New review from Gamespot

UFO: Extraterrestrials is a futuristic real-time/turn-based strategy blend set on the fictional planet of Esperanza in 2025. Having made a bloody first contact with a strange form of life from another planet, the player is thrust into the tough position of leading the defense of this isolated planet against the never-ending assault of these hostile invaders
User avatar
Oleg Mastruko
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: New review from Gamespot

Post by Oleg Mastruko »

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
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....

Right. I confused Brett Todd with Bruce Geryk. Geryk writes for GFW. I admit my mistake, but that still does not make Brett "retarded". Besides, yes, Todd does write an occasional wargame review too.

Also, he isn't biased, here he was even harsher towards another UFO clone:

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/ufo ... id=6142007

Obviously, it takes a lot for UFO clone to win admiration by reviewers who played the original game, and that's basically something I agree with.
Wolf Woof
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 1:35 pm

RE: New review from Gamespot

Post by Wolf Woof »

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko


Obviously, it takes a lot for UFO clone to win admiration by reviewers who played the original game, and that's basically something I agree with.

I completely agree with Oleg here. Fair or unfair, this game is being compared to the original to be scored. If there was no such game as the original, then this review would probably not be this low. As it is, this game is fun to play but does not meet the expectations of someone who has played the original. So much is missing. I can do without the fancy graphics so much as it is gameplay that I love the most. Most people here have commented on things such as UFOs being damaged when shot down, the maps being very different (the UFO's not being in the opposite corner relative to your ship every time), the different terrains and locations of the various maps (I loved the houses and barns you used to play in), and many other things that I will not go into. I loved the concept of the original and spent many hours, days, weeks playing it. I even had my wife hooked on it. She saw me playing this one watched me for a while and noted how "many things were not in this one and were in the other". I have to agree. I have tried a few of the mods and it does add much value to the game however....it enhances it a lot.

I will keep playing this game and I am not unhappy with it. Then again, I would have probably bought and played anything that is similar to the original UFO game as I have played enough C&C clones to satisfy me a long time.
Tophat1815
Posts: 1824
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:11 pm

RE: New review from Gamespot

Post by Tophat1815 »

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
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....

Right. I confused Brett Todd with Bruce Geryk. Geryk writes for GFW. I admit my mistake, but that still does not make Brett "retarded". Besides, yes, Todd does write an occasional wargame review too.

Also, he isn't biased, here he was even harsher towards another UFO clone:

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/ufo ... id=6142007

Obviously, it takes a lot for UFO clone to win admiration by reviewers who played the original game, and that's basically something I agree with.


So do you have the game and are speaking from your personal experience?
User avatar
Oleg Mastruko
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: New review from Gamespot

Post by Oleg Mastruko »

ORIGINAL: Tophat1812
So do you have the game and are speaking from your personal experience?

Yes I am speaking from personal experience.
Tophat1815
Posts: 1824
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:11 pm

RE: New review from Gamespot

Post by Tophat1815 »

ORIGINAL: 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.


So you own and have played the game correct? You are irritated at the game because its basically too hard for you to keep your boys alive on any mission?

Go buy some meaningless current rts weirdness with nice eye-candy. There now you can have happiness in your life as i've given you a FANBOY RESPONSE!
User avatar
Erik Rutins
Posts: 39324
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
Contact:

RE: New review from Gamespot

Post by Erik Rutins »

ORIGINAL: Wolf Woof
the maps being very different (the UFO's not being in the opposite corner relative to your ship every time), the different terrains and locations of the various maps (I loved the houses and barns you used to play in), and many other things that

I do keep hearing this one, which doesn't really correspond to my own experience. I'm seeing a lot of different maps and a lot of variations on maps, as much as in the original X-Com in my recollection.
Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC


Image

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.
PhoenixD
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 11:00 pm

RE: New review from Gamespot

Post by PhoenixD »

ravinhood...have you ever PLAYED the game? The tactical section works exactly like X-Com, the only difference being downed soldiers are AUTOMATICALLY picked up and taken back to base after a mission. There is no micromanaing of that. Hell, there's less than X-Com since you don't have to replace the dead guys and you don't have to remember who has what stats before the mission starts (because UFO:ET, unlike X-Com, shows you their stats in the pre-mission screen).
Decepticons
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 2:59 pm

RE: New review from Gamespot

Post by Decepticons »

I guess you can't review a game based on the mods but it seems like a lot of the reviewrs concerns are being delt with.  I agree with a lot of the criticism of this reivew/reviewer as it seems like he really isn't a fan of the genre.  Still, I think he does raise some good points and to dismiss them out of OMG I LOVE THIS GAME fanboi-ism is a poor argument.  We all have different opinions of what's fun, right? 
 
I agree with the reviewer about the graphics.  They're just poor.  Well, let me change that.  They're poor where it matters.  Inside some of the screens they're actually quite good.  The weapons desings, UFO pedia images, and other details areas tend to be the graphic highlights.  Unfortunatly, the areas where you spend most of your time (the world view and combat screens) tend to have, imo, really poor graphics.  The aliens themselves are fair, but the terrain/buildings I don't like very much.  However, as others have pointed out, this game is not about the flash.
 
I also feel like the "resurrecting" soldiers is just weak.  To me, it reeks of keeping costs down.  If there were some kind of implemintation like a cortical stack (al la the Altered Carbon/Fallen Angles books) then it would at least be believable.  However, one of the things I loved about the original X-Com games was trying to keep those highly effective soldiers alive.  It was a choice between keeping your best troops up front because they were the consumate "one shot, one kill" guys and the risk of losing them, or keeping them further back where they were less effective but easier to keep alive.
 
One of the biggest flaws though - and the reviewer points this out - is that while the learning and alien AI seem very good, the aliens are always very predictable in combat.  About half of them will be clustered around your landing vehicle and the rest will be found in a straight path between the alien vessle and your lander.  There are some cool buildning-scapes in some of the combat screens that just sit unused because I have NEVER seen an alien in one.  Combat has quickly become clearning the aliens near my ship out, conducting recon with my tank with troops behind it, all leading up to an assault on the alien vessle. 
 
I like the game a LOT more than the reviewer did, but I can understand why some of the things he points out spoiled it for him. 
User avatar
ravinhood
Posts: 3829
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 4:26 am

RE: New review from Gamespot

Post by ravinhood »

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

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?

Notice I said when I PLAY a game not BUY a game. So, I guess you have a reading comprehension problem. ;) Being an graphics artist that's what you said you are right? I can believe you don't know how to comprehend things. ;) You need PICTURES drawn, unfortunately that's pretty hard to do on a webpage from this end. ;) lol roflmao
WE/I WANT 1:1 or something even 1:2 death animations in the KOIOS PANZER COMMAND SERIES don't forget Erik! ;) and Floating Paratroopers We grew up with Minor, Marginal and Decisive victories why rock the boat with Marginal, Decisive and Legendary?


User avatar
cdbeck
Posts: 1374
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Indiana

RE: New review from Gamespot

Post by cdbeck »

You didn't play UFO:ET before judging it, did you? Admit it! [:'(]

And come on, all that unwarrented venom towards Paradox. They have some excellent games, and the original EU provided a blueprint for the grand strategy genre everywhere. I would be suprised to hear that the Forge of Freedom and Crown of Glory boys didn't get inspired towards their projects by some of the gameplay elements from the EU series (turning it into the more managable turn based style). You yourself said you liked Crusader Kings, and I have yet to play a Paradox game that was "complete trash." The Hearts of Iron series almost needs a doctorate to play, but it is still fun and provides excellent gameplay options.

Again, play before you comment. Otherwise you are just reviewing other people's reviews! If you do own UFO:ET, then I am sorry, but your wording about "from what you hear" denotes otherwise.

SoM
"Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet!"
(Kill them all. God will know his own.)

-- Arnaud-Armaury, the Albigensian Crusade
mjk428
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 3:29 am
Location: Western USA

RE: New review from Gamespot

Post by mjk428 »

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort

Again, play before you comment. Otherwise you are just reviewing other people's reviews!

Well, the topic of this thread is the review afterall... :)

Reviews are generally for people that haven't played the game. Without a demo, most people have to go by the reviews. I tend to put more stock in the reviews by the players themselves on forums rather than on pro reviews (or even demos). However, pro reviews generally have plenty of useful info.

It seems to me Brett Todd is just a pretty tough reviewer. He uses the entire scale when he rates games . Ultimately he said this game, off the shelf, is mediocre. Some people might give an average game a 6 or 7, he seems to give them fives. Heck he's got a 1.7 @ the link below. BTW it's Mistmare - what a name; sounds like a parody. The "fans" give it a 4.3 but I doubt too many complained about his scoring of that one. ;)

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/gauthor-6817/

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/mistmare ... ages;img;3

With the first review and now this one, UFO:ET has an overall rating of 6.9 @ gamerankings.com. Add Oleg's review and the other higher one's sure to come and it will probably settle in at around a 7.5. I gather there are many players that would agree with that score.


User avatar
Hertston
Posts: 3317
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2002 3:45 pm
Location: Cornwall, UK

RE: New review from Gamespot

Post by Hertston »

ORIGINAL: Decepticons

I also feel like the "resurrecting" soldiers is just weak.  To me, it reeks of keeping costs down.  If there were some kind of implemintation like a cortical stack (al la the Altered Carbon/Fallen Angles books) then it would at least be believable.  However, one of the things I loved about the original X-Com games was trying to keep those highly effective soldiers alive.  It was a choice between keeping your best troops up front because they were the consumate "one shot, one kill" guys and the risk of losing them, or keeping them further back where they were less effective but easier to keep alive.

After some play time, I actually prefer it to the original in this respect. The possibility of getting the only two guys you have who can shoot straight hospitalised for three weeks during UFO silly-season means you are just as careful to preserve them as if they could die; and while they come back eventually there are no easy hire-a-mercs to replace them. Which fits in rather better with the storyline IHMO, not that that matters much.
Tophat1815
Posts: 1824
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:11 pm

RE: New review from Gamespot

Post by Tophat1815 »

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Tophat1812
So do you have the game and are speaking from your personal experience?

Yes I am speaking from personal experience.

Ah well such is life then. Try a Mod or sell it to a friend or not so good a friend to get your $ back then.
Cid_X
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:56 pm

RE: New review from Gamespot

Post by Cid_X »

My biggest issue I have with that review was his focus on the bugs.  I have been playing UFO:ET on 2 different systems without issue since it came out.  One system being a Vista rig.  I have no idea what pos rig he was using but something is not right with it.  I guess he didn't get the Matrix version. [;)]  Audio problem?  I have no idea where that came from.  Might help if he didn't have his head in his ass.  But to be fair he does have some valid points.  A somewhat more random map generator would be nice.  I personally want my downed ufos to be damaged.  But all said and done I am still addicted to the game.  Sure the graphics are not next-gen but I don't care.  I have played way to many games that suck hard but look great doing it.  I think the guys over at CC did a great job and I am looking forward to all the mods and updates to UFO.  Bottem line on the review, too much focus on his crappy system flaking out with some valid points here and there which yielded a slightly lower score than I believe it deserved.
Steel Angel
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 9:05 am

RE: New review from Gamespot

Post by Steel Angel »

ORIGINAL: Cid_X

My biggest issue I have with that review was his focus on the bugs. I have been playing UFO:ET on 2 different systems without issue since it came out. One system being a Vista rig. I have no idea what pos rig he was using but something is not right with it. I guess he didn't get the Matrix version. [;)] Audio problem? I have no idea where that came from. Might help if he didn't have his head in his ass. But to be fair he does have some valid points. A somewhat more random map generator would be nice. I personally want my downed ufos to be damaged. But all said and done I am still addicted to the game. Sure the graphics are not next-gen but I don't care. I have played way to many games that suck hard but look great doing it. I think the guys over at CC did a great job and I am looking forward to all the mods and updates to UFO. Bottem line on the review, too much focus on his crappy system flaking out with some valid points here and there which yielded a slightly lower score than I believe it deserved.

The bugginess is far from related to quality of hardware. I'm still able to run system hogs like STALKER quite well on my machine yet I get crashes with ET. You can take a look at the attached DxDiag files in the support section here to see for yourself that those of us experiencing issues are not relegated to scrap heap machines.

Anyway, while I still have fun with the game and have bumped into a few others who have bought the game on another forum I frequent, I think the fact that the most common reaction to the game that I've seen so far has been "Wow, this makes me feel like playing the original X-Coms" instead of buying ET says something. While the much lower price point obviously would be a factor, I've seen far more gamers buy the Steam version of Terror From the Deep that was made available recently than ET. It still is living in the shadow of a giant.
Scott_WAR
Posts: 1020
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: New review from Gamespot

Post by Scott_WAR »

ORIGINAL: Steel Angel

I think the fact that the most common reaction to the game that I've seen so far has been "Wow, this makes me feel like playing the original X-Coms" instead of buying ET says something.

Maybe if they buy and play the game it would say something. But without playing the game it only says they dont know what they are missing, since they like they original.
User avatar
Hertston
Posts: 3317
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2002 3:45 pm
Location: Cornwall, UK

RE: New review from Gamespot

Post by Hertston »

ORIGINAL: Cid_X

My biggest issue I have with that review was his focus on the bugs.  I have been playing UFO:ET on 2 different systems without issue since it came out.  One system being a Vista rig.  I have no idea what pos rig he was using but something is not right with it.  I guess he didn't get the Matrix version. [;)] 

I haven't suffered a CTD, or indeed any obvious bug, in several days play of the Gamersgate version.
User avatar
Marc von Martial
Posts: 5292
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Bonn, Germany
Contact:

RE: New review from Gamespot

Post by Marc von Martial »

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

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?

Notice I said when I PLAY a game not BUY a game. So, I guess you have a reading comprehension problem. ;) Being an graphics artist that's what you said you are right? I can believe you don't know how to comprehend things. ;) You need PICTURES drawn, unfortunately that's pretty hard to do on a webpage from this end. ;) lol roflmao

In this very case you have neither bought nor played it. Is that comprehension good enough for you?
User avatar
ravinhood
Posts: 3829
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 4:26 am

RE: New review from Gamespot

Post by ravinhood »

Sorry Marc I see you couldn't even comprehend the 2nd post i made. lol Man, you really should go back to school and learn what comprehension reading is. Get a websters dictionary, oh that's right you don't believe in Websters definitions. lol
WE/I WANT 1:1 or something even 1:2 death animations in the KOIOS PANZER COMMAND SERIES don't forget Erik! ;) and Floating Paratroopers We grew up with Minor, Marginal and Decisive victories why rock the boat with Marginal, Decisive and Legendary?


PhoenixD
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 11:00 pm

RE: New review from Gamespot

Post by PhoenixD »

Hey cool, this forum has an ignore feature.

Ravin, for future reference I'll pay more attention to use if you make more sense and don't end everything in "lol". It isn't puntuation.
Post Reply

Return to “UFO: Extraterrestrials”