My take on the GameSpot review...

[Slaughter]

In the spirit of the newyear I though I'd present my take on GameSpot's UFO: Aftershock review...enjoy

 

 

Fanboy is one thing, but the original review is a joke! You can find the beauty here.

 

On a related note, he just posted his review of Hammer & Sickle here. Now I haven't played the game yet, but it strikes me as...interesting that both games are too hard for him. I can't say if it's right or wrong until I played the game, but I suspect I disagree with his rating...

[Gimli]

That has got to be the stupidest review I've read in a long while. Right now I don't have time to comment on it, but I will later. Just makes me glad I don't buy gaming magazines anymore, and waste my money on people who don't know how to properly review games.

[HARD_Sarge]

That has got to be the stupidest review I've read in a long while. Right now I don't have time to comment on it, but I will later. Just makes me glad I don't buy gaming magazines anymore, and waste my money on people who don't know how to properly review games.

 

 

Over all, I would say I do not read follow reviews, other then to try to see what the game system is like, not how the reviewer liked the system or game, most times they got there own point of view to begin with

 

I remember one, the reveiwer was going off on how bad the game was, it is all Hack and Slash, no game play, nothing that a real gamer would want to do, just hack and slash, and I got to thinking, I like hack and slash, so went out and bought it, and it was one of my favorite games for years !

 

I remember another one (you all may remember it too) the review was bad, the info on the game was bad, how the game would play sounded bad, but for some reason, they had included the demo, as a joke ?, here this game sucks, but you can play the demo and see how bad it really is

 

I loaded up the demo, I didn't even finish the first mission, I paused the game, made a phone call to my friend who worked at EB and found out they had a copy, and went down to buy it

 

I mean, I bought the game before I even finished off the first demo mission

 

as I said, you may remember it, X-Com

 

so, read the reviews to get ideas about the game, maybe look at the screen shots, but make up your own mind on how good or bad the game is

[Gimli]

Generally, I think it's best to play a demo, if you like it, visit some forums about the game, and read what other people think, and as many of those opinions as possible and then try to see if the game has what you want, and do the "bad" things really matter to you. Of course, if you can rent the game, it's a pretty good way to see if you'll like it.

 

I should add that there are reviewers who do good reviews most of the time, unfortunately, it seems there are less and less of them, and it seems that even they sometimes give a game a better score than it deserves to avoid gamers from flaming them (as I've seen in the past), even if they're right. Which is why nowadays games from popular developers more often get ratings they don't quite deserve.

 

In my country there's a gaming magazine that I bought for awhile, and there was one really good reviewer, most of his reviews were well argumented and had a fair score most of the time, however I soon found it pointless to buy a magazine, where I could read one or two good reviews, so I stopped buying it. And a few days ago, I read about something on an online gaming site, and to my surprise, the gaming magazine was shut down, after 10 years of existence.

 

I would be fine with the opinions of reviewers if their opinions didn't partially influence how well a game is going to sell. And their opinions do matter quite a bit. Just like the opinions of movie critics and such. And most of them don't play a game longer then 3-4 days, so they can throw out a review as soon as the game is out (they sometimes get it a few days before). And the amount of research they do is practically nothing. For example, a lot of reviewers keep saying that UFO:AM/AS are sequels to X-COM, and they don't mean spiritually.

[komplex]

Haha you know I hated the demo when I first played it!! It game you a tank and I couldn't fingure out how to move it out of the ship.. My friend ranted and raved about it and when I told him I thought it sucked.. He looked at me like I was crazy.. Untill i was told about the "levels" feature of the game I thought it did..

 

I could just picture that reviewer doing the same thing with this game.. Each reviewer should have to contact via phone to a game designer to get some tips and tricks and explain some aspects of the game.. so the reviwer has a better understanding.. If i was a game developer I'd be trying to contact everyone i could to try and setup something like this with anyone reviewing my game..

[Accounting Troll]

There were some valid points in that review, such as the stability issues in the unpatched game and the limited number of maps, but a lot of what he said seemed pretty bizarre to me. I don't know what he was on, but I want some.

 

The reviewer complained because he regarded Aftermath and Aftershock as "X-Com rip-offs" and he draws parallels with X-Com throughout the review. This seems a legitimate argument until you read the final sentence in the review:

 

Maybe the third time will be the charm for Altar Interactive, or perhaps the developer will give up on trying to come up with a new take on X-COM and pursue what most fans have wanted all along--a full-fledged remake.

 

So he complains because there are similarities to X-Com and then goes on to complain that they are not similar enough??? :mad:

 

Opposition is provided by a handful of alien enemies, all of which look like Close Encounters of the Third Kind-style alien "Greys,"

I guess he never encountered the Sectoids in his many hours of playing X-Com...

 

One good thing about Gamespot reviews is that you can see how the score compares with what the other reviewers and fans thought.

[Slaughter]

I'll just repost my post from the official boards:

 

Well, UFO: Aftershock sure has it's share of weaknesses. But looking at the GameSpot review, and ESPECIALLY the screens, it's obvious he didn't play the game more than a few hours as pointed out elsewhere.

 

If you look at the first screenshot, you can see him attacking the Cyborgs. He comes to earth with little or no equipment, and attacks the toughest enemy available. First of all he could have made them allies instead, and second, look at the "tactics" he use. 4 soldiers close together in the most exposed spot he could find? Great tactics...

 

In the second screenshot he has one base. My guess is he never got more connected...

 

Third screenshot shows four completely new soldiers using the weapons you start with. And I'll not bother to comment his tactics here, other than it's a good thing he didn't meet the Cyborgs...

 

Fourth screenshot shows where he probably stopped playing to write his smashing review. He doesn't seem to have picked up the fact that you meet two more species later in the game, that one can customize weapons, build tracks and so on. And even if Aftershock isn't a 9 out of 10 game, it sure isn't a 4! REALLY annoys me when they write stuff like this and calls it a review!

[Accounting Troll]

I think it's best if we prevent you from reading these reviews since they get your blood pressure up

 

I don't think any of the professional reviewers played the game long enough to encounter the new alien races or customised weapons and armour. I know they get mentioned in the manual, but who bothers to read the game manual after all?

[DarkPaladin]

I read the review on GameSpot (In fact I posted the link on the UFO Aftershock forum) but as I've been unable to get to the site today, I thought I'd head on over here to check up on things

 

Now everyone has their own opinions, and there were some points of his review that I can see you guys didn't agree on, fair enough, but folks, do you seriously think that UFO:AS is what it should be? Even after the 1.2 patch? Sorry but I don't. I thought we'd have a better game this time round after the multitude of patches in UFO:AM but nope, and I've already noticed requests by ALtar to help fix things... reminds me once again of AM...

 

As I mentioned over at the official forum, the rag doll physics are terrible (and seem to have been acknoledged as so by the devs as being "an issue") and do suffer from the occassional CTD too (or a freeze with a sound lock-up) I'm loathe to tone down my graphics cards abilities to cater for the game, but I have to

 

Plus I'm disapointed by the complete lack of environments, there really isn't that much depth compared to the original UFO random maps (I know, it's not UFO, but it's their take on it) the same bunker, the same alien complex, the same gas plant, the same factory, the same greenhouse (or at least they sure as hell appear to be to me) so doesn't this disapoint anyone else?

 

Maybe it's not worth 4, that is kinda harsh, but what would you give it? I think 6 is kinda pushing it really until things get sorted at least...

 

I'd love to hear what you think on the subject

[Slaughter]

As I mentioned over at the official forum, the rag doll physics are terrible (and seem to have been acknoledged as so by the devs as being "an issue") and do suffer from the occassional CTD too (or a freeze with a sound lock-up) I'm loathe to tone down my graphics cards abilities to cater for the game, but I have to

The slowdowns when bodies were rolling before the patches were bad, but the ragdoll looks nice enough in my opinion. What's is it you don't like about it?

 

Plus I'm disapointed by the complete lack of environments, there really isn't that much depth compared to the original UFO random maps (I know, it's not UFO, but it's their take on it) the same bunker, the same alien complex, the same gas plant, the same factory, the same greenhouse (or at least they sure as hell appear to be to me) so doesn't this disapoint anyone else?

It does get repetitive after a while, but the main problem here is that the game is too long in my opinion. It doesn't have enough diversity in mission objectives and terrain to warrant so incredibly many missions.

 

Maybe it's not worth 4, that is kinda harsh, but what would you give it? I think 6 is kinda pushing it really until things get sorted at least...

Well, for me most issues has been sorted. Those that can be expected from a patch that is. I don't suffer CTDs no more, and the ragdoll doesn't slow down my PC. In addition, they've fixed lots of other bugs.

 

That being said, I sure don't think this is a perfect game either. I do however think it's MUCH better than Aftermath, and better than quite a few similar games. I'd probably rate it around 75% based on how gamesites rate games. Lower if they used the entire scale possibly, but from "their system" I'd land it around the aforementioned score.

 

As for my biggest gripes with the game, it is repetitive mission objectives / terrains and tactical AI that isn't good enough. There are several other issues as well, but they are the main ones.

[Accounting Troll]

The average review score is just over 70%, and I think that is a fair assessment since there were several features that Altar had wanted to put in but they didn't have time to implement them.

 

I think the limited tactical mission AI was proabably the single biggest failure partly because it is hard for modders to improve it and partly because the combat system used in Aftermath and Aftershock makes multiplayer impractical, so we need a challenging AI to increase the replay value.

 

With regard to the limited number of maps, is there any chance of Altar helping wannabe modders create their own maps and implement them into the game, thus increasing the number of tactical maps for the game to choose from?

[Pete]

Ah that initial review is a gem. Like your take on it Slaughter - most amusing

 

Perhaps you could write an article on stoopid games reviews by people who are a shade closed minded and impatient?

[Slaughter]

Ah that initial review is a gem. Like your take on it Slaughter - most amusing

 

Perhaps you could write an article on stoopid games reviews by people who are a shade closed minded and impatient?

Hehe, I've played with the thought for a while . If I wasn't so bloody busy I'd do one on game reviewers and one on the state of Hollywood. If I get around to do it (along with the gadget one I intend to write) I'll send it to you immediately.

[Gimli]

Hmm, I've been toying with a similar idea, too. Except in my case, it would be a blog, so that each time I see such a review, I could write about it. Would be a lot more interesting, and I'm pretty sure it would be very popular, and perhaps it would get in through the ears of reviewers, in the hopes of them actually doing normal reviews.

 

Although, with movie reviews, it seems to me more difficult, a lot of things there seem to really be a matter of opinion (such as acting, music etc.). On the other hand, if you were to write about what kind of movies they choose, what kind of stories, or commented on geniuses like Uwe Boll, or maybe why video games rarely (if ever) make good movies -- that would be a completely different story.

[Pete]

I dunno, you can still tell the movie reviews where the reviewer's obviously either missed the pint completely or had a nap about halfway through the opening credits.

 

Aye Slaughter - whenever you get a free moment. They take an age to write I find. There's one I've been putting 10 mins a day into for the past week... not the quickest way to go about it as I keep changing my mind. Best to hammer it out and tough luck if it needs changing then

[Gimli]

Here's what I have to say about his review:

 

Part 1

 

But the heart still isn't there; this game suffers from too much dreary repetition, technology that is too easy to acquire and research, and loads of bugs and design flaws that make the game very difficult to play in spots.

 

Technology that is easy to acquire and research? It is easy to acquire and research because most of the early technology is not quite powerful. For the more powerful ones (USG, Warp Rifles etc.), you'll have to wait quite a long time. But what did you expect as far as easy acquiring? That the enemies would put them in CIA HQ, and lock them up so you wouldn't be able to get them? You find a weapon just like in X-COM, research it, and then produce it. Does it go fast? Yes, because, just as in X-COM Apocalypse, for example, the time does not move so quickly, it doesn't take days or even weeks for a mission to appear, it takes a few hours. Also, there is a lot of research, it would get boring if you had to research one thing for half-a-month to a month on average, because you'd have to do too many missions in between.

 

I can remember a few bugs, but not nearly enough to make it a minus for the game (although this is strictly personal experience so it may not be quite true), design flaws... you didn't elaborate at this point, so there's no way I could comment it. Repetition -- I agree to a point, I'll explain later.

 

It's a shame that Altar didn't start from scratch and dump the hackneyed global holocaust for something closer to the mysterious tales in X-COM and X-COM: Terror From the Deep. Wondering about alien motives as events develop over the course of a campaign would certainly be more intriguing thar on plodding through a story where everybody has a scorecard from the beginning.

 

That would make the game be too similar to X-COM. The story of the game has to be at the very least innovative or at best original if the story is an important part of what the game goes for. You obviously haven't gotten much further than the start of the game, because you would have seen two (3, if you count myrmecols) new alien races as well as the Cultists, and you don't know the motives of any of those somewhere up until the very last mission. When I read this part, I was also already wondering if you thought that this is an actual successor to X-COM (like a lot of other reviewers).

 

Also, the post-apocalyptic mambo has been done in so many games that it's hard to even think about playing another one.

 

So has the WW 2 theme, the fantasy theme, the cartoon theme, the SF theme --- I don't see the reviewers complaining about those in games such as Call of Duty 2, World of Warcraft, Doom 3, Psychonauts to name an examples of each. I am personally quite bored with all the WW 2 games, but I wouldn't go and say that they're not OK because it's been done many times before. I find the WW 2 and the Mafia themes boring, but I wouldn't say that it makes them bad games, I just don't like them, so I don't play them.

 

Gameplay adds to the sense of drudgery. As with UFO: Aftermath, missions in UFO: Aftershock feature too much repetition. It seems as though there are no more than a dozen maps, so you clear the exact same ruined factories and ruined railway yards and ruined wilderness wastelands all over the world, no matter if you're fighting in Canada or Kazakhstan.

 

I agree with this one, the problem I think lies in the fact that there's just too many regions in the game, so it gets repetitive, and they don't have an engine which would make random terrain missions, which would be quite complicated to make, I assume. Also, it seems to me that from the time one the Wargots arrive, there's a big hole with no scripted missions, which seems to last too long. Then again, maybe I was playing too slowly. Generally, it seems there aren't many story missions.

 

All of the scenery is also universally ugly, with lots of jaggies and a color palette ranging from brown to black.

 

I agree about the resolution, but not about the color palette. The range from brown to black is there in a lot of games, from Doom 3 to Quake, Fallout, some WW 2 games etc. Games which choose a brighter palette are usually considered childish and stupid (as is the case with the great Psychonauts, who seemed not to have sold much).

 

Opposition is provided by a handful of alien enemies, all of which look like Close Encounters of the Third Kind-style alien "Greys," and what seems to be a trio of mutants, so you kill the same poorly drawn, poorly animated baddies repeatedly.

 

More proof you haven't played the game much.

Mission goals vary little. You're generally called upon to save people from Reticulans or mutants, to capture one of the beasties for autopsy, or to conquer a province by blowing away everything that moves. Some undertakings do feature spicier objectives, like escorting allies through hazardous terrain. But since you always get to the goal line by wasting packs of Reticulans or mutants, it still feels like you're repeating the same couple of missions over and over again.

 

Even though what you say here doesn't hold much water, since you haven't played the game to the end, it seems that the mission objectives are not varied enough, and there aren't enough scripted missions to cover for them and keep you interested. And with Wargots on common missions I got 2 different objectives: kill everything and escort people. That's where it was really visible. Also, it would have been nice if you had missions where you had to catch other live enemies besides Morelmen and Reticulans. And then have to do a research of them.

 

Along with being dull, these assignments are brutally difficult. Enemies frequently appear out of nowhere in your rear on your flanks, which nicely kills any tactical plan you might develop, and the game is pretty seriously unbalanced.

 

There is a reason for the "Easy" difficulty. It is for new players and reviewers. It is very easy, I lost only one man in the entire game, and from the start I was ready not to reload to save my men. A basic "line" squad tactic would have dealt with them extremely easily. The reason they got behind you is because you chose a landing spot somewhere in the middle od the map instead of the edges, because the game usually distributes them depending on where you land.

 

You can easily run into enemies with weapons you can't handle, like packs of cyborgs with grenade launchers capable of wiping out your entire squad before you can get off a shot.

 

...

...

...

???

 

You attacked your allies even though this was the first time you played the game? Not a very good idea. Ever heard of: "Don't bite the hand that feeds you?"

 

Research isn't laid out in a standard RTS tech tree, so there it lacks a clear, linked system of prerequisites that makes every decision crucial.

 

You click on the research item and you get the list of prerequisites... I don't see how that isn't clear? (except for the Browning weapon issue)

 

Part 2

 

There is no money management, and no option to buy equipment.

 

I agree with that, not that you will need it as soon as you push away from the start a little. But it would be nice if it was there, and you depended on it more.

Combat is so vicious that you grind through troops too fast to get attached to any of them. All of these factors restrict your options and force you to play the game in a straightforward manner that doesn't inspire much experimentation.

 

Even more proof you haven't played the game much, I have 10 soldiers and keep rotating them, each has his own function in the team, for example Betty, David and Arlene are snipers, David also uses the katana, Tanit is the medic, Vidur is the Machinegun man, Gurudas and Madan are my close combat guys etc. I experimented a lot, made a lot of mistakes, but the results were always interesting.

 

UFO: Aftershock is prone to exception errors and sudden drops to the desktop.

 

Agreed, too bad I didn't patch it early on, could have solved a lot of problems, but I was playing it the whole day on Christmas, so I got too far. I had to save a lot, which isn't pleasant especially if it starts crashing on important missions.

 

Frame rate occasionally plummets in combat.

 

This can be partially solved by shutting down some processes as well as some system ones, but it may not be safe. But generally I agree.

 

Units don't always respond to commands immediately, which is a big problem during firefights because enemies are so quick on the draw that even the slightest hesitation in finding cover or going prone inevitably proves fatal.

 

Hmm, I usually cancel all orders when I want to change them. And some things have to take time. Although, I have also noticed that when you click the prone button, you have to first move in order for the unit to go prone. Or am I missing something?

 

Troops insist on walking so close together that at least two members of the platoon have their shots blocked at all times. And missions sometimes can't even be started because the team members get stuck in the doorway of their landing craft.

 

Have you tried moving them one at a time? The pathfinding system is in most cases extremely good, much better than in most (if not all) games, units will find their way across half the map and through dozens of obstacles. Although, the wait function isn't quite working properly.

 

Maybe the third time will be the charm for Altar Interactive, or perhaps the developer will give up on trying to come up with a new take on X-COM and pursue what most fans have wanted all along--a full-fledged remake.

 

Wait, are you saying this is an X-COM game?

 

Conclusion: I still have to finish the game (I'm on the last mission, I don't know how to destroy those things where the 3 arrows are pointing ), and then I'll replay it on the hardest difficulty, to get a better picture of some things like AI. So far I would give the game somewhere between 70-80%.

[Pete]

You're one from the last mission matey - there;s one after that and it's not easy.

 

The three queen thingy's require you to position your men close-to and you can just use machine gun fire on the area at the top of the "sack".

 

Make sure you swivel your view to see if your shots are kitting as there's some VERY bad collision detection in that room and most of my shots disappeared just short of their targets.

[Zager]

Well, for me most issues has been sorted. Those that can be expected from a patch that is. I don't suffer CTDs no more, and the ragdoll doesn't slow down my PC. In addition, they've fixed lots of other bugs.

 

Yeah, but in general, it's the unpatched version, the one that people will play off the shelf, that gets reviewed. Not everybody has access to patches, there's still a lot of places where you can't get high speed internet. I know, I live in one of them. A review of a patched version would be useless for me.