New review from Gamespot

[Wolf Woof]

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/ufo ... id=6170517

[Scott_WAR]

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.

[PhoenixD]

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).

[Erik Rutins]

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?

[mjk428]

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".

[Steel Angel]

I disagree with the numerical value given, but I agree with many of the reviewer's points.

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.

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 [X(]). 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.

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.

[LitFuel]

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.

[Steel Angel]

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.

[Hertston]

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.
 
 

[mjk428]

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.

[LitFuel]

ORIGINAL: Steel Angel

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.

[PhoenixD]

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

[mjk428]

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.

[PhoenixD]

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.

[PhoenixD]

For amusement value, compare it to the review for The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/theelder ... lt;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.

[Scott_WAR]

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.

[myron]

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.

[Temple]

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

[cdbeck]

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

[Hertston]

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.