UFO:ET review on GamePro

[Aralez]

Slaughter posted about a review of UFO:Extraterrestials on Gamespot here:

https://gamepro.com/computer/pc/games/reviews/110731.shtml

 

Before this review i was sure that i would buy that game, now i am sure i won't!

Let me quote the sentence that "killed" my desire to buy it:

 

Cons: Automatic recruitment of soldiers, soldiers can't be killed, exclusive reliance on funding nations for expenses.

 

A big part of the excitement in Xcom (and e.g. UFOAM) was the fact that you worried about your crew, you could name, hire, fire and train them. You cared about them. Taking that away is like putting a Ford-T motor in a brandnew Formula-1 car. It simply doesn't feel right.

*RANT:

All we Xcom fans truly want is a simple Windows-remake (better graphics and higher resolutions) of our old game, why can't anybody give us that? UFO:ET promised to be just that and now they totall neuter that game with such a poor decision!

"Ooooh, let's make this politically correct, ooooh, let those Aliens dicuss their anger instead of shooting, ooooh".

I think i'll never see a real new Xcom game in my life again... And to all those Aliens outthere, do not discuss with us if you want to invade us, shoot us, i'd rather a hostile alien than a politically correct one

*/RANT OFF

 

To prevent misunderstandings::

The UFO:A/M/S/L series is a nice and good series of its own, that's why i do not count it as a direct Xcom sequel. It has its own world with its own features.

[Pete]

To be honest, I'm playing Enemy Unknown on Superhuman and I have exactly the opposite relationship with my soldiers.

 

It doesn't matter if they're a commander or not, or what sort of armour I'm wearing, their life expectancy is, on average, 3 missions. And that's with careful tactics.

 

It just depends how you play. To be honest, I would suggest not making a rash decision based on such a tiny portion of the overall game. Even in X-COM when I was playing it on easier levels I probably only spent 2% of my time checking on my soldiers, naming them and making sure the good ones didn't get shot at too much - the game's too big to spend that much time in one area.

 

Just my opinion mind

[Aralez]

Agreed, not everyone had that connection to the troop part, but there are so many soldier/aquanaut editors available for Xcom and its sequels, i think they prove that most Xcom players did. In my case the troop part was always the most important part of those games, there is nothing as much fun as e.g. having all your buddies in a squad in Xcom and see them getting massacred by a Muton.

 

Sidenote: Strangely the units you care for most will usually die in the most horrible ways...

 

I think i gonna return to Xcom itself. There are enough mods available to guarantee fun for years.

[Knan]

Hmm. So what happens if you lose a tactical fight? All units wheelbarrowed to the nearest hospital?

 

When you can't manually recruit a shitload of rookies, I figure no permanent death - kotor-style is a fair decision. I'm still curious

[Gimli]

Something there is not right. I KNOW they can be killed, so there must be something more to that. Check the last gameplay video that was posted here, and you will see a soldier get killed.

 

EDIT: That being said, I also noticed that, but I did not read the entire review, so I'll go and do that and report when I'm done.

 

EDIT 2: I stand corrected:

 

But while it is executed well, the tactical system does have some significant flaws. The biggest is the fact that none of your infantry units can actually be killed in battle -- they are merely incapacitated, largely killing any sense of tension inherent in the battles themselves. Moreover, in the early game, players will be doing a lot of saving and reloading because Chaos Concept has bafflingly decided to eliminate the manual recruitment of new troops, choosing instead to bring them forth in a steady trickle. This increases the negative impact that an injured soldier can have on your planning tenfold and really handcuffs you in your efforts. It is only when you get more advanced medical facilities that these problems become less worrisome, but as is, the system really doesn't fit into the general scheme of things.

 

I would still like to see how this works out in the game, and although I really dislike this incapacitation idea, I would be willing to ignore it if it makes sense and is well incorporated.

[Slaughter]

I would like to add a few things to the discussion:

- Both the permanent death thing and the recruitment of soldiers are things that MIGHT be changed in a patch. I see many angry reactions to this, and that might persuade Michal and the others to deal with it.

- The demo should be available by the time the game is released I think I read. Let's hold final judgement for that.

- We now have a UFO: ET forum! I'll let this topic stay here for now so people will notice, but please start using it.

[Knan]

- We now have a UFO: ET forum! I'll let this topic stay here for now so people will notice, but please start using it.

 

We do? Where?

 

Can't see it on a cursory glance.

 

Right. Thanks

[Zombie]

That's because Slaughter jumped the gun and didn't realize that the forum permissions were not set (meaning everything was invisible). Anyhow, everything should be functional now. The UFO: Extraterrestrials area is found at the bottom of the main forums underneath the Silent Storm section.

 

- Zombie

[Slaughter]

Um, my mistake. Sorry about that! I thought Pete had made them visible when he set up the news feed from the forum. Anyway, NOW we have UFO: ET forums

[Azrael Strife]

Indeed, please wait until you've tried out the demo before you make judgement, you might be pleaseantly surprised

 

For me, the non-killeable soldiers is nothing bad at all, I personally liked to rename my troopers in Apoc after people I've met on XCOMUFO and StrategyCore ( ) and would always rename new people after the trooper that was last killed, saving my time from doing that is just great.

 

But, that aside, let's not jump to conclusions from one simple review, release date is upon us!

[Gimli]

While I will wait to give final judgment, this still seems like a bad idea. There is a reason for this as I've read, and it is to prevent the constant reloading that people do. While I agree completely that it should have been dealt with a long time ago, it seems to me that this is not the right way to solve things. If it is possible to have permanent death, then by all means it should be there, because it is going to turn a lot of people off.

 

There are also other ways to deal with this, the only question is if they are feasible at this stage. The first is to limit the number of saves: X-COM had 10 saves, and occasionally it forced you backtrack a lot even with all the excessive saving/loading. However, I would suggest less than that, 3-5 seems like a good idea. This does not completely prevent the player from cheating, so if any whiny folk complain, they can use a little trick, and that is to simply copy their saves to a different folder, and copy them back as needed. However, from personal experience, this can be somewhat annoying as it's not exactly a 5-second process. But then again, it is supposed to discourage you from the save/load cheating.

 

The second method is to disable saving during missions. I don't think much needs to be said about that. These two methods can also be combined, but in that case I would suggest 5-10 save slots.

 

These are two I've been able to come up with now, anyone got any other ideas?

In any case, they need to decide and work quickly, while it's still possible to do some damage control. I am not criticizing because I hate the game, on the contrary and I would like the game to sell well enough to show publishers that TB games do sell. Or rather, reinforce that opinion, since there already is proof of that, but the more the better. Good luck Chaos Concept!

[Pete]

Um, my mistake. Sorry about that! I thought Pete had made them visible when he set up the news feed from the forum. Anyway, NOW we have UFO: ET forums

I'm surprised I managed as much as I did. I only wake up once every six months or so

 

I didn't realise they were invisible tho as since I'm an admin I can see everything - invisible or not.

 

I also see dead people y'know.

[Azrael Strife]

There are also other ways to deal with this, the only question is if they are feasible at this stage. The first is to limit the number of saves: X-COM had 10 saves, and occasionally it forced you backtrack a lot even with all the excessive saving/loading. However, I would suggest less than that, 3-5 seems like a good idea. This does not completely prevent the player from cheating, so if any whiny folk complain, they can use a little trick, and that is to simply copy their saves to a different folder, and copy them back as needed. However, from personal experience, this can be somewhat annoying as it's not exactly a 5-second process. But then again, it is supposed to discourage you from the save/load cheating.

I personally consider any line of reasoning that considers reloading as "cheating" as invalid If it's allowed by the game, it's fair game. And limiting the saves would not stop it, only make it slightly harder and annoying.

A patch sounds like a good idea, though.

[Hurlshot]

I think it's an odd decision, but I don't consider it a gamebreaker. Plus, what do you think the hospital stays are like? If a guy gets creamed, maybe he's out for months at a time. Sure, it's a bit GI Joe, but it still will be difficult if all your studs are in the ER.

 

I wonder what happens when you lose a base?

[Aralez]

The Aliens will lay off your soldiers? j/k

 

Seriously, this is a gamebreaker for me. Crew management is one of the Xcom and UFOAM series' best features. It simply doesn't make any sense to have immortal soldiers.

[Azrael Strife]

This is completely pointless, please let's not sink into the same stupidity I've seen on the other boards, people whining like retards about it completely ruining the game; we simply don't really know how it's going to be or how it's really handled, if it turns out to be just like that, then I'll join you in saying it was a terrible design decision, but until then, we don't really have anything to complain about just yet, the system might be better than you think (or worse, for that matter), but personally I'll never consider it a gamebreaker.

 

And being honest and all, I'm sure every single one of the people that said "this completely ruined the game, I'm never going to buy it now" are going to get a copy as soon as it's out the oven

 

Also, one thing everyone is forgetting; despite this game being so obviously based on X-Com, it's not X-Com, they are allowed to make things different to X-Com and work them out in the game however they think it's best, just because something is not exactly the way it was on another game, it means absolutely nothing about this one.

 

Please, let's wait until we play the demo (or you read our very own review )

 

[Zombie]

Let me remind everyone that soldiers died in the gameplay video. Of course, that doesn't say anything about what happens when the mission ends and everything goes back to base. If soldiers end up alive at a base (but heavily wounded) after getting killed on an away mission, it's probably a bug. Though, I'm not sure what the intentions of the programmers was. We'll have to wait and see if Chaos Concept/The UFO:ET Team have any reaction to this issue.

 

- Zombie

[Gimli]

Also, one thing everyone is forgetting; despite this game being so obviously based on X-Com, it's not X-Com, they are allowed to make things different to X-Com and work them out in the game however they think it's best, just because something is not exactly the way it was on another game, it means absolutely nothing about this one.

 

It not being X-COM is no problem at all. While I would like the game to allow me to hire soldiers the way I wish, and would like to be able to sell weapons, I can live without it, and I honestly would not complain about it. This on the other hand just seems like a silly solution to the save/load cheating. And yes, it is cheating, and yes, I heavily abuse it - to the point that Starcraft told me at the beginning of the Protoss campaign that I could not save because there were no more save slots. As for limiting saves, it makes the game harder, the only problem is finding the correct method, if any. Far Cry had checkpoints, and to be frank I found the game difficult even on easy, but it forced me to think rather than rely on saving/loading. If there is no method of saving suitable for the desired result, then either another method should be found, or not have it at all, and leave it to those of us who want a challenge.

That being said, I do not wish to criticize anyone behind his back, so I would really appreciate some form of official word, or at least a demo in which I could see how it works. If there is a reasonable explanation, then no problem at all. Perhaps they are somehow resurrecting them? I think that explanation could pass, although a bit stretched.

[Azrael Strife]

Please, do tell how using a game feature is cheating, cause I have not yet seen a decent argument in favour of that statement.

 

cheat (chēt) Pronunciation Key

v. cheat

[Gimli]

Because if you keep excessively reloading then you can beat almost any game like that no matter the difficulty, purely by use of reloading, and not actual skill. That way I could beat Serious Sam with 400% extra enemy health on the Serious difficulty, yet if I went to online play after that, I would still lose a lot in deathmatch. Why, because having played the game like that would not represent my actual skill, it is merely the skill of constant reloading, and saving at the right point. As a better comparison, play Serious Sam 2 with reloading, and then play by relying on limited lives. I can guarantee you'll see the difference. Likewise, do the same with X-COM. I beat each of them on Superhuman without losing any soldiers. Why? Because I kept reloading. Then I went to Ironman mode, and it took me a good 40 attempts to beat UFO and TFTD on Superhuman. But you know what? I actually learned quite a few new tactics.

 

I don't think saving and loading was meant to be abused like that, and while in some cases reloading can save you of frustration, the point at which you rely on reloading rather than actually trying to be good at the game is absurd.

 

You know, there was a time when many games didn't have saves. I remember playing Prehistorik, and not being able to get past the third screen. Eventually though, I learned to play it and beat it, and by then I knew every inch of the game. The same was with Golden Axe (which I still can't beat), Mortal Kombat 2, and every other game which prevents me from constant reloading.

 

I agree that a normal amount of reloading is OK, especially with longer and more complicated games, but if we abuse reloading then we will rarely lose, and where's the challenge in always being able to beat the game? I returned to some games recently because I had never beaten them, and I wanted to show myself that I have somewhat gotten better at gaming in general. In some games I succeeded, in some I haven't. But some day I will settle that score.

[flark]

I agree with Gimli, excessive saving and reloading really does ruin a game's tension and replay value.

 

Back in the day, I remember playing Rebelstar 1 & 2 repeatedly over and over again until I became an absolute mastermind at them. There was no save/load feature, and to make matters worse/or better, you could only play the game once before having to reload it again via tape. It might have seemed like a burden, but it made every game important, and every move you made was vital.

 

Nowadays, with save/load feature abuse most games become a little boring after completing them once. There is nothing to improve on after you have completed the game 'perfectly', which is all too easy with save/load abuse.

 

I know we all have the option of whether or not we decide to abuse this feature, but it is all too tempting when it is so easy to do so. One of the reasons I enjoy Silent Storm so much is because of the 'no save in combat' feature.

 

I really wish more games would try to remove or at least limit save/load abuse. A simple method of only allowing a couple of saves per mission might help. But really for me the best option would be the permanent automatic saving which some (rare) games do where you cannot quit without saving. Maybe this should be for reserved for the harder difficulty levels only - an ingame 'Ironman mode'.

[Knan]

Bah. This is a subject of many flamewars. Keep it civil.

 

Of course you can savescum your way to perfect success, if you really want to. You only hurt your own enjoyment, so it's your own business.

 

Trying to forbid that by limiting saving - that way lies madness. I don't necessarily have four straight hours to finish a large mission in one sitting, for example.

 

Let people save whenever they want, and muster their own willpower to make the game easier or harder.

 

Do include an optional ironman mode in the game if you want. ToEE had one. But don't force it on me, please, life's too short for that.

[Azrael Strife]

They are games and they are meant for us to have fun, if I have fun reloading every single time a soldier even takes the slightest hit, that's only my problem and no one else's, if that's what makes the game fun for me, why does it have to affect anyone else enough to say that it "ruins the game tension" or whatever other stuff you might say about using a game feature, cause guess what, it doesn't ruin the game tension or any other part of the game to me! does it ruin it to you if I do it? well, if that's the case we have a completely different problem

 

As always, I still don't see how having fun the way I want to can be considered cheating by others

 

Because if you keep excessively reloading then you can beat almost any game like that no matter the difficulty, purely by use of reloading, and not actual skill. That way I could beat Serious Sam with 400% extra enemy health on the Serious difficulty, yet if I went to online play after that, I would still lose a lot in deathmatch. Why, because having played the game like that would not represent my actual skill, it is merely the skill of constant reloading, and saving at the right point. As a better comparison, play Serious Sam 2 with reloading, and then play by relying on limited lives. I can guarantee you'll see the difference. Likewise, do the same with X-COM. I beat each of them on Superhuman without losing any soldiers. Why? Because I kept reloading. Then I went to Ironman mode, and it took me a good 40 attempts to beat UFO and TFTD on Superhuman. But you know what? I actually learned quite a few new tactics.

 

That has never hurted my fun, I certainly don't understand what you're saying.

 

Of course you can savescum your way to perfect success, if you really want to. You only hurt your own enjoyment, so it's your own business.

[flark]

I appreciate what you are saying and agree if that is how you choose to play you should be able to.

 

If I'm completely honest I admit my problem is self-inflicted. I WANT to play 'Ironman' style - but too often lack the willpower and give in to the temptation of an all too easy re-load when things go wrong. What I really want is an option at the start of a new game, along with the difficulty selection which removes or limits the all too tempting save/reload feature.

 

 

Of all of the times I have played XCOM, the most fun I've had was playing a sort of '2-player hotseat' game with a good friend. We took turns picking from the original 8 soldiers and shared out all of the weapons and equipment, keeping a list. From then on we recruited, bought or manufactured everything in pairs, agreeing on all strategic and research decisions together.

 

Playing like this in total 'Ironman' style (as long as you are good friends with similar abilities) the tactical missions were absolutely amazing! It was the most fun I have ever had playing a computer game! What a shame we had to grow up and let real life get in the way of XCOM.

[Knan]

Aah. Yes, have had much fun back in the day pooling brains over a game of x-com.

 

These days it would probably involve beer & coffee as well, not only coca cola. If it could be arranged. UFO:ET may well be the excuse I need. Hmm...

 

And yes, it's easier to keep honest when there's a friend beside you