UFO: Enemy Unknown, remake by Firaxis

[PhilBowles]

Terrible choice for a demo. It's not normal you end up reading in 50 different places "but guys the demo doesn't really represent the game, believe me". It means that not only is the demo not representing the game, but it's also obviously an not-so-hot experience for many people.

It's more akin to an extended trailer than a demo - something you watch as it unfolds and think "hey, this could be quite good if it would let me at the controls".

 

[scratchthepitch]

There certainly wouldn't be any sense spending four years and massive amounts of resources if you are targeting a niche market.

The problem with this sort of herd attitude to making games, or any other kind of entertainment, is that pretty soon all these forms of entertainment become limited to a few worn out "best sellers" that get cloned endlessly. That's ok, I'm sure, for those who like listening to the same Brittany Spears tune day after day, or who like watching Batman remakes/sequels of a Batman sequel of a remake of a remake of a Batman sequel and so on. But surprisingly enough, there are still people out there who want a little more variety in their lives. Just because McDonalds attracts many, doesn't mean the corner one-off hamburger stand doesn't have merit. Or loyal patrons.

Not every thing revolves around making the most money, you know, anathema as that is to the cultural values a few would have foisted upon the rest of us.

 

[Rub'Rum]

Get on with the times, the proper condescending questionable music industry comparison for this day and age is Justin Bieber, not Britney Spears.

 

[scratchthepitch]

Get on with the times, the proper condescending questionable music industry comparison for this day and age is Justin Bieber, not Britney Spears.

So that is what Justin Bieber is famous for. I had been wondering what it was he did...

BTW, Rub'Rum, is this "proper condescending" enough for ya?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWymXNPaU7g

 

[Grunthex]

The problem with this sort of herd attitude to making games, or any other kind of entertainment, is that pretty soon all these forms of entertainment become limited to a few worn out "best sellers" that get cloned endlessly. That's ok, I'm sure, for those who like listening to the same Brittany Spears tune day after day, or who like watching Batman remakes/sequels of a Batman sequel of a remake of a remake of a Batman sequel and so on. But surprisingly enough, there are still people out there who want a little more variety in their lives. Just because McDonalds attracts many, doesn't mean the corner one-off hamburger stand doesn't have merit. Or loyal patrons.

Not every thing revolves around making the most money, you know, anathema as that is to the cultural values a few would have foisted upon the rest of us.

Not everything does, but let's get real, the companies that ARE expected to make money are going to do that. You know, or the people working there lose their jobs. And those are the companies with the money to make the big budget stuff.

There's lots of innovative, challenging, and non-vanilla games being made. By a few guys (or girls even), or maybe even half a dozen. They don't have millions of dollars in budget, so you get about what you expect.

There is quite simply no way you can expect a big-name publisher to publish or produce something that doesn't aim at the absolute biggest share of the market. There's nothing in it for them. So you choose: Innovative, or high production values. You can't have both.

 

[scratchthepitch]

Not everything does, but let's get real, the companies that ARE expected to make money are going to do that. You know, or the people working there lose their jobs. And those are the companies with the money to make the big budget stuff.

There's lots of innovative, challenging, and non-vanilla games being made. By a few guys (or girls even), or maybe even half a dozen. They don't have millions of dollars in budget, so you get about what you expect.

There is quite simply no way you can expect a big-name publisher to publish or produce something that doesn't aim at the absolute biggest share of the market. There's nothing in it for them. So you choose: Innovative, or high production values. You can't have both.

You are over estimating the cost it takes to put out a quality game. It's not like they need to hire Lucas' special effects studios. When Firaxis made Civ4 BTS, they had a lead designer fairly fresh out college. These are low budget companies, not Hollywood studios. The original UFO was not some mega-million project, it was done by a relatively small company. It doesn't take mega-millions to come up with a high quality game, just talented, creative people who enjoy their work. It's highly probable many of your so-called "high production value" games (whatever that is ) cost less to create than the amount budgeted for their marketing and promotion.

 

[Grunthex]

I'm not saying I wouldn't love these games, and I agree that they COULD easily do it. I just can't imagine why they would. Put yourself in Firaxis management shoes. You have X amount of staff available. Do you put these people on something new, innovative, and risky? Or do you keep them on a few guaranteed-safe projects? If you want to keep your job, unfortunately you only have one choice. Shareholders aren't interested in innovative. They want profit.

Sure, the independents out there could put out a smash hit, and you know what, every year, someone, somewhere, does. Then after that, they tend to get offered enough money to put them firmly in the pockets of another publisher that's back in scenario 1. And really, who's going to turn down that kind of money because they want to be creative? Really, I can't think of anyone.

So all you can look forward to is some surprise game from an unknown every year or so, and hope it's something you like. Everyone (well, at least all the old-time gamers who hang out on forums) wants a company that will just ignore the mass crowd, but no one is willing to be that guy.

 

[sherbz]

The problem with this sort of herd attitude to making games, or any other kind of entertainment, is that pretty soon all these forms of entertainment become limited to a few worn out "best sellers" that get cloned endlessly. That's ok, I'm sure, for those who like listening to the same Brittany Spears tune day after day, or who like watching Batman remakes/sequels of a Batman sequel of a remake of a remake of a Batman sequel and so on. But surprisingly enough, there are still people out there who want a little more variety in their lives. Just because McDonalds attracts many, doesn't mean the corner one-off hamburger stand doesn't have merit. Or loyal patrons.

Not every thing revolves around making the most money, you know, anathema as that is to the cultural values a few would have foisted upon the rest of us.

Now this i agree with. Some of the best things around are actually free, like the various mods in existence. The most striking and spectacular of which is black mesa.

 

[sherbz]

This I can't agree with, for the simple reason that Firaxis has always been mass market. It was conceived specifically to develop a spin-off, and then sequels, based on the brand name of a game known for being one of the most popular of its time. Half of the threads praising Civ IV to the heavens use as supporting evidence the suggestion that it's considerably more popular than Civ V. Mass market tastes have changed, but Firaxis isn't going after a new demographic it wasn't before - it's just adapting to retain the same mass market appeal it's always aimed at.

Im not sure this is true. Firaxis was an off shoot of microprose and to my knowledge, self published its early games like SMAC and sold them off the back of Sid's reputation. Especially their early games, these all appealed to a finite number of people, or a niche market (even though that niche is quite substantial). i think when devlopers get purchased by a big publisher, thats usually when it starts to go a bit wrong, because the focus inevitably switches to profit profit profit. Firaxis's fraternisation in the console market proves this.

 

[PhilBowles]

You are over estimating the cost it takes to put out a quality game. It's not like they need to hire Lucas' special effects studios. When Firaxis made Civ4 BTS, they had a lead designer fairly fresh out college. These are low budget companies, not Hollywood studios. The original UFO was not some mega-million project, it was done by a relatively small company. It doesn't take mega-millions to come up with a high quality game, just talented, creative people who enjoy their work. It's highly probable many of your so-called "high production value" games (whatever that is ) cost less to create than the amount budgeted for their marketing and promotion.

The original UFO was made by two people, from recollection - the Gollop brothers. There were older classic games that were essentially one-man projects, such as David Braben's Elite.

But consider what this game is. It uses the X-COM brand name - you aren't going to adopt a well-recognised brand in order to do something new and innovative that will appeal to a niche audience. That would be like expecting the next Spider-Man film to be an arthouse effort at a historical romance. You use branding to sell big names, not to try something radically new.

Im not sure this is true. Firaxis was an off shoot of microprose and to my knowledge, self published its early games like SMAC and sold them off the back of Sid's reputation.

SMAC wasn't just sold using Sid's name, it was mechanically a clone of his most popular game, a game which by that point had not only proven to be far and away the most popular of its genre, but had spawned a high-profile sequel.

Especially their early games, these all appealed to a finite number of people, or a niche market (even though that niche is quite substantial).

Computer gaming as a whole was a niche market at the time, but for the industry grown up to service it, Civ was big news and a mass market title - there weren't many games on the market, genres weren't well-enough defined to have their dedicated followers to the exclusion of other games (except possibly the ubiquitous platformers), and the equivalents of what we now call consoles were a sideline rather than the major focus of gaming. The first game had over a million sales if I recall correctly, and spawned a sequel in the days before sequels were a given for a successful computer game. It's hard to hear for a lot of people, it seems, but lasting computer games are not designed for their intellectual appeal. For all the irritating pretension that permeates part of this and other forums that adulate their favourite games, the Civilization series is and always has been mass-market light entertainment.

Small companies are as profit-driven as bigger ones - that's why they take deals offered by bigger studios to begin with. Most also churn out identikit generic products - praising the occasional innovator is as representative as praising "indie music" for the few original artists and politely ignoring the fact that most indie music appears to consist of bland, poor clones of Morrissey and REM. For every developer that reaches the big time by adding to its favoured genre with a product like Company of Heroes or Shogun: Total War, there are half a dozen Blizzards that get where they do by reskinning Command and Conquer with orcs and humans (and Blizzard is one of the rare examples of a small company that did its blatant plagarism well).

 

[scratchthepitch]

But consider what this game is. It uses the X-COM brand name - you aren't going to adopt a well-recognised brand in order to do something new and innovative that will appeal to a niche audience. That would be like expecting the next Spider-Man film to be an arthouse effort at a historical romance. You use branding to sell big names, not to try something radically new.

This is straying into a discussion of games in general, which is OK, but not what I was intending with my criticism of some changes in the new XCOM game. My complaint is that Firaxis looks like it took the original flavor out of XCOM to make the game more like the generic console games. BTW, XCOM was not really a niche game, but rather popular in its time. It was followed up by several sequels, and probably more than a few copy attempts. If people want to play another generic console game with XCOM like graphics, that's fine, but it isn't for me. I would have rather seen XCOM brought up to date with the new computer game advances: the annoying features removed now that there was more space for the coding, better graphics, a more intuitive and pleasant to use interface, additional play aspects. Those kinds of things, but keeping the original flavor of the game intact.

praising the occasional innovator is as representative as praising "indie music" for the few original artists and politely ignoring the fact that most indie music appears to consist of bland, poor clones of Morrissey and REM.

Your mention of Morrissey reminded me that my Brittany Spears reference could have been better. I should have used Madonna instead. Madonna clones (Lady GaGa) and Morrissey clones (who? never mind, I'd rather not know ) are cloning hyped inflated ego driven mediocrity (at best), like cloning a big mac (pink slime included).

 

[GAGA Extrem]

Just played the demo and got a lot of mixed feelings...

The good:
(1) Graphics: Shiny and new. Looks good, but not only that it is also...
(2) Immersive: The whole artistics style grasped me. Sound, unit animation, it all seems to work well together. Action camera is nicely done (and can be deactivated when you don't want it).
(3) Soldier classes: The class system seems like a good idea to empathize different roles for your soldiers (more like in the original X-COM/UFO, at least).
(4) The base menu: I really like the idea of a vertical base. The 3D side view is really, really cool.
(5) Locations: Being from Germany, I really liked that they actually cared to use fitting graphics for a german level. Correct cars (and semi-correct licence plates), posters (although with some hilarious denglish - no german would say "Wir hatten Spaß, nicht?" ) and building style really made me feel like being there. A job well done.

The bad:
(I) Controls and UI: Good lord, that control scheme, scroll behavious and UI is horrible. Feels completely...
(II) Conosole-ish: This seems to be (yet) another game that has to work on consoles and thus can't take advantage of PC abilites. And from what I saw, it is not only control, but also other things like...
(III) Gameplay: Compared to the old X-COM, the demo sort of confirmed my fear that the game will be "dumbed down". One example: Soldier loadout and inventory. Have you taken a look at the soldiers in the base? All weapons that are shown there are class specific. No shotgun for Mr. Heavy. No LMG for Mrs. Medic. No choise for your other equipment (granted, that will change as research progresses, but why not at least add a few different basic weapons? Where are my proximity mines, fire granates, shokcing sticks or flares?) I hope that I am wrong, but looking at CIV5 or the "new" Railroads, I will expect that from Fireaxis. The worst part is...
(IV) Map combat: The combat I have done in the demo doesn't feel like X-COM, it feels like Final Fantasy Tactics. The map is just a 2D chessboard filled with shiny 3D graphics. Even in the old UFO, the shape and size of objects was important for your fire arc and hit chance.
Why do I have to shoot directly at the aliens with regular firearms? Were is my area fire option? Why can't I "blind-fire"? Why do my granades have perfect accuracy? Why are there no different hit zones (arm, legs, torso?) Why isn't cover calculated for different vantage points? That alien on ground lower level can hit my guy who is completely concealed behind the air duct on that roof because the object only grants partial cover?!
Considering that tactical combat is a HUGE part of the X-COM series, this is really a let-down...


My Conclusion?
Seems like a game that chooses style over substance. Nice immersion, but really lacking in tactical combat (or even gameplay). Lots of sacrifices to work on consoles and appear to a wider audience. I hope that I have only seen a small part of the equipment and options, because otherwise I seriously doubt the replayabilty and long-lasting factors. (Let me tell you, I still play the old X-COM from time to time).

Really not the game I was looking for. I will wait for the reviews and keep my hopes up that the levelling system works to make tactical combat more interesting, but as it now, this game is by no means a "must have" title.

Does anybody know Silent Storm? Now THAT would have been the sort of game engine I would love to see for a new X-COM.
Learning-by-doing skill system, tons of cool weapons, destroyable enviroment, game physics, inventory, special skills and talents, different classes, good graphics, turn based combat and real time out-of-combat on-map gameplay, different hit zones...
OH GOD, PLEASE MAKE A SILENT STORM/X-COM CROSSOVER!!

 

[PhilBowles]

Just played the demo and got a lot of mixed feelings...

(IV) Map combat: The combat I have done in the demo doesn't feel like X-COM, it feels like Final Fantasy Tactics. The map is just a 2D chessboard filled with shiny 3D graphics. Even in the old UFO, the shape and size of objects was important for your fire arc and hit chance.

This was a sense I had but wasn't sure how to articulate, but I think you've nailed it. For all the emphasis on cover, cover only falls into two categories, and it appears as though all cover in one category is equivalent. All you need to take account of is how many sides you're covered from; it doesn't seem as though it will make any difference whether you're in a wheat field or behind a fence, say. And as you say vantage point doesn't appear to make a lot of difference.

Why do I have to shoot directly at the aliens with regular firearms? Were is my area fire option? Why can't I "blind-fire"?

Good catch - at the very least, that removes the whole tactical element of using certain soldiers specifically as spotters. Also the cover, windows aside, seems less destructible - unless you have area weapons you can't shoot cover objects specifically to destroy them.

Why do my granades have perfect accuracy? Why are there no different hit zones (arm, legs, torso?)

I'm less bothered by this latter than by the loss of the 'fatal wounds' system in favour of critical hits - which do extra damage when they hit, but cause no 'bleeding'.

Does anybody know Silent Storm? Now THAT would have been the sort of game engine I would love to see for a new X-COM.
Learning-by-doing skill system, tons of cool weapons, destroyable enviroment, game physics, inventory, special skills and talents, different classes, good graphics, turn based combat and real time out-of-combat on-map gameplay, different hit zones...
OH GOD, PLEASE MAKE A SILENT STORM/X-COM CROSSOVER!!

Haven't heard of Silent Storm, but it sounds worth a look.

 

[easytarget]

Not to pull this back onto topic, heaven forbid, but just a little FYI, for those who have pre-ordered, restart steam and you can pre-load the game now!

Fighting the good fight against the alien invasion just took one step closer!

 

[Disgustipated]

Just played the demo and got a lot of mixed feelings...

The good:
(1) Graphics: Shiny and new. Looks good, but not only that it is also...
(2) Immersive: The whole artistics style grasped me. Sound, unit animation, it all seems to work well together. Action camera is nicely done (and can be deactivated when you don't want it).
(3) Soldier classes: The class system seems like a good idea to empathize different roles for your soldiers (more like in the original X-COM/UFO, at least).
(4) The base menu: I really like the idea of a vertical base. The 3D side view is really, really cool.
(5) Locations: Being from Germany, I really liked that they actually cared to use fitting graphics for a german level. Correct cars (and semi-correct licence plates), posters (although with some hilarious denglish - no german would say "Wir hatten Spaß, nicht?" ) and building style really made me feel like being there. A job well done.

The bad:
(I) Controls and UI: Good lord, that control scheme, scroll behavious and UI is horrible. Feels completely...
(II) Conosole-ish: This seems to be (yet) another game that has to work on consoles and thus can't take advantage of PC abilites. And from what I saw, it is not only control, but also other things like...
(III) Gameplay: Compared to the old X-COM, the demo sort of confirmed my fear that the game will be "dumbed down". One example: Soldier loadout and inventory. Have you taken a look at the soldiers in the base? All weapons that are shown there are class specific. No shotgun for Mr. Heavy. No LMG for Mrs. Medic. No choise for your other equipment (granted, that will change as research progresses, but why not at least add a few different basic weapons? Where are my proximity mines, fire granates, shokcing sticks or flares?) I hope that I am wrong, but looking at CIV5 or the "new" Railroads, I will expect that from Fireaxis. The worst part is...
(IV) Map combat: The combat I have done in the demo doesn't feel like X-COM, it feels like Final Fantasy Tactics. The map is just a 2D chessboard filled with shiny 3D graphics. Even in the old UFO, the shape and size of objects was important for your fire arc and hit chance.
Why do I have to shoot directly at the aliens with regular firearms? Were is my area fire option? Why can't I "blind-fire"? Why do my granades have perfect accuracy? Why are there no different hit zones (arm, legs, torso?) Why isn't cover calculated for different vantage points? That alien on ground lower level can hit my guy who is completely concealed behind the air duct on that roof because the object only grants partial cover?!
Considering that tactical combat is a HUGE part of the X-COM series, this is really a let-down...


My Conclusion?
Seems like a game that chooses style over substance. Nice immersion, but really lacking in tactical combat (or even gameplay). Lots of sacrifices to work on consoles and appear to a wider audience. I hope that I have only seen a small part of the equipment and options, because otherwise I seriously doubt the replayabilty and long-lasting factors. (Let me tell you, I still play the old X-COM from time to time).

Really not the game I was looking for. I will wait for the reviews and keep my hopes up that the levelling system works to make tactical combat more interesting, but as it now, this game is by no means a "must have" title.

Does anybody know Silent Storm? Now THAT would have been the sort of game engine I would love to see for a new X-COM.
Learning-by-doing skill system, tons of cool weapons, destroyable enviroment, game physics, inventory, special skills and talents, different classes, good graphics, turn based combat and real time out-of-combat on-map gameplay, different hit zones...
OH GOD, PLEASE MAKE A SILENT STORM/X-COM CROSSOVER!!

Thanks for the review. I haven't played the demo, but you seem to appreciate the types of things I like.

I'll probably wait until the game is discounted. Doesn't seem like a full price game to me.

*sigh* what can we do about consolization?

 

[GAGA Extrem]

I would advice to try it out, watch some videos after release and check out reviews.

If they do the other stuff right that game can be worth the money. I am sceptical, but not totally opposed to it.

 

[GoodGame]

Unless they come out with a second demo, the demo is not much of a demo. It felt sketchier than the original X-com's demo.

 

[Razonatair]

@GAGA, seriously, basing a review off a terribad demo that doesn't even begin to show what the rest of the game has in store is not the best idea.

 

[scratchthepitch]

GAGA Extrem

Thanks for the detailed review. I watched a few of the videos at youtube, including the 2 hour one with the game's designer, and what you wrote seems to be born out by these also. I think the game is primarily designed for teenagers using consoles and the removal of game aspects seems to have been to make this game more workable on a console and to make it more appealing to that audience. My impression as regards game play aspects, it is like Civ Rev. They boosted the graphic appearance, but dumbed down the actual game play. It might be the demo is so limited to avoid showing this.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

@GAGA, seriously, basing a review off a terribad demo that doesn't even begin to show what the rest of the game has in store is not the best idea.

This is a demo review, not a game review. Everyhing I do in "conclusion" is an assumption and by no means a final judgement of the game.

Let me quote myself:

I would advice to try it out, watch some videos after release and check out reviews.

If they do the other stuff right that game can be worth the money. I am sceptical, but not totally opposed to it.

And, actually, the demo isn't that bad. I somehow have to replay the tutorial each time, but the mission setup is decent to show you how - in general - tactical combat will work. But I agree, a "play for 30 minutes" or "play for 2 ingame weeks" demo would probably have been better to demonstrate the features.