in this game. For a movie it'a great plot idea, for a game it's bad and gets repetitive and boring. I'd just as soon shell out 40,000 credits for a dead soldier and not have to micro manage every single battle to save the troups for sick bay.

When I play a game the major factors are Gameplay, AI challenge and Boredom factor. If the gameplay reaches the boredom factor that game gets a very low or average score. In this case repetitive saving of troups becomes boring and repetitive. In X-Com origional or TFTD you didn't have to micro manage this silliness. You lost someone you paid out credits and that was that. The old routine of KISS was played out here. Keep it Simple Stupid. Then you can have a great KISS game like RTW/MTW2 Total War and the AI is soooooo bad that it totally destroys the rest of the game. I call this the waste of time syndrome of gaming. What's the use of playing a great interface, great graphics game if the AI is paultry or the worst AI in gaming history? If I can't lose why should I play it? The X-Coms have always been great for challenge, I wouldn't take that away from this one. Where it lacks most is removing or changing things that were great about the others. They should have only added more fun, not taken away what was already fun.

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
....
When I play a game the major factors are Gameplay, AI challenge and Boredom factor. ...

I thought you major factor was how cheap you can get it?