Only 70% ish Game Reviws!

[Skeelo]

I think the future of this game really depends on whether altar intend to address these issues of balance and the other issues that have been raised in the forums or whether they intend to just fix the bugs.I really hope its the former!

Its been raised elsewhere but a skirmish mode would be good, that would keep me coming back for the odd battle long after i've complete the game.

Oh and Pete im sure im gonna get my ass handed to me on a silver plate with a side order of fries at dreamland2 just like everyone else

[Pete]

Bizarrely, after a game restart, I found the Russian base to be easier (after a few attempts. Just bomb the gap in the wall repeatedly and voila! Lots of corpses

 

...although this was on easy setting

[Ghostrider]

I would give .... 86% ...

[bloodchill]

Soo any details on modding programs out yet

[Pete]

Nowt out yet. ALTAR will presumably announce their's when they're ready.

[bloodchill]

kool

[duncanthemad]

The trouble with game reviews...

 

Maybe it's just that I have a laid back attitude to life, but I've noticed something quite disturbing with game previews and early reviews (i.e in the days after the game's released).

 

One of the problems I see is that people are reading 'opinions' and seeing 'fact'.

 

For example, I was interested in a game called Cold Zero. It looked like a couple of other titles I enjoyed and so I did some research. Some of the criticisms were pretty scathing. Bad camera, LOS issues, CTD's, clipping, interface issues etc. There were considerably more 'this game could have been so much better' than there were constructive balanced reviews with well thought out arguements and analysis.

 

Well, I ignored the naysayers, bought the game, played it and loved it. The only criticism I would have for this tiltle was it's brevity. That is the game was shorter that I would have liked. But other than that, I really enjoyed playing it, it had some nice ideas and the criticisms I had read were in some repsects true, but wildly overstated.

 

And here's the problem. A top game for one person is a pile of garbage for another. I appreciate that it's a really obvious thing to say, but we're all different, and we're all interested or excited by different things. We all want a certain special something from a game we play, so how does someone you don't know qualify them to tell you, whether you should buy a game or not?

 

I don't like mindless FPS's as I much prefer the ones with extra elements to involve you (as in I'd rather play Deus Ex and I'll ignore the likes of Quake/Doom/Unreal etc.).

 

Half-Life is funny. I have yet to find any review that says this is just an 'OK' or 'average' game. According to most reviews, it's the best thing since sliced bread and no gamer should be without it. Heh heh I played it and thought it was mediocre at best (what was all the fuss about?). The aformentioned Deus Ex, Thief series, System Shock etc. in my opinion make Half Life look pretty tame in comparison. Yes, it's a perfectly acceptable game, but it didn't last a fraction of the time the other's did on my HDD.

 

I'm a TFTD veteran, played it to death and there's not may games that lasted as long as this one did. I actually 'missed' the relase of UFO:AM, must have escaped my radar, but I saw it on the shelf, picked it up and thought, "hey someone remade an X-Com game", bought it without hesitation.

 

I have been playing it ever since and it's got what I want in a game. I love the style, the gameplay, the emotions it generates and it's one of the most stable games I've had in a long time (no crashes at all). In short it's my kind of game, it does the things I enjoy doing and it takes me back to my TFTD days. At this point in time, I have nothing bad to say about it. Yes, the difficulty step-up when I hit the Russian mission was 'interesting' but easily solved with a review of tactics. Yes, I admit that there are things which are not perfect, the balance needs a little work,... and? The day someone makes a 'game that is perfect in every way' is the same day a certain someone gets very, very cold.

 

Like I said, maybe I'm just too laid back to care (but I care enough about this game that I'm sitting here writing this when I should be working ), but when so much weight is given to 'issues' and 'problems' and 'personal opinions' are being presented as 'the facts' I'm getting really fed up with so much rubbish being spewed by so many people who think they know what's good and what isn't.

 

My advice, make up your own mind. If you read a game review that scores a game 58% just remember, the person playing the game wasn't you and has no idea what you want or like. They're making assumptions on what they think is important. I can forgive games faults becuase on balance they give me the experience I'm looking for, so who gives a stuff if some reviewer thought it was a miserable attempt. If it keeps me happy why should I care?

 

Apologies for the rant, but whatever anyone says, I think this is a cracking game. That is, for me. It might not be for everyone, but when then tell the world what a pile of doo doo they think it is, what are they actually trying to achieve?

 

2p <ker-plink>

 

DtM.

[Pete]

Indeed. Any comment geared toward "You should steer clear of this game because..." gets ignored and I move on to comments where the person may still not like it, but they've not tried to tell me why I shouldn't like it as they didn't like it.

 

If there are structured arguments as to why certain things didn't live up to their expectations then I don't mind so much, but I'll still read around for more information and make up my own mind.

[bloodchill]

Yay, thats exactly the sort of answer i wanted, we can make our own mind up im just against the fact that it got a score that low from pcgamer, like you said duncan it is down to us of what we liek and dislike, but people review what type of games they like and I'm not too sure this an unfair score but i think the way we review games should change, I'm not too sure how it should be changed but something has to happen time and time again I've thought the person reviewing the game is wrong, This is meant to be his/her catergory they msut have some idea.

 

sorry got ranting kinda there so sliming it down:

Thanks for the reply by duncan

The reviewign system can be wrong and somethign should change.

[Accounting Troll]

A review of 70-75% seems fair to me but for a different reason to that given by the reviewer. Although there are a lot of good points, I was dissapointed to find out that as a patch is already available, the developers must have known that the game was rather buggy when they released it. Also the fact that neither you nor the enemy can enter buildings in urban combat does limit the available tactical options.

[Carcosa]

I must say I think 75 or maybe 80 percent would be fair for this game.

 

Everyone here is a former TFTD fanatic, or so it seems. And to have a new and drastically improved TFTD, with gorgeous graphics and a passel of new weapons, seems too good to be true.

 

So perhaps we are willing to overlook flaws like the egregious pathing algorithms. Ever try to maneuver five squaddies in an abandoned Earth base? It's not pretty. Ever have one of them decide to take the scenic route, touring halfway around the frigging base because he can't get by his squadmates clogging the hallway?

 

Ever have him run into the sporepuffer you were trying to avoid, causing it to waste the entire squad?

 

Ever pull your hair out by the roots because this game doesn't autosave?

 

And the inconsistent rules about dropping weapons as part of order sequences-- or more likely these rules are consistent, but consistent to rulesets totally inscrutable to my tiny brain. Either way they drive me crazy.

 

Understand, personally I would rate this game a 90%, with a 95% on hold until patches resolve some of these nervewracking problems. To be fair, you can get around these problems by altering your playstyle slightly, but they're problems nonetheless and they tarnish an otherwise gorgeous product.

 

But buy it anyway because all this aside the game is indeed absolutely excellent. I hadn't expected it to be nearly this good.

[quasarstrider]

Yeah the game has several faults. I think around 80% is a fair score.

[bowles]

I think that one of the main reasons this game got a mid 70s score is not fundamentally because it is a bad game, but because it failed to do what a remake should - take its predecessor to the next level. Indeed, as I have stated in another post, in many ways it is rather dumbed down. the graphics are far superior (as though that mattered) and i do like the semi-real time format, but in so many other ways it is a retrograde step. I.e. all the things we miss - buildings with multiple floors, great management game etc. etc.

 

I love this game, and it is fun to relive (in a way) the enemy unknown days. this is just not full immersion in the way that UFO was. That is why it only got 70% scores. I think it should be noted that a direct remake of Enemy Unknown with better graphics - i mean direct, including plot and aliens - would probably have been looking at mid to high eighties score, even if it did nothing new. A remake which took enemy unkown as a starting point and added form there - including some of the great points we have seen in this game - would have been looking at low to mid nineties.

[bloodchill]

i find it very interesting that the scores are varying soo much ive seen from 70 to 90 % (well sometimes 9 out of 10) and i have heard alot of criticism about PC GAMER now something that suprised me but thinkign about it were true

[sandstig]

bowles, who said this was a remake? My understanding from what I've read and what I've been playing is that this is an entirely different game influenced by the ideas of the original X-COM developers from Mythos. You're right though, if somehow the original developers managed to secure the X-COM license from Atari and managed to make a remake of the first game, then perhaps we'd be seeing some much higher scores. Maybe in a couple years we'll actually see X-COM: Genesis being resurrected.

 

Anyway, getting back to the topic, I think the game grows on you once you give it a chance. I read the reviews from a lot of game sites before finally getting my copy, but I've learned over time that although reviewers may think a game sucks, it may not necessarily be the case for me. There were some annoyances with the game initially, but after playing it the second time, I only realized how long I'd been playing it once the sun started shining into the bedroom... thank heavens it was a Saturday.

[bloodchill]

lol always with genesis but i just dont think itll ever happen

[Azxel]

oh.. there was a game review of UFO:AM? was it on PC Gamer UK or US?

 

I've been waiting for this game for so long, I didnt even bother waiting for or reading any reviews.

 

went out got it. love it.

[Calbeck]

I should point out in PC Gamers' defense, that 74% is NOT a bad rating. Anything from 70%-80% is considered worthy of a purchase. 80%-90% is considered very good, and of course 90% and up is reserved for Editor's Choice material.

 

PC Gamer also regularly states that particular fans of a game series or genre can easily tack on 5%-15% to a title's rating based on their personal desire --- so, this being the only "UFO-like" game on the market, us U:D fans can readily pump that 74% to an 80% and higher --- and obviously many of us have, if this thread is any indication.

 

I think they were right to give it a good review, but refrain from granting it stellar status for the reasons already given.