Matrix Games Forums

A new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!Deal of the Week Espana 1936War in the West coming in December!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: New review from Gamespot Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/14/2007 12:57:12 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32943
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
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



_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


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

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 31
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/14/2007 12:59:26 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


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

quote:

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 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.

(in reply to LitFuel)
Post #: 32
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/14/2007 1:27:38 AM   
Son_of_Montfort


Posts: 1373
Joined: 8/16/2005
From: Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

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

< Message edited by Son_of_Montfort -- 5/14/2007 1:31:18 AM >


_____________________________

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

-- Arnaud-Armaury, the Albigensian Crusade

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 33
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/14/2007 1:37:30 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32943
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

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/dominions3/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;review


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


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

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Son_of_Montfort)
Post #: 34
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/14/2007 6:22:32 AM   
Son_of_Montfort


Posts: 1373
Joined: 8/16/2005
From: Indiana
Status: offline
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


_____________________________

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

-- Arnaud-Armaury, the Albigensian Crusade

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 35
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/14/2007 6:53:34 AM   
GalacticOrigins

 

Posts: 220
Joined: 3/22/2007
From: Wolf 359
Status: offline
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?

< Message edited by GalacticOrigins -- 5/14/2007 6:56:13 AM >

(in reply to LitFuel)
Post #: 36
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/14/2007 7:01:57 AM   
Tophat1812

 

Posts: 1632
Joined: 1/16/2006
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.)



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.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 37
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/14/2007 9:31:21 AM   
owl208

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 5/1/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tophat1812


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.)



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.

< Message edited by owl208 -- 5/14/2007 9:39:31 AM >

(in reply to Tophat1812)
Post #: 38
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/14/2007 1:55:09 PM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by ravinhood -- 5/14/2007 1:58:51 PM >

(in reply to owl208)
Post #: 39
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/14/2007 4:03:32 PM   
Marc von Martial


Posts: 10890
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Bonn, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

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?

_____________________________

Marc von Martial

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 40
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/14/2007 4:22:53 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


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

quote:

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 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/ufoaftershock/review.html?sid=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.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 41
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/14/2007 5:30:25 PM   
Wolf Woof

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

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.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 42
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/14/2007 6:21:50 PM   
Tophat1812

 

Posts: 1632
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko


quote:

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 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/ufoaftershock/review.html?sid=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?

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 43
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/14/2007 6:24:15 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


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

quote:

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


Yes I am speaking from personal experience.

(in reply to Tophat1812)
Post #: 44
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/14/2007 6:26:48 PM   
Tophat1812

 

Posts: 1632
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

quote:

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!

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 45
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/14/2007 7:33:05 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32943
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

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
Director of Product Development


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

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Wolf Woof)
Post #: 46
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/14/2007 8:05:20 PM   
PhoenixD

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
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).

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 47
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/14/2007 8:18:10 PM   
Decepticons

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 5/14/2007
Status: offline
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. 

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 48
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/14/2007 8:47:10 PM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck


quote:

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 reply to Marc von Martial)
Post #: 49
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/14/2007 9:00:20 PM   
Son_of_Montfort


Posts: 1373
Joined: 8/16/2005
From: Indiana
Status: offline
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

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 50
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/14/2007 9:46:03 PM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1941
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

quote:

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/images.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gsimage&tag=images;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.



(in reply to Son_of_Montfort)
Post #: 51
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/14/2007 9:49:02 PM   
Hertston


Posts: 3481
Joined: 8/17/2002
From: Plymouth, UK
Status: offline
quote:

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.

(in reply to Decepticons)
Post #: 52
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/14/2007 11:48:33 PM   
Tophat1812

 

Posts: 1632
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko


quote:

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.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 53
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/15/2007 12:40:26 AM   
Cid_X

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 5/4/2007
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Tophat1812)
Post #: 54
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/15/2007 7:28:39 AM   
Steel Angel

 

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

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.

< Message edited by Steel Angel -- 5/15/2007 7:31:02 AM >

(in reply to Cid_X)
Post #: 55
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/15/2007 8:18:58 AM   
Scott_WAR

 

Posts: 1023
Joined: 2/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to Steel Angel)
Post #: 56
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/15/2007 9:48:25 AM   
Hertston


Posts: 3481
Joined: 8/17/2002
From: Plymouth, UK
Status: offline
quote:

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.

(in reply to Cid_X)
Post #: 57
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/15/2007 11:35:35 AM   
Marc von Martial


Posts: 10890
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Bonn, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck


quote:

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?

_____________________________

Marc von Martial

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 58
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/15/2007 7:49:50 PM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Marc von Martial)
Post #: 59
RE: New review from Gamespot - 5/15/2007 8:41:48 PM   
PhoenixD

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> UFO: Extraterrestrials >> RE: New review from Gamespot Page: <<   < prev  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

0.109