Matrix Games Forums

Command Ops gets a Massive Update!Lost Battles AAR: Smolensk 41War in the East: Lost Battles is here!Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! Let's Play videoLost Battles Scenario Manual excerpts available!A sneak peek from Allied Corps!Harpoon 3 ANWs Free Ultimate Update!All good Deals always come in threesDistant Worlds: Shadows Approaches!Lost Battles AAR: Moscow 41		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

New review from Gamespot

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> UFO: Extraterrestrials >> New review from Gamespot Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
New review from Gamespot - 5/11/2007 11:17:48 PM   
Wolf Woof

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline 		I think this review hits the nail on the head. I am not impressed with this game (although I am still playing it).

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/ufoextraterrestrials/review.html?sid=6170517
Post #: 1
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/11/2007 11:38:53 PM   
Scott_WAR

 

Posts: 980
Joined: 2/24/2005
Status: offline 		The reviewer contradicts himself. First he says the game isnt close enough to the original. Then he says that new features need to be added, that werent in the original, like real time on the missions. Then he complains about things that made the orginal what it was....turn based, slow pace, aliens animations not moving fast enough (like we want super turbo charged aliens zipping around the map).

He then goes on to talk about technical problems................ CTD's and sound. Some people seem to be having CTD issues, but not that many, and hardly anyone has mentioned any sound issue. Maybe the reviewer needs to check his machine. I know I have CTD once and have no sound problems at all.

Graphics make the game dont they............... and if you have to actually think to play, well that game must suck. Eye candy and twitching reactions are the only things that makes good games................ right? In summary, a case of taking a reviewer that seems to like one type of game, and having him review a completely different type of game that he is going to dislike no matter how good it is.

< Message edited by Scott_WAR -- 5/12/2007 5:10:42 AM >

(in reply to Wolf Woof)
Post #: 2
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/11/2007 11:50:05 PM   
PhoenixD

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline 		I agree with Scott_War here. Silent Storm did the "Real time before combat" thing, and all it EVER leads to is having your soldiers completely out of position when the shooting starts. Almost everything else was bug bitching. Which is amusing because this is one of the LESS buggier games I've played recently.

BTW, what horde of X-Com clones? There's this, UFO:AI, and if you're being generous the UFO: Aftermath series of games. That's...pretty much it.

About the only useful comments are about the UI, but even then he doesn't bother to mention the good aspects of it (The interception system kicks X-Com's ass, for example).

(in reply to Scott_WAR)
Post #: 3
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/12/2007 12:10:00 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 31219
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: online 		Wow, frankly I think they completely screwed up that review. I can't imagine rating this game with a 5.2 and many of his criticisms also apply to the original X-Com design, which I doubt he would rate as poorly.

With that said, a major plus has also been the mod support, which I understand can't really count in an official review, but you'd think their existence might be worth an extra point. However, Wolf Woof - whatever your problems are with the game, have you looked at the outstanding mods that are already available?

< Message edited by Erik Rutins -- 5/12/2007 12:12:24 AM >

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development and Business Relations


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

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to PhoenixD)
Post #: 4
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/12/2007 12:53:59 AM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1905
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline 		I can see why people that are satisfied with this game would be unhappy with this review but it seemed like a pretty fair & and accurate summation. The Pros/Cons mean more to me than the overall score and the review hasn't put me off getting UFO:ET at some point (off the shelf - when it's a better value). I haven't even gotten Civ IV or MTW2 yet, so this one isn't worth a premium price IMO. OTOH, if this game was a faithful remake of XCOM I would have gotten it the first night at full price without hesitation. In the meantime I'll get my turn based tactical fix with some JA2.

And kudos to the reviewer for the Police Squad reference and the use of the word "reverie".

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 5
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/12/2007 1:03:45 AM   
Steel Angel

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 5/4/2007
Status: offline 		I disagree with the numerical value given, but I agree with many of the reviewer's points.

quote:

He then goes on to talk about technical problems................ CTD's and sound. Some people seem to be having CTD issues, but not that many, and hardly anyone has mentioned any sound issue. Maybe the reviewer needs to check his machine. I know I have CTD once and have no sound problems at all.


There's a good number of posts about crashes in the developer's forums. And given how a number of people in both this and that forum have experienced the same issues with crashing on grenade throwing, it's not just randomized system glitches, there's some common thread there.

quote:

Graphics make the game dont they............... and if you have to actually think to play, well that game must suck. Eye candy and twitching reactions are the only things that makes good games................ right?


I fail to see how complaints about presentation automatically equate to someone preferring action games. Or complaints about pacing for that matter. It's quite possible to make a turn based game with good pacing if you keep the length of animations short or allow them to be sped up (and in some types of turn based strategy, skip them entirely. That wouldn't work too well here though). I'm tempted to just shoot the civilians on terror missions so that I don't have to endure the way they waste time walking around in circles. They could at least run instead of ambling around during a firefight. Likewise, I wish the run animations for the chasers wasn't so plodding as it slows things down right when I'm itching to pull the trigger. It's a case where graphical aspects of the game actually impact gameplay.

I also think that at times the original X-Com looks better than ET does. Your soldiers look considerably worse than anything else in the game and the only reason they look better than your units in X-Com is that they're not pixelated IMO. They fact that if they're not holding anything in their hands they default to looking like they've got an invisible rifle doesn't win points with me either (it didn't impress the aliens said soldier charged when I thought he was armed either ). I still play a lot of games that use 2D graphics and simple presentations, but I do expect that they not be surpassed in that department by games over a decade old.

quote:

With that said, a major plus has also been the mod support, which I understand can't really count in an official review, but you'd think their existence might be worth an extra point. However, Wolf Woof - whatever your problems are with the game, have you looked at the outstanding mods that are already available?


Unpacking system files, editing, and saving them doesn't exactly count as good mod support today. It's great that the devs have allowed for stuff to be open like that, but good mod support is usually viewed as discrete plugins you can select or unselect or seperate executables and filesets that exist alongside the original instead of replacing it. We expect mods to add to, not overwrite, today.

Overall, I've been having fun with the game (though a grenade crash can quickly kill my buzz for the night) but I have to admit that I, and a number of other gamers who have either seen or played ET, definitely do feel a strong urge to load up one of the original X-Coms despite having the new shiny in front of me. There's still just something about how the originals' elements, even those of the under-appreciated Apocalypse, wove together to make something greater that still feels absent from ET. As much fun as I've had, I still find it really hard to recommend the game to friends unless I know their tastes extremely well, even if they're generally fans of strategy titles.

< Message edited by Steel Angel -- 5/12/2007 1:06:21 AM >

(in reply to Scott_WAR)
Post #: 6
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/12/2007 1:41:15 AM   
LitFuel


Posts: 263
Joined: 10/21/2006
From: Syracuse, NY
Status: offline 		MJK428,
How can you say it's a fair score if you haven't even played it?

...but anyways I agree with some of the points but the 5.2 is way to low, I've seen them give some really horrible games higher then that. He also lost me at the part about adding real time to part of the tactical game, obviously he is an ADD RTS type player.  To many people were having a great time with it even before the mods , myself included. If he had done is homework he should have mentioned the modding as well just to be fair and complete in the review. Most games these days arn't half as easy to mod as this, I could see many different things coming out of it.. It's almost like a construction set. The thing is they give all these high marks to the big hype games and before you know it you don't even hear much after a while because once you play it once, it's done, with UFO:ET I could see playing it far longer then most games I've picked up these days. That counts for something too.

(in reply to Steel Angel)
Post #: 7
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/12/2007 2:12:07 AM   
Steel Angel

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 5/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LitFuel
He also lost me at the part about adding real time to part of the tactical game, obviously he is an ADD RTS type player.


Silent Storm, Jagged Alliance, and Fallout: Tactics have all had real time components in their engines used during portions of missions when you aren't in contact with the enemy. That's EVERY major release in the PC turn-based tactical strategy genre since X-Com: Apocalypse to my knowledge. It hardly makes fans of those games "ADD RTS" players.

(in reply to LitFuel)
Post #: 8
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/12/2007 2:16:55 AM   
Hertston


Posts: 3292
Joined: 8/17/2002
From: Cornwall, UK
Status: offline 		I've seen worse reviews for better games.  The score is too low, but he does make some valid points, as well as some less valid ones.

I have three 'issues' with it really.  First, graphics.  They really suck.  OK, I'm a 'gameplay first' guy, like most here, but there really isn't any excuse for putting out anything with any sort intended mass market appeal that looks as bad as this does; bar screen res graphics are 1997, not 2007.  It will hurt sales, and hurt review scores, and the devs have only themselves to blame.

Secondly, there are some seriously whacko design choices, which others have commented on at length elsewhere.

Thirdly, the devs should have played more games.  There are plenty of developments and improvements in this style of tactical game that have occurred over the years (in JA2, Silent Storm and Laser Squad: Nemesis) and a great many of them should have been copied in 'Extraterrestrials', which could easily have been done without ruining the ol' X-Com spirit.

All that aside, having finally taken the plunge via Gamersgate I am quite enjoying it, although how much of that is nostalgia I'm not sure.  Hopefully, graphics apart, most of what is wrong with it can be fixed via patches and mods.  No CTDs so far, anyway.


(in reply to LitFuel)
Post #: 9
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/12/2007 3:35:07 AM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1905
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LitFuel

MJK428,
How can you say it's a fair score if you haven't even played it?


I intentionally said I thought it was a fair summation and downplayed the score. The Pros/Cons at the top and the final paragraph reinforced many players feelings. That's based on what I've gleaned from visiting several forums in an effort to determine if this was honestly a "must buy". The reviewer seemed in line with many comments from actual players. I got the impression the last thing the reviewer wanted was to slag the game and that he was sincerely disappointed that this wasn't the second coming of XCOM. True, 5.2 seems pretty harsh but then again at least 90% of the people that go to Gamespot for reviews wouldn't last 5 minutes with this game based on the graphics alone. But to reiterate, the score isn't that important to me. It's the the reasons for the score that count. Then I can determine how much weight to give each aspect.

For me there are just too many things that make this not XCOM and thus a "wait & see". The biggest drawback for me is not being able to recruit however many soldiers/scientists/engineers I need. Apparently I didn't play XCOM the way the designers did - reloading each time a grunt is lost. I had a few that lasted the entire campaign but for every one that did, a half dozen died. My vets didn't fraternize with the FNGs because it was just too heartbreaking when they bought the farm. :)

Still, I'll pick it up at some point.

(in reply to LitFuel)
Post #: 10
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/12/2007 3:40:37 AM   
LitFuel


Posts: 263
Joined: 10/21/2006
From: Syracuse, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Steel Angel


quote:

ORIGINAL: LitFuel
He also lost me at the part about adding real time to part of the tactical game, obviously he is an ADD RTS type player.


Silent Storm, Jagged Alliance, and Fallout: Tactics have all had real time components in their engines used during portions of missions when you aren't in contact with the enemy. That's EVERY major release in the PC turn-based tactical strategy genre since X-Com: Apocalypse to my knowledge. It hardly makes fans of those games "ADD RTS" players.


Really?...I don't recall them being much different then this game...but then again I really wasn't a huge fan of Silent Storm(overrated), and never could get into the others as much as X-Com. Don't get all riled up ,I'm not slamming fans of those games, more the trend in gaming today to be in a big hurry.

(in reply to Steel Angel)
Post #: 11
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/12/2007 3:53:40 AM   
PhoenixD

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline 		They have the option, but as I mentioned before its mostly useless.

(in reply to LitFuel)
Post #: 12
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/12/2007 4:08:54 AM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1905
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PhoenixD

They have the option, but as I mentioned before its mostly useless.


I don't recall how it worked in Silent Storm, I gave up on that one pretty quickly. In JA2 it worked very well as long as you scouted with a good sneaker w/ camo.

In Fallout Tactics I switched to real time after the first few missions and got fine results with judicious use of the pause key. Nothing quite like setting up a successful ambush with everyone opening fire at once. Especially at night. With the muzzle flashes, it was a thing of beauty. It was harder to pull off but also quicker, more lethal, and more realistic IMO.

(in reply to PhoenixD)
Post #: 13
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/12/2007 4:30:10 AM   
PhoenixD

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline 		Until the squaddies have AI such that I can tell them what I want and they will follow it instead of doing the usual RTS braindead movements..I wouldn't call it more realistic.

(in reply to mjk428)
Post #: 14
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/12/2007 5:04:32 AM   
PhoenixD

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline 		For amusement value, compare it to the review for The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/theelderscrollsivoblivion/index.html?q=oblivion&tag=result;title;1

They give it "Stability: minor problems" when in fact it as one of the buggier games I've played recently, and the number of "game fix" mods makes the work on ET look like a drop in the ocean (for bugs, and for questionable design descisions- exactly the factors that got ET knocked). However it got a 9.3 rating...because its pretty and comes from a big name developer.

(in reply to PhoenixD)
Post #: 15
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/12/2007 5:13:29 AM   
Scott_WAR

 

Posts: 980
Joined: 2/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428


at least 90% of the people that go to Gamespot for reviews wouldn't last 5 minutes with this game based on the graphics alone.


THAT is exactly the problem. Also, EVEN IF it had the best graphics, it would take too much thinking for the type of gamer we are talking about.

(in reply to mjk428)
Post #: 16
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/12/2007 5:35:34 AM   
myron

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline 		Personally I think 5.3 is to low. In it's current state of stability I would rate it between 6.8 to 7.2. Once the CTD's are fixed I would place it in the high sevens. The game isn't great, but it is good. If you are a Supreme Commander type of gamer then you will never like this game. However if you like this type of game, as I do, then you'll have fun.

Those of you who complain about the lack of recruitment seem to forget that XCom had a limit of 50 personnel per living quarter and in order to get more people you had to build more living quarters. The limit included all personnel, soldiers, scientists and engineers. The only major difference I see in this is the fact that you can't hire 30 soldiers and then fire all the bad ones after they arrive at the base. You have to take care of all your soldiers now, good or bad ones, as opposed to most of them being throw aways.

One more thing, those of you who complain about the graphics seem to forget that XCom came out with 320X240, can't remember the amount of colors used, resolution when most computers were using 640X480, 256 colors. So XCom's graphics could be called dated even then.

(in reply to PhoenixD)
Post #: 17
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/12/2007 5:58:36 AM   
Temple

 

Posts: 369
Joined: 7/31/2002
Status: offline 		OK, I guess I don't know what to think. Why complain about the graphics when they have no effect on gameplay. And hey, the graphics are quite nice in my opinion. No, they are not cutting edge, but they are effective, entertaining and on my 22 inch widescreen they are sharp and clean.

And I did have two CTDs early on, but they haven't reoccured. I had a *lot* more problems with the stability in Oblivion. Yes, the interface could have been better, and the lack of hotkeys is inexcusable. And sometimes the map clicking is iffy.

But the gameplay is fine. As I have said before, I like the new approach using incapacitating instead of killed. And if he had all those problems in the early tactical battles, well, maybe he's just not all that good a player.

My scores would be

Gameplay 8
Graphics  7
Sound     7
Value      8
Tilt         9

(in reply to myron)
Post #: 18
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/12/2007 8:38:13 AM   
Son_of_Montfort


Posts: 1373
Joined: 8/16/2005
From: Indiana
Status: offline 		I like the game. Gamespot can give wierd reviews at times (I typically like them). Either too high, or way too low. I would give UFo:ET about 7.5 as well. Call me crazy, but I like the graphics. Now I haven't gotten very far, but the aliens look kinda creepy, the terrain is pleasant without looking cluttered, and the lighting is nicely atmospheric. It isn't Titan Quest, Oblivion, or Company of Heroes, but it will do. However, I have X-COM: TFTD still installed on this computer, and I still think that the graphics there are nostalgically pleasant (although it causes a headache). The biggest detraction so far for me is the hackneyed plot. Some wierd planet named by Brazilians or Portugeuse, an intro with invincible UFOS that I regularly shoot down in game, and bland territories with wierd and random names... "Thermos..." come on. Other than that, the UFO-Pedia is well written, and the aliens are signficantly wierd and fearsome in the early stages.

I'm not sure that I care one way or the other yet about the recruiting issue. I don't play Ironman style, so I reload if I get a man killed. Most "deaths" so far result in nothing more than 32 days in hospital (ok, this is bad, but better than losing an experienced soldier). I always hated the X-COM "buy a soldier system," it is silly and I never figured a good balance of how many to buy and keep. If anything the auto-trickle of recruits is more realistic. If only a battle front didn't have to wait for the trickle of recruits to be sent to the front in real life... Also, the sound is a bit weak. Some of the sounds are EXACTLY the same sounds from X-COM. That is a bit lazy. But not a deal-breaker. So far, I am happy.

SoM


_____________________________

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

-- Arnaud-Armaury, the Albigensian Crusade

(in reply to Temple)
Post #: 19
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/12/2007 9:57:03 AM   
Hertston


Posts: 3292
Joined: 8/17/2002
From: Cornwall, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

THAT is exactly the problem. Also, EVEN IF it had the best graphics, it would take too much thinking for the type of gamer we are talking about.


If it had graphics in the class of Heroes 5 (a turn based game that requires just as much thinking to play well) it would have got a 7.5, regardless of the "type of gamer we are talking about". With a few gameplay tweaks (only) that would have been an 8.5.

Going back a bit though, one thing I think the reviewer did get very wrong was his comments on the pace of the game, and the lack of a JA2 real-time element before the action starts. IMHO as a turn based game, ET just zips along; much quicker than JA2 or Silent Storm, and rather quicker (as far as I recall) than the original X-Com. JA2 needed that feature, but ET simply doesn't.

(in reply to Scott_WAR)
Post #: 20
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/12/2007 12:56:41 PM   
Da_Junka


Posts: 37
Joined: 4/11/2007
From: United States of Britain.
Status: offline 		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/ufoextraterrestrials/show_msgs.php?topic_id=m-1-35302676&pid=927132


< Message edited by Da_Junka -- 5/12/2007 2:49:53 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Hertston)
Post #: 21
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/12/2007 5:01:52 PM   
LitFuel


Posts: 263
Joined: 10/21/2006
From: Syracuse, NY
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Da_Junka)
Post #: 22
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/12/2007 7:57:23 PM   
NefariousKoel


Posts: 2800
Joined: 7/23/2002
From: Murderous Missouri Scum
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to LitFuel)
Post #: 23
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/12/2007 10:16:09 PM   
Kid


Posts: 6624
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline
quote:

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.


_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and currently testing War in the East.


(in reply to NefariousKoel)
Post #: 24
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/12/2007 10:31:19 PM   
gunnergoz


Posts: 383
Joined: 5/21/2002
From: San Diego CA
Status: offline 		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! ).
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.


_____________________________

"Things are getting better!
...Well, maybe not as good as they were yesterday, but much better than they will be tomorrow!"
-Old Russian saying

(in reply to Kid)
Post #: 25
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/13/2007 1:47:30 AM   
Gu1do

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 5/4/2007
Status: offline 		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

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.

(in reply to gunnergoz)
Post #: 26
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/13/2007 3:35:11 AM   
Old Eagle101


Posts: 1150
Joined: 11/17/2002
From: Hole-in-the-Wall
Status: offline 		Here's a better review from someone who appears to have actually played it:

http://www.gamepro.com/computer/pc/games/reviews/110731.shtml

_____________________________


(in reply to Gu1do)
Post #: 27
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/14/2007 12:31:33 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		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  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

(in reply to Old Eagle101)
Post #: 28
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/14/2007 12:38:28 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

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/ufoextraterrestrials/show_msgs.php?topic_id=m-1-35302676&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? 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.)

(in reply to Da_Junka)
Post #: 29
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/14/2007 12:50:06 AM   
LitFuel


Posts: 263
Joined: 10/21/2006
From: Syracuse, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko


quote:

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/ufoextraterrestrials/show_msgs.php?topic_id=m-1-35302676&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? 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.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> UFO: Extraterrestrials >> New review from Gamespot Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.492